Source: Former SF soldier
I live in the Rio Grande Valley. We are just 8 to 15 miles north of Reynosa, Mexico (McAllen, TX), 58 miles west of Matamoros, Mexico (Brownsville, TX) and 152 miles east of Nuevo Laredo, Mexico (Laredo, TX). Ciudad Juarez (El Paso, TX) is 752 miles to our west. The state immediately to our south is Tamaulipas the state south of Juarez is Coahuila. Brownsville/Matamoros, Laredo/Nuevo Laredo & El Paso/Juarez are sister cities.
Violence along our part of the border is picking up. There have been shootouts between cartel members and Mexican army troops in the towns across from us. Large numbers of troops and cartel members, Cartels are using full auto weapons, RPG's and grenades, have body armor and good comms.
Poverty is rampant along the border. The cartels pay well. Their recruiting practices follow the VC in some respects - Join us or I will kill you or your's. So far we have not seen the beheadings that have taken place further to the west. The main cartel here is the Gulf cartel. Their enforcement arm is called the Zetas.
Mexico just announced a $2,000,000.00 each reward for the top leaders of the 6 main cartels and $1,000,000.00 each for their top lieutenants.
I work some of the gun shows in south Texas and believe me, many black guns and 1,000's of rounds of ammo go out of there with some rough looking fellows. Some of the dealers are very careful to check ID's. Some openly joke that they know where the guns are going but don't care. Got their money.
BATF is working the shows, hard. Quite some time back I asked about a fellow Named Cele Castillo. He worked for DEA in Central America, got a hard on for the US is now a guest of the US Government, 35 months for arms smuggling. Seventeen were recently arrested for arms smuggling in Brownsville, charged with making straw purchases, soliciting someone to make the purchase or smuggling.
One thing I have not seen in a few years is the 50 cal, rifle or rounds. There used to be several dealers at the shows. Night vision equipment abounds if your pockets are deep enough.
No doubt many of the black guns and much of the ammo come from the USA. No way do the RPGs or grenades come from us legally, Expense is of little concern to the cartels and there are enough arms suppliers worldwide ready to sell at the right price. Then there are those that might supply simply to destabilize the region.
South Texas does have the best law enforcement/legal system money can buy. Along with the Hidalgo County Sheriff Brig Marmalejo, Cameron County Sheriff Conrado Cantu and Starr County Sheriff Gene Falcon have been convicted for abetting drug trafficking.
Heard yesterday that a fugitive federal marshal was found murdered execution style in western Mexico. Wonder what that situation was.
#1
I've never seen RPG's or grenades or even .50 cal, SAWS or auto at any show I've attended. I still say they are getting the heavy stuff from Hugo and Daniel and their ilk in Nica and Vene.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
03/31/2009 9:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Quite right Jack. RPG's and grenade launchers are not huge sellers at gun shows. In fact, they are illegal to own or sell. I've never seen or heard of one at a show. Also begs the question... if the Feds and BATF are "working the shows" then why is it an issue? They should be hearding the bad guys off to prison in platoon size formations. This is all gummit gun snatch cover for action. I'm reasonably certain we'll see more of it in the months to come.
The whole "military arms going south" is such bullshit. The straw purchases and pickups/busts that have happened are all usually semi-auto pistols.
The cartels get their arms from down south and FROM THE MEXICAN ARMY.
Also, wtf is up with the language. "many black guns"???
The situation is shitty tho and I'd advocate more arms and defense for our fence. I'd also like there to be a policy, that if Border Patrol members are shot at, that they can shoot back. This has happened a few times locally.
#5
Plot to destroy 2nd amendment. I'm quite sure the Chinese Norinco organization can supply the banditos with all the firepower they need. No need to buy US, smuggling across the Pacific is all that is needed.
During a recent commercial flight from Jacksonville, FL to Baltimore, MD, a flight attendant offered free drink coupons to any of the 150 passengers who could name just one of the five Medal of Honor recipients from the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Awkward moments of silence followed until one man, Navy veteran Dale Shelton of Annapolis, MD spoke up and named Army Sergeant 1st Class Paul R. Smith. Shelton was correct. Sergeant Smith received the award posthumously in 2005 for his actions during the April 2003 battle for Baghdad airport. No other passenger was able to name a recipient.
Then, the flight attendant asked the passengers to name an American Idol winner. "The cabin lit up like a pinball machine as 43 passengers scrambled to push their attendant call button," according to an article by the American Forces Press Service. "Passengers named various Idol winners."
