On the London School of Islamics website, Iftikhar Ahmed posts this open letter to Ruth Kelly. It is, simply, a stream of paranoid delusions. There is not one word about the murder and mayhem unleashed across the world by Islamists. Not a word about the mass murder of Britons in the London tube and bus bombings. No, it is the British government which has created an atmosphere of hatred and fear towards Muslims since 7/7. Indeed, it is Islam that is the solution to the problems of Britain and the world.
The native children need citizenship education as well as Islamic education because they have no respect and are reluctant to tolerate those who are different Islam isnt the sickness. It is the cure. It is one of liberty and equality. Secularists and followers of other religions regard Islam with something approaching panic. It is wrong to say that Islam has turned Osama bin Laden into a devil. It is the Secularist Western policies have turned Osama and others against the West. The world needs Islam to address the moral issues. America and Europe are wealthy, but they are morally impoverished. Broken families, drugs, booze, youth gangs, crime, neglect of children and the old, the sheer boredom of shopaholicism, terrorism, the inner-cities slums, materialism itself, are all the marks of a global society in decline. Children need to be taught to distinguish between right and wrong.
Indeed they do. Blowing people up is wrong. Preaching hatred of other peoples and religions is wrong. Waging holy war against the infidel is wrong. But somehow I dont think that distinction between right and wrong quite fits into this writers moral universe. His rambling epistle is indeed demonstrably beyond reason, and illustrates what we are up against.
He also writes this:
It is the mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the Muslim way of life, not the other way round.
Hmmn. Now where have I heard that precise jihadi line before? Ah yes right here.
So reassuring to know that our political leaders are determined to face down this dialogue of the demented by standing up for truth and western values.
#1
It is the mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the Muslim way of life, not the other way round.
In one respect this statement is absolutely right. Britain, along every other Western country infected colonized by radical Muslim filth, ought to take a page from traditional Islamic barbarity and apply it to their cultural assailants. Islam recognizes only one legal tender, that of violence and mayhem. It is downright disrespectful of us not to repay Islam in its own coin.
#2
Dialogue of the demented, deluded, and damned. Iftikhar Ahmed blames everyone else in the world for islams problems whereas the real problem is within islam itself. Everyone else is supposed to bend to the will of the islamists. Well, that just isn't going to happen. The world has seen tyrants come and go before. Islam is just the face of another tyrannical enemy.
Posted by: Glaimble Protector of the Apes4393 ||
05/28/2007 17:10 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Dialogue of the demented, deluded, and damned. Iftikhar Ahmed blames everyone else in the world for islams problems whereas the real problem is within islam itself. Everyone else is supposed to bend to the will of the islamists. Well, that just isn't going to happen. The world has seen tyrants come and go before. Islam is just the face of another tyrannical enemy.
Posted by: Glaimble Protector of the Apes4393 ||
05/28/2007 17:10 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I dunno, apart from the obligatory Bush-blast, it seems like he really does like the place ;)
Certainly, I have problems explaining my understanding of the Constitution and States' laws to people here. They always assume that the Federal government is the uber-ruler, and when I point out that States have their own Constitutions and laws, it usually comes as a surprise...
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
05/28/2007 8:21 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Don't feel bad, Tony. The Democrats still haven't figured it out either, hence : "a living document"
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/28/2007 9:44 Comments ||
Top||
#5
He does perpetuate myths about America, but at least he took the time to get out of DC and NYC and see at least part of the real country.
...I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day Morning. These are not spur of the moment reflections, but things I have been meditating on for about a year now. The conclusions that I have slowly and very reluctantly come to are very heartbreaking to me... Whatever. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
#1
RTWT: She mentions her dead son more in this one piece than in all the other publicized rantings these last (how long?). The part about scrificing her marriage had me all torn up; I could hardly breathe between laughs.....
But the best part is the comments: There were 464 when i peeked in @dailykos and all the commenters were wetting themselves in their fervent adoration for this patriot, and noble warrior; actually compared her to Ghandi and MLK.