The flight attendant then announced there would not be any free drink coupons for that answer, adding that naming an American Idol winner was not worth a drink.
Good for the flight attendant. Shame on the passengers and what their ignorance says about our greater society
For the record, the other four Medal of Honor recipients, all of whom like Smith, received the award posthumously for post-9/11 actions -- are Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham (for actions in April 2004), Navy SEAL Lt. Michael Murphy (June 2005), Navy SEAL Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Monsoor (Sept. 2006) and Army Spc. Ross McGinnis (Dec. 2006).
Which brings us to our recognition this week of National Medal of Honor Day, the significance of the award, and the necessity of honoring the heroes who wear it. In 2007, Congress designated March 25 (of each year) as National Medal of Honor Day. The date coinciding with the same date in 1863 when Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton presented six Union Army soldiers with the first ever Medals of Honor.
More than 3,400 Medals of Honor have since been awarded since March 25, 1863 up through the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Standards for receiving the award have stiffened to the point that most nominees today are killed in the action for which they are deemed worthy of the Medal. Every recipient of the Medal since the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993 has earned the decoration posthumously.
The Medal of Honor is the nation's highest military award for battlefield heroism. To receive it (no one wins it) the recipient's gallantry in combat must be such that it is deemed well beyond an esteemed decoration for valor like the Army's Distinguished Service Cross, the Navy Cross, or the Air Force Cross.
Today there are only 98 living recipients of the Medal of Honor out of a nation of 306 million people. The oldest living recipient is nearly 100 (John Fin) Ed. The youngest is 58. Since Mar. 25, 2007, the first designated "National Medal of Honor Day," 13 recipients have died.
Each year, the Medal of Honor Society holds a national convention for its living recipients and supporters. It will be held in Charleston, S.C., my home state and the Society's hometown in 2010.). But according to Society by-laws, when the number of living recipients drops to 25, the Society will disband.
So we're losing these great men, and rapidly. We will soon lose the Society. The American Idol fans on the aforementioned commercial flight might think, "So what?"
My response would be, and as I've often said, far too many of us assume America wins all of its wars because we have resources and technological superiority.
Those things count to be sure. But it is our military prowess that wins battles. Military tradition is the lifeblood of that prowess and our living recipients of the Medal of Honor are the greatest living pillars of that tradition which in turn fuels the prowess.
We need our recipients. We need to recognize them and expand our national awareness of who they are and what the Medal itself represents.
President Abraham Lincoln said thoughtfully, "Any nation that does not honor its heroes, will not long endure."
W. Thomas Smith Jr. is a former U.S. Marine rifle-squad leader and counter terrorism instructor. He is the author of six books, and he has covered war and conflict in the Balkans, on the West Bank, in Iraq, and Lebanon. Visit him online at http://www.uswriter.com.
For those to whom this is merely a lot of mumbo-jumbo, let me explain in layman's terms:
AIG, knowing it would need to ask for much more capital from the Treasury imminently, decided to throw in the towel, and gifted major bank counter-parties with trades which were egregiously profitable to the banks, and even more egregiously money losing to the U.S. taxpayers, who had to dump more and more cash into AIG, without having the U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner disclose the real extent of this, for lack of a better word, fraudulent scam.
In simple terms think of it as an auto dealer, which knows that U.S. taxpayers will provide for an infinite amount of money to fund its ongoing sales of horrendous vehicles (think Pontiac Azteks): the company decides to sell all the cars currently in contract, to lessors at far below the amortized market value, thereby generating huge profits for these lessors, as these turn around and sell the cars at a major profit, funded exclusively by U.S. taxpayers (readers should feel free to provide more gripping allegories).
What this all means is that the statements by major banks, i.e. JP Morgan Chase (JPM), Citi (C), and BofA (BAC), regarding abnormal profitability in January and February were true, however these profits were a) one-time in nature due to wholesale unwinds of AIG portfolios, b) entirely at the expense of AIG, and thus taxpayers, c) executed with Tim Geithner's (and thus the administration's) full knowledge and intent, d) were basically a transfer of money from taxpayers to banks (in yet another form) using AIG as an intermediary.
For banks to proclaim their profitability in January and February is about as close to criminal hypocrisy as is possible. And again, the taxpayers fund this "one time profit", which causes a market rally, thus allowing the banks to promptly turn around and start selling more expensive equity (soon coming to a prospectus near you), also funded by taxpayers' money flows into the market. If the administration is truly aware of all these events (and if Zero Hedge knows about it, it is safe to say Tim Geithner also got the memo), then the potential fallout would be staggering once this information makes the light of day.
And the conspiracy thickens. ... And most of the American taxpayers' money AIG already spent didn't even go to American institutions. Where AIG bailout money went.
Posted by: ed ||
03/31/2009 12:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In financial markets for everyone who makes a loss, someone else makes a profit.
So socializing (by having the government pay for them) one party's losses means you giving the other party undeserved windfall profits.
Is the financial crisis for Angela Merkel what the Iraq war was for Gerhard Schröder -- namely, a reason to seriously strain Germany's relationship with the U.S.? One need not answer with an unconditional "yes" to be very concerned.
Naturally, at the G-20 meeting in London this week, Europeans will celebrate and praise the new American president. There will be beautiful photo opportunities and demonstrative unity. But the dispute behind the scenes has gotten worse. Barack Obama is demanding a much greater financial commitment from Germany and Europe to revive the economy; Mrs. Merkel and the EU are refusing, and instead urging the Americans to regulate their financial markets more rigidly.
There's no question, Mrs. Merkel has good substantive arguments on her side. Mr. Schröder had some as well when he opposed George W. Bush before and during the Iraq war. Nevertheless, Americans and the German opposition -- namely, Mrs. Merkel's Christian Democratic Union -- accused Mr. Schröder of dishonesty. After all, his antiwar views were also motivated by electoral strategy and were not entirely free of general anti-Americanism.
But come to think of it, isn't Mrs. Merkel, too, campaigning this year? Her defiant self-assuredness in dealing with Washington may be as popular in Germany as Mr. Schröder's antiwar stance was. The difference between the two chancellors is that Mrs. Merkel's way of formulating her position is not aggressive, but subversive. When she defends her financial policies, she likes to remark with a wink that we shouldn't forget where the crisis began. Everyone knows which country she means.
Mr. Obama speaks of a global crisis that demands global responses. For the Germans, this is indeed a global crisis -- but one that must be resolved primarily by the U.S., since it originated there. Therefore, German finance companies that became entangled in dodgy speculations are seen as weak victims who were seduced, while the clever American seducers who caused the real-estate bubble must now be punished.
Now the victims are claiming the right to say "no" to new stimulus packages. And they are demanding that the U.S. never again be permitted to seduce -- that it be constrained by "more transparency on the financial markets, which Germany called for long ago," as Mrs. Merkel says.
Once, there were enormous hopes. With Barack Obama's election, the trans-Atlantic rift that grew in the Bush years would finally be bridged. Now, in the financial crisis, this hope could prove an illusion. Many Germans believe they are being taken hostage by the U.S., and they want to vent their frustrations. They ask whether Mr. Obama's gigantic stimulus programs are similar to the gigantic war programs of Mr. Bush. The new president seems to be reacting just as drastically to this "world crisis" as the Republicans did to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, demanding the same unconditional allegiance from allies that Mr. Bush did. Are the neo-Keynesians as mistaken today as the neoconservatives were then? Isn't American gigantism the biggest problem?
In explaining the Americans' motivations, Germans are reaching conclusions as unfriendly and abstruse as those in the run-up to the Iraq war (greed for oil). On March 9, the German magazine Der Spiegel published a cover story on "The Mistake of the Century -- How the Failure of a Single Bank Triggered the World Crisis." It suggested that the U.S. government purposely allowed the investment bank Lehman Brothers to fail. Why? "Germany was apparently the main goal of the speculation" of Lehman Brothers, the magazine said, "because these kinds of securities are permitted in Germany, but not in France or the United States." And, "There is a great deal of evidence that banks targeted the funds of unwitting German retirees in trading Lehman securities." This interpretation of events is widespread in Germany. Even the head of the Protestant church council, Bishop Wolfgang Huber, supports it.
More and more, the diffuse anger about the crisis and its consequences is erupting in social unrest; one need only look to Greece, France, Ireland, Iceland or Eastern Europe. The longer the crisis lasts, the more loudly people will point to its originator, the U.S. Mr. Obama is turning into a lightning rod for European thunder. When he travels to the old Continent for the first time as U.S. president, he most likely won't see cheering crowds as huge as the one that greeted him last summer in front of Berlin's Victory Column.