#2
Well, she finally figured out she was just a tool for the lefties. She served her purpose and was cast aside when no longer useful. She will now live the rest of her wasted life with the knowledge she accomplishe absolutely nothing. Her son did not die for nothing. At least not yet. If the Democrats manage to get our forces pulled out before the job is finished I would agree with her. But it won't be George Bush to blame.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
05/28/2007 19:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
a condom when flushed, prolly has the same regrets, Madam Sheehan. Used and discarded
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/28/2007 19:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I just hope she runs for congress. I haven't gotten my quota for "Laugh at the Loony Left" yet.
#5
Oh, she's not quitting anything. All of this whining and carrying on is just another way of getting attention. She'll wait to see if it has the desired effect and then try to find another way to get into the spotlight. I swear, if she ever REALLY disappeared from the public eye she would kill herself.
Posted by: Jonathan ||
05/28/2007 20:28 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I can't open up the link, (it's undergoing some maintenence)
but my first thought was I wonder if she even visited her son's grave or finally put a headstone up yet.
Posted by: Jan from work ||
05/28/2007 22:19 Comments ||
Top||
I thought body counts went out with the Vietnam War. The AP is kicking off Memorial Day weekend with a fresh body count in Iraq. How come no mention of Americans killed in Afghanistan since last Memorial Day?
The AP story leads with the number of new graves opened for dead American soldiers since Memorial Day last, but only those killed in Iraq. Why this slight? Are the dead in Afghanistan not worthy of respect in the eyes of the Associated Press? It is possible that this article is not about honoring the dead at all, or even about reporting the news, but just another thinly veiled editorial attack on the Bush administration? Would the Associated Press be so callous as to use American dead in this manner, as a political tool?
Im beginning to get the impression there is nothing more important to the Associated Press in its Iraq reportage than the number of American soldiers killed in this unpopular war. That phrase, with a number, is typically trotted out no later than graph three in AP stories on Iraq. Its as though the body count is the sole measure upon which all decisions and action must turn. There certainly has been no effort by the Associated Press, or other major news organizations on the ground in Iraq, to examine progress in anything but the most dismissive manner, with a quick revert to body count.
In case you care, Terrorist Death Watchs tally of officially announced terrorists offed by U.S. forces in Iraq since June 1 last year is 1,578. I suspect that number is conservative. The Associated Press remains noticeably disinterested in that number. In addition to that, there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of terrorism suspects taken prisoner. There are car bomb factories and Iranian weapons smuggling operations that were shut down. There are people who have come forward with information. There are Iraqi units that have come on line, combat effective, playing a growing role in operations.
Since Memorial Day last year, weve seen Anbar turn, weve seen Sunni-Shiite reconciliation become popular enough that Moqtada al-Sadr is now trying to get in front of it. Weve seen businesses reopen and people return to their homes in Baghdad. Weve seen Shiite militias aggressively engaged and Sunni insurgents on the run. Weve seen the number of sectarian murders drop. Those facts typically get buried when they are mentioned at all, unless theres an uptick in death, when they suddenly become news again, to be cited as evidence of failure. AP prefers its milestones grim.
We have seen a backlash in the face of these advances, as our enemies attempt to undermine the surge strategy. The enemy, unhappy with the surge, has responded with a car-bomb campaign. This has been a great relief to the Associated Press and others who would like to see us lose in Iraq. Each car bomb has been savored by the Associated Press, like every American death, another sign of hopelessness to cling to.
There will be more death before it is over, in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably other places. It may well pick up over the summer, and there will be other terrible days for American families, and more wartime Memorial Days. The blood of our soldiers is part of the price a few pay for the freedom and security of us all. Their sacrifice is meant to be honored on Memorial Day, not used for for scoring cheap political points.