Before the Iraq war, George Bush succeeded in splitting Europe into the "old" and the "new." In the financial crisis, the Continent is unified in its opposition toward his successor, Barack Obama.
Senior U.S. military commanders are now openly complaining about Pakistani intelligence officials passing on information revealing American and NATO operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban. For several years now, the United States, Afghanistan, India and many Pakistanis, have been quietly pressuring the Pakistani government to reform the ISI (Inter Service Intelligence agency). This organization has long been a power unto itself, with its own agenda and many members who support Islamic radicalism. It's ISI that is responsible for most of the leaks.
Last year, the government disbanded the political wing of the ISI. A spy agency with their own political wing, hmmm!
This section was believed be largely responsible for Pakistani support of Islamic, or simply Pakistani, terrorist operations in Afghanistan and India, as well as support for Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan itself. The political wing has also served as a domestic spying operation whenever the military was running the country (which is more than half the time.) Pakistan is currently run by a civilian government that came into power last Summer. Unfortunately, no one was fired or dismissed when the Political Wing was eliminated. The officers and staff were simply transferred to other jobs within ISI.
ISI has long supported Islamic terrorists. This time, Pakistan appears determined to root out "Taliban spies" in the ISI. No one is optimistic about how successful this attempt will be. The problem is that these Islamic radicals have been operating openly in the ISI for three decades, and were put there by the government in the late 1970s, when it was decided that Islamic conservatism was the solution for Pakistan's problems (corruption and religious/ethnic conflicts.) These guys are not just "Taliban spies," but Pakistani intelligence professionals that believe in Islamic radicalism.
The ISI itself was created in 1948 as a reaction to the inability of the IB (Intelligence Bureau, which collected intelligence on foreign countries in general) and MI (Military Intelligence, which collected intel on military matters) to work together and provide useful information. The ISI was supposed to take intel from IB and MI, analyze it and present it to senior government officials. But in the 1950s, the government began to use the ISI to collect intel on Pakistanis, especially those suspected of opposing whatever government was in power. This backfired eventually, and in the 1970s, the ISI was much reduced by a civilian government. But when another coup took place in 1977, and the new military government decided that religion was the cure for what ailed the country. This proved to be a terrible mistake, and lots of Islamic radicals holding down key ISI jobs is but one of many after effects.
#2
This could just as easily been written this way:
Senior U.S. military commanders are now openly complaining about Pakistani American CIA intelligence officials passing on information revealing American and NATO operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban to the New York Times. For several years now, the United States Senate Republicans and pro-military press have been quietly pressuring the White HousePakistanigovernment to reformremove all former Clinton appointees from the ISI (Inter Service Intelligence agency)CIA. This organization has long been a power unto itself, with its own agenda and many members who support Islamic radicalism. It's ISIthe CIA liberals/leftist/statist that are responsible for most of the leaks to the left-wing press.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
03/31/2009 9:37 Comments ||
Top||
The immediate totally unprofessional treatment meted to the lone captured alleged terrorist outside the Manawan Police Centre on Monday was very unnerving.
Even the BBC TV newscaster could not believe his eyes and muttered: "Yes, we are seeing the image of this gentleman who is being manhandled by the police."
It was the Punjab police in action -- doing what comes to them naturally. Obviously, they cannot differentiate between a rare live person who could give them tons of information and an ordinary criminal.
Nothing amazing or new except that this was a rare chance to see it live on our screen. Worse and unmentionable things happen when the suspect is in the safe custody of the police station and extreme measures are taken to make him ësingí.
Unwittingly, television channels had created sympathy for an alleged terrorist who was getting ready to bring down a helicopter and in the process kill those inside it. He was found in possession of hand grenades besides other stuff.
We saw this bearded youth surrounded by the police and suddenly there was 'action'. The Punjab police kicked him once, kicked him twice and in the process decided that they would keep kicking him with their boots till he was no more.
But each time their boots hit out at the different body parts of the suspect I winced in pain, almost feeling the force of those boots.
It took an Army guy or that what was what he looked like to stop the angry and out of control police from this brutal kicking. At least someone realised that it was essential to get this suspect alive as the others had blown themselves up.
Then suddenly the 'gentleman' Shalwar was pulled off, as thousands watched around the globe. Understandably, it was done to look for any more concealed weapons. But visions of what lay in store for him without his Shalwar once he reached inside the police station sickened me. We have heard more than one gory tale of how the police operate to obtain information.