A helpful reader has drawn my attention to a second brilliant summary of the legality of Israels presence in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria under international law. This pamphlet contains extracts from Israel and Palestine - Assault on the Law of Nations by Julius Stone. The late Professor Stone was recognised as one of the twentieth centurys leading authorities on the Law of Nations, and Israel and Palestine, which was published in 1980, presented a detailed analysis of the central principles of international law governing the issues raised by the Arab-Israel conflict. I recommend reading the whole thing; as with the pamphlet written by Eli Hertz which I reported here, the discrepancy between the solid legality of Israels position in the occupied territories and the venomous hysteria with which this occupation is regarded throughout the west not to mention the wretched UN with the repeated mantra that it is illegal, is truly mind-blowing.
I would draw your attention to these passages in particular in the Stone pamphlet:
1)
By contrast, Israels presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defence. International law forbids acquisition by unlawful force, but not where, as in the case of Israels self-defence in 1967, the entry on the territory was lawful. It does not so forbid it, in particular, when the force is used to stop an aggressor, for the effect of such prohibition would be to guarantee to all potential aggressors that, even if their aggression failed, all territory lost in the attempt would be automatically returned to them. Such a rule would be absurd to the point of lunacy. There is no such rule .
International law, therefore, gives a triple underpinning to Israels claim that she is under no obligation to hand back automatically the West Bank and Gaza to Jordan or anyone else. In the first place, these lands never legally belonged to Jordan. Second, even if they had, Israels own present control is lawful, and she is entitled to negotiate the extent and the terms of her withdrawal. Third, international law would not in such circumstances require the automatic handing back of territory even to an aggressor who was the former sovereign. It requires the extent and conditions of the handing back to be negotiated between the parties.
2)
Lauterpacht has offered a cogent legal analysis leading to the conclusion that sovereignty over Jerusalem has already vested in Israel. His view is that when the partition proposals were immediately rejected and aborted by Arab armed aggression, those proposals could not, both because of their inherent nature and because of the terms in which they were framed, operate as an effective legal re-disposition of the sovereign title. They might (he thinks) have been transformed by agreement of the parties concerned into a consensual root of title, but this never happened. And he points out that the idea that some kind of title remained in the United Nations is quite at odds, both with the absence of any evidence of vesting, and with complete United Nations silence on this aspect of the matter from 1950 to 1967?
In these circumstances, that writer is led to the view that there was, following the British withdrawal and the abortion of the partition proposals, a lapse or vacancy or vacuum of sovereignty. In this situation of sovereignty vacuum, he thinks, sovereignty could be forthwith acquired by any state that was in a position to assert effective and stable control without resort to unlawful means. On the merely political and commonsense level, there is also ground for greater tolerance towards Israels position, not only because of the historic centrality of Jerusalem to Judaism for 3,000 years, but also because in modern times Jews have always exceeded Arabs in Jerusalem. In 1844 there were 7,000 Jews to 5,000 Moslems; in 1910, 47,000 Jews to 9,800 Moslems; in 1931, 51,222 Jews to 19,894 Moslems; in 1948, 100,000 Jews to 40,000 Moslems, and in 1967 200,000 Jews to 54,902 Moslems.
3)
Whether the doctrine is already a doctrine of international law stricto sensu, or (as many international lawyers would still say) a precept of politics, or policy, or of justice, to be considered where appropriate, it is clear that its application is predicated on certain findings of fact. One of these is the finding that at the relevant time the claimant group constitutes a people of nation with a common endowment of distinctive language or ethnic origin or history and tradition, and the like, distinctive from others among whom it lives, associated with particular territory, and lacking an independent territorial home in which it may live according to its lights
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leaders have frankly disavowed distinct Palestine identity. On March 3, 1977, for example, the head of the PLO Military Operations Department, Zuhair Muhsin, told the Netherlands paper Trouw that there are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese:
We are one people. Only for political reasons do we carefully underline our Palestinian identity. For it is of national interest for the Arabs to encourage the existence of the Palestinians against Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestine identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian State is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity.