It is not that I am new to police attitude or their mannerism. I still bear scars on my arms, courtesy the Punjab police, when they stole newsprint from the Jang building and many colleagues went to retrieve it.
What was new, but otherwise very normal while nabbing a suspect and dealing with him, was that it was happening before your eyes, and you were not reading about it in a news report.
This feeling about an alleged terrorist whose colleagues had killed and maimed innocent policemen inside the building should not have been there. If he had been caught in action while trying to bring down the helicopter he would have looked like a modern day 'Rambo', and the camera lenses would have 'glorified' this murder.
After he was beaten black and blue and shed off his clothes he presented such a pitiful sight that even his own mother would not have recognised him.
What was also rather uncomforting was the non-Pakhtun anchors of TV channels, repeating, repeating and repeating ad nauseum that he spoke Pashto.
An alleged terrorist is a terrorist, no matter what language he speaks and there is a limit to which one can push the point about his mother tongue.
If found guilty and hung with a noose around his neck, there will be no tears shed for him. But if that hanging is done live on camera, this young misguided youth will create a sympathy wave for himself. Such is life, there are certainly no easy answers when it comes to feelings.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/31/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
I would prefer we train them more in "handling" a dead terrorist regardless of the G2 we could garner.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
03/31/2009 9:41 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Any more different than what's in the continental US, counting reserve and NG facilities? If it's a 'nightmare' there, why isn't it just as much a nightmare here?
#2
P2k, in the US, all the troops have to deal with is the occasional protester outside the bases. And the occasional harassment from jerks in town.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
03/31/2009 19:05 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Yet somehow it all got in when there was shooting.
Posted by: ed ||
03/31/2009 19:18 Comments ||
Top||
#4
All of this will be delt with just as it was created. A little bit at a time. No big deal, it's not like we will disassemble each base in detail, we will pack the valuable stuff worth the effort and leave or turn over what isn't. this is over analyzed by bean counters.
Michael Portillo, in Basra, says that Britain has been humiliated: by committing too few troops, by failing to support the US surge, by showing more interest in spin than reality. If Basra is relatively calm, that has little do with us
#2
It is sad because the Brits came in saying the US was doing this and that wrong and there way was awesome and the only way and in reality the one thing the US did right in the long run, the one thing we usually do right and rarely get credit for is adapt. I'm not sure the British (whose culture once was very adaptable) adapted to the situation very much.
#3
Blair's Government tried to do the job on the cheap. Some Brits mouthed off about the superiority of the softly softly approach without realising that that only works if you're carrying a Big Stick. The British Army in Basra was a small, if wily, man carrying a twig. And he wasn't even allowed to use that to best effect.
#4
The same 'Labour Government' that betrayed kith & kin and along with the help of Carter and Young, installed Mugabe. Some things, they simply cannot change.
#5
In BRITAIN'S DEFENSE, when the ISLAMIST HIDDEN IMAM-MAHDI makes His Appearance, ALL THINGS EQUAL HE WILL PROB PRIORITIZE THE DEFEAT ANDOR DESTRUCTION OF US MILFORS [Eli-i-i-te Units] IN IRAQ-ME AFORE THE BRITS.
D *** NG IT, WE CAN'T HAVE A "DECISIVE/
APOCALYPTIC" BATTLE WITHOUT OUR DECISIVE/
APOCALYP PLAYERS, NOW CAN WE - YOU JUST KNOW OSAMA's FAV MTV BABE WHITNEY HUSTON WON'T STAND FOR IT!?
One would be hard-pressed not to express astonishment at the speed and efficiency demonstrated by the Military Advocate General, Brigadier-General Avichai Mendelblit, and the Military Police investigation unit in probing the "combat soldiers'' testimonials affair" that took place at the Rabin pre-military training academy. The investigation into Moshe (Chico) Tamir''s all-terrain vehicle accident made its way from desk-drawer to desk-drawer over the course of almost 18 months, yet the military advocate general needed just 11 days (including two Saturdays) to probe the accounts of combat soldiers in order to completely dispel the allegations.
...
Posted by: Fred ||
03/31/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
#1
I'm surprised it took 11 days to investigate hearsay allegations.
There's a big difference between what we say and what they want to hear.