The myth of the 1966 Palestinian Covenant that the Palestinian people was unjustly displaced by the Jewish invasion of Palestine in 1917 is widely disseminated and unquestioningly and dogmatically espoused in studies from the United Nations Secretariat. However, it is necessary to recall, not only the Kingdom of David and the succession of Jewish polities in Palestine down to Roman conquest and dispersion at the turn of the present era, but also that the Jews continued to live in Palestine even after that conquest, and were in 1914 a well-knit population there.
Will all those who so shrilly insist that international law must prevail in the Middle East now apply the conclusions of that very same international law, and declare Israels inalienable right to the occupied territories?
Once again: this material should be disseminated widely. Assuming that none of the benighted media will pick up on it, it should be circulated to every MP, editor and foreign desk journalist. It is much, much harder to regurgitate lies when the truth is blazing away in your in-tray.
A reader wonders why more is not made of the fact that in several verses the Koran declares that Israel is the divinely appointed homeland of the Jews. The relevant verses are provided on the Arabs for Israel website and read thus: (...)
Though this has been "debunked" by at least one noted french scholar, in that regards that the "jews" refered to are in fact the "good jews", the ones that should have accepted mo' as the Prophet when he was trying to build his religion from judaism, and would have been *muslim* de facto, following the muslim "logic" which want that a good christian is in fact one who is *muslim*, for example; the actual jews thus have no claim on Israel, since they're not muslim.
#2
Free men don't obey or recognize laws passed by unelected bodies. Specially they don't recognize resolutions passed by the worst and most corrupt of the unlected bodies: the United Nations
#3
Ok, this guy gives convincent arguments about Isreal's rights however he misses the fundamental point: there is no law when there is no elected body passing them. Free men don't recognize resolutions passed by the worst and most corrupt of the unlected bodies: the United Nations
#4
While the article makes numerous and splendid legal points it fails to address the simple underlying fact that recognition of international law, logic and the accepted canons of legal jurisprudence have absolutely no place in Islam.
There has been a dustup between New Republic editor-in-chief Marty Peretz and Atlantic magazine blogger Matthew Yglesias. It is an unimportant tiff over an important question: Why are the Gaza Palestinians killing each other? Peretz blames the situation on the immutably violent characteristics of Palestinian society, whereas Yglesias says the carnage is pretty much the Bush administration's fault.
If I may rephrase Yglesias's argument and add a helpful enumeration to his points, he says that (1) the Fatah party was keeping things under control until (2) the foolish Bush administration pushed the PA to hold elections. These brought Hamas to power, and (3) now the administration is making the problem worse by helping Fatah wage street battles with Hamas. Amazingly, none of these assertions are true.
Continued on Page 49
#3
the election of Hamas just proved that the vast majority of Paleos are hate-filled bloodthirsty nihilists who would rather live in a squalid shithole, seething and killing each other, for the rare chance to kill a Joooo with a homemade rocket, than actually do something to improve their lives. Fuck em. They got the life they chose, however brutal and short. I'd cut the water and power, seal it up, let em kill each other, and shoot the last one alive
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/28/2007 8:50 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Frank nailed it dead on. Why can't the Euro weenies and other apologists face the reality that these are nothing but bottom feeders? If they depart the earth today, we are all so much the better for it.
#7
The appalling results of the democratic elections in the Palestinian territories were the best thing that could have happened. The illusion that this was an oppressed group which deserved a state alongside Israel was shattered. The Palestinians were revealed as a population guided by an agenda of hatred, chaos and destruction - a dagger aimed at the heart of the Arab's major bogeyman, Israel.
Perhaps that ugly reality is dismaying to Yglesias, but its having been laid bare has allowed the world to treat the Palestinians as they deserve to be treated - as an implacable enemy of civilization - until their nature changes.
"Fatah" is a moniker given to the collection of gangsters, sycophants, and terrorists Arafat assembled around himself to protect his rule.
One of the only things the author gets right, who just as quickly then proceeds onto yet another glaring error.
Upon Arafats death, Fatah became adrift and leaderless.
Referring to Arafat as any sort of leader is a huge misnomer. He was a terrorist thug and naught else. To attribute Fatah with any actual government, as opposed to the ultra-corrupt and brutal gangsterism it was, is worse than misleading. Save for its sole declared campaign of genocide against Israel's population, Fatah had always been "adrift" in a sea of lies taqiyya and corruption. The ensuing bloodshed between Hamas and Fatah stands as positive proof of their collective inability to lead anyone anywhere save to the abbatoir or graveyard.
As Lonzo noted, the democratic election (certified by Carter, no less), of Hamas was the best thing that ever happened. Although an ultimate disaster for the Palestinianswho as usual, never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunityit finally cemented their political will and presented unequivocal proof of their malignancy for all to see.
Along with the 9-11, Bali, Madrid and London atrocities, Hamas' election put a real face on Islamic terrorism. Once lurking in the shadows, its genocidal hatred is now instead on public parade. It is no longer possible for the global community to pretend that Islam has any peaceful intentions. This, perhaps, will prove to be the Palestinians' greatest legacy, exposing to this world the rotting and essentially Hitlerian core of Islam.
#9
Referring to Arafat as any sort of leader is a huge misnomer.
Semantics. He who dishes out the gold and favors is the one in charge. Maybe boss or capo would have been a better label. But Pollak's word will have to do.
By Fred Thompson
I remember when I was a kid; one thing was clear to me. The more I learned about the rest of the world, the luckier I felt just having been born in America. The more I learned about America, the more I appreciated what those who came before us built; and how exceptional they were.
Not that there arent other great places to live, but America is unique. Its not just that we are the freest and most prosperous county the world has ever seen. America has also freed more people than any other nation in history.
A lot of people have done their part to see that we are blessed with the advantages we enjoy from hardworking pioneer mothers to the Framers of the Constitution. Memorial Day is coming up, though, and Im thinking more about American soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice those who died to protect our way of life and make the world safe for democracy.
There are some people, though, who dont think thats such a good idea. Some people even want to use Memorial Day to protest our militarys presence in Iraq. The irony is that their right to protest was paid for by people willing to risk everything to keep the forces of tyranny at bay here as well as Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Korea, Burma, Vietnam, the Philippines, and dozens of other countries.
Over the years, a lot of people have tried to talk us out of feeling about America the way we do. Instead of pride in what America has done, they want us to feel guilty generally because we have so much more than rest of the world. Of course, it wouldnt help the rest of the world one whit if we had less either of freedom or of prosperity. On the contrary, its our liberties that have made us prosperous and theres no reason the rest of the world couldnt be just as well-off if they embraced freedom as well.
Almost always, when I talk to people who see America as the problem, their arguments are based on ignorance or an outright tangling of history. What they thought they knew about America and the world came second- and third-hand through people with axes to grind.
Thats why I was troubled recently when I came across a report by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. The reports conclusion was that American colleges and universities are failing to increase their students knowledge of Americas history and institutions.
Students polled in a wide range of colleges and universities showed no real improvement in their historical knowledge. Some actually forgot part of what theyd learned in high school by the time they graduated and Im talking about some of our best-known Ivy League schools.
Less than half of college seniors knew that, We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal is from the Declaration of Independence. Less than half knew basic facts about the First Amendment. Half didnt know that the Federalist Papers were written in support of the Constitutions ratification. Only a quarter of seniors knew the purpose of the Monroe Doctrine.
This is our quandary. Memorial Day is about remembering. Its about remembering those who died for our country; but its also about remembering why they believed it was worth dying for. Too many Americans, though, have never been taught our own history and heritage. How can you remember something that youve never learned? Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/28/2007 19:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Sam Harris is - or at least was - becoming a liberal icon. After all, he has done virtually everything right, in the eyes of the left.