1. "The Clash of Civilizations." Invariably, this kind of discussion ends up with us as the good guy and them as the bad guy. There is no clash of civilizations, only a clash between those who are for civilization, and those who are against it. Civilization has many characteristics but two are foundational: 1) It has no place for those who encourage, invite, and/or commit the murder of innocent civilians; and 2) It is defined by institutions that protect and promote both the minority and the transparent rule of law.
2. "Secular." The Muslim ear tends to hear "godless" with the pronunciation of this word. And a godless society is simply inconceivable to the vast majority of Muslims worldwide. Pluralism which encourages those with (and those without) a God-based worldview to have a welcomed and equal place in the public square is a much better word.
3. "Assimilation." This word suggests that the minority Muslim groups in North America and Europe need to look like the majority, Christian culture. Integration, on the other hand, suggests that all views, majority and minority, deserve equal respect as long as each is willing to be civil with one another amid the public square of a shared society.
4. "Reformation." Muslims know quite well, and have an opinion about, the battle taking place within Islam and what it means to be an orthodox and devout Muslim. They don't need to be insulted by suggesting they follow the Christian example of Martin Luther. Instead, ask how Muslims understand ijtihad, or reinterpretation, within their faith traditions and cultural communities.
5. "Jihadi." The jihad is an internal struggle first, a process of improving one's spiritual self-discipline and getting closer to God. The lesser jihad is external, validating "just war" when necessary. By calling the groups we are fighting "jihadis," we confirm their own and the worldwide Muslim public's perception that they are religious. They are not. They are terrorists, hirabists, who consistently violate the most fundamental teachings of the Holy Koran and mainstream Islamic scholars and imams.
6. "Moderate." This ubiquitous term is meant politically but can be received theologically. If someone called me a "moderate Christian," I would be deeply offended. I believe in an Absolute who also commands me to love my neighbor. Similarly, it is not an oxymoron to be a mainstream Muslim who believes in an Absolute. A robust and civil pluralism must make room for the devout of all faiths, and none.
7. "Interfaith." This term conjures up images of watered-down, lowest common denominator statements that avoid the tough issues and are consequently irrelevant. "Multifaith" suggests that we name our deep and irreconcilable theological differences in order to work across them for practical effect according to the very best of our faith traditions, much of which are values we share.
8. "Freedom." Unfortunately, "freedom," as expressed in American foreign policy, does not always seek to engage how the local community and culture understands it. Absent such an understanding, freedom can imply an unbound licentiousness. The balance between the freedom to something (liberty) and the freedom from something (security) is best understood in a conversation with the local context and, in particular, with the Muslims who live there. "Freedom" is best framed in the context of how they understand such things as peace, justice, honor, mercy, and compassion.
9. "Religious Freedom." Sadly, this term too often conveys the perception that American foreign policy is only worried about the freedom of Protestant evangelicals to proselytize and convert, disrupting the local culture and indigenous Christians. Although not true, I have found it better to define religious freedom as the promotion of respect and reconciliation with the other at the intersection of culture and the rule of law sensitive to the former and consistent with the latter.
10. "Tolerance." Tolerance is not enough. Allowing for someone's existence, or behavior, doesn't build the necessary relationships of trust across faiths and cultures needed to tackle the complex and global challenges that our civilization faces. We need to be honest with and respect one another enough to name our differences and commonalities, according to the inherent dignity we each have as fellow creations of God called to walk together in peace and justice, mercy and compassion.
#1
Mr Seipole sounds like someone who'd bring the rope for his own hanging, so as not to offend or inconvenience anyone, or to give them the impression he somehow objected to being hung..
#2
By calling the groups we are fighting "jihadis," we confirm their own and the worldwide Muslim public's perception that they are religious. They are not. They are terrorists, hirabists, who consistently violate the most fundamental teachings of the Holy Koran and mainstream Islamic scholars and imams.
#8
I can think of quite a few more than 10 right off the top of my head. Tried to post them last night (and again this morning) but must be in the sink trap?
#9
How to Properly insult a Muslim with their own terrorist history from the Koran and Hadiths.
No other religion calls for a conversion or death. Nor was any other religion founded by a murderer, terrorist and pedophile.(Mohammed the pedophile for profit married a 6 year old girl when he was 54 years old and raped her when she was 9.
Islamic myth and truths.
They won't admit that allah was really the pagan title of idol in Muhammad's "piece of pork upon him" parents village. This idol was supposed to be the "moon god" hence the crescent moon found on top of every mosque in the world today.
Call allah a pagan
The demonic part is self apparent. Muhammad was fooled by Satan, see the Satanic verses. Muslims know that this marks the "prophet" as the fraud he is. They even took those verses out of the Koran. The koran of today is rather different from the koran of mohammed`s day because the towelheads kept altering it`s texts and passages.
Call allah demonic
Muhammad was trying to put himself in charge of a Moon-worship cult that the local Jews would respect so while in Mecca he took up the tradition of calling pigs "unclean".
Call allah a pig or swine.
Muhammad, well who knows why he hated women so much. To this day bisexuality is so common in Saudi and it's puppet muslim states that Muhammad never really did anything firm about punishing pedophiles. What he did say is that "the majority of people in Hell are women".
Call allah a goddess
The Koran promised homosexual pedophilia to any Muslim that dies killing us. "Rivers of wine and young boys fine as pearls."
Call allah a pimp to pedophiles
Turn the truth back at the Muslims and let them cook in their own juices.
Hence: "demonic pagan swine goddess allah"
Call muhammad a common thief and murderer.
Rather than work Muhammad had his followers steal from caravans while in Medina. The fact is he was a common thief. muhammad (piece of ham be upon him) encouraged his handful of followers to attack the caravans, kill the men, rape the women and bring the booty (20% for himself) to please Allah, while assuring them that if they are killed their rewards will be rivers of wine, and many hurries in the other world. All these sickening deeds are backed by koran and hadith.. [The Koran 55:56; 55:58; 78:33; 56:12; 52:16-17, 24; 56:35-38; 52:20]
#10
This whole list seems to take the tack that the Muslims are not looking to be offended and if not these ten words there will be ten others. They are the most easily offended group the world has ever seen.
#12
Sure, I'll back off on these words if they stop calling me an "infidel", or equate me to "meat that attracts street cats" for daring to walk around with my head uncovered and/or unescorted by a male relative.
Never call a muslim who wants to convert you to his ideology by the tip of the sword, or forces you to be a third class citizen under his boot heel, or wants to kill you if you resist...never call that person a "raghead" on THIS board.
Why? Because insulting the enemy is pissing on the floor of someone else's house. So I am told.
#1
People for the American Way describes itself as "progressive". Among it's platform planks is "Darwin Not Dogma" In our schools. Now I personally have no problem with that, but I suspect this not what you were thinking it was. See http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=homepagenew for details
Back during the election campaign, I was on the radio and a caller demanded to know what I made of the persistent rumor that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. "I doubt it," I said. "It's perfectly obvious he was born in Stockholm. Okay, maybe Brussels or Strasbourg."
But here we are 20 minutes in, and full-scale Europeanization is already under way: Europeanized health care, Europeanized daycare, Europeanized college education, Europeanized climate-change policy . . . Obamas pseudo-SOTU speech was Americas first State of the European Union address, in which the president deftly yoked the language of American exceptionalism to the cause of European statism. Apparently, nothing testifies to the American virtues of self-reliance, entrepreneurial energy, and the can-do spirit like joining the vast army of robotic extras droning in unison: The government needs to do more for me. For the moment, Washington is offering Euro-sized government with Euro-sized economic intervention, Euro-sized social programs, and Euro-sized regulation. But apparently not Euro-sized taxation.
Hmm. Even the Europeans havent attempted that trick. But dont worry, if that pledge not to increase taxes on families earning under $250,000 doesnt have quite the Continental sophistication youre looking for in your federal government, I doubt it will be operative very long.
Most Americans dont yet grasp the scale of the Obama project. The naysayers complain, Oh, its another Jimmy Carter, or Its the new New Deal, or Its LBJs Great Society applied to health care. You should be so lucky. Forget these parochial nickelndime comparisons. Its all those multiplied a gazillionfold and nuclearized or Europeanized, which is less dramatic but ultimately more lethal. For a distressing number of American liberals, the natural condition of an advanced, progressive Western democracy is Scandinavia, and the U.S. has just been taking a wee bit longer to get there. Youve probably heard academics talking about the Swedish model and carelessly assumed they were referring to the Britt Ekland retrospective on AMC. If only. And, incidentally, fond though I am of Britt, the fact that I can think of no Swedish dolly bird of the last 30 years with which to update that gag is itself a telling part of the problem. Anyway, under the Swedish model, state spending accounts for 54 percent of GDP. In the U.S., its about 40 percent. Ten years ago, it was 34 percent. So were trending Stockholmwards.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
There's a big difference between what we say and what they 