His best-selling book on religion, "The End of Faith," was heavy on Christian-bashing, no doubt to the delight of his American audience. He wants the rich taxed more, gays free to marry and drugs decriminalized. It's a wonder he's not on tour with George Soros.
So when a friend sent me a piece Harris penned for the Los Angeles Times last fall, I was ready to chuckle and dismiss it. Then I read it.
Here was the liberals' liberal explaining that his Times' piece "may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that `liberals are soft on terrorism.' It is, and they are."
It seems Harris has come to a shocking, for him, conclusion about liberalism, after actually being in contact with said individuals when his book made the best-seller lists.
"(My) correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of the world - specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith," Harris wrote.
In other words, Harris woke up one day and realized that today's version of liberalism thrives on illogic and a "debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the Earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities."
In the very next paragraph, Harris notes the absurdity of that dogma: "I don't know how many more engineers and architects need to blow themselves up, fly planes into buildings or saw the heads off journalists before this fantasy will dissipate."
Harris attempts - as he did in his book - to equate all religious dogma, saying that none affords any opportunity for rational discourse or leeway for disagreement. That's a tough sell in these modern times, as one religion more than any other seems to have a lock on savagery in the name of its prophet. But Harris has made a career out of being an atheist, and so he's almost professionally required to lump all people of faith into the same pot.
Setting that incongruity aside, let's just note that Harris isn't a conservative atheist, so maybe his words concerning what he repeatedly calls the "failure of liberalism" won't fall on deaf, progressive ears.
#1
What's the phrase: "there is more rejoicing in heaven at one sinner repenting..."?
Reality: it's not just a good idea, it's the law!
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
05/28/2007 8:24 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Robert Fisk quite literally "blamed himself" for being stoned by children. Of course, by this he meant to blame Christianity, "colonialism", "imperialism", the Jews, the West, in fact pretty much anyone except himself except in the most tangential sense. Critically, the only people who were utterly exempt from blame were the ones throwing the rocks.
Reason will not change viewpoints such as this. People can watch airplanes flown into office towers and construct ludicrous fantasies to explain how anything except the airplanes brought the towers down. We are not dealing with an ideology but a psychopathology.
#3
"(My) correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of the world - specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith," Harris wrote.
In other words, Harris woke up one day and realized that today's version of liberalism thrives on illogic and a "debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the Earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities."
I don't know what brought about this epiphany in Harris but we should try to find out, bottle it, and then "liberally" apply it.
#4
If you start to examine dogmatic leftism from the perspective of it might being a psychopathology, suddenly some things start to make sense.
To start with, in the clearest comparison, fanatics of any stripe have been noted in past to have several distinct and irrational similarities:
1) The world is clearly divided between good and evil. There are no shades of gray or ambiguities. From that, the fanatic develops an intense "Us and Them" attitude, with absolute intolerance for "Them".
2) The belief in "Us", also ignites in them a powerful herd instinct, and a belief that mass behavior, like group exercise, creates the strongest mood of affiliation. Independence and individuality are to be scorned. Uniqueness shows an attraction to evil. Mediocrity is preferred over success or failure, as it is easier to attain by all.
3) The philosophy and doctrines of "Us" must be absolute. If there is no knee-jerk response that needs no qualification, then the subject is to be ignored. (It was noted that you can identify such a person by their inability to spontaneously laugh; because such laughter is often a defensive response to a non-sequitur, which does not exist for a fanatic. This was used in past to identify fanatical communists, and was quite accurate.)
4) Such a limited world-view, in which everything can be explained, is also a common trait in people with pre-schizophrenia. In their case, at some point, their world-view is fractured by some data or stress that cannot be explained, ignored, or rationalized. It is the psychological breakthrough that reflects the physical damage to their brain caused by the disease.
5) However, in those who aren't schizophrenic, but are especially polar in their philosophy, there is tremendous awareness of the "forces of evil", however they define it, and of its ability to permanently corrupt the "good". HL Mencken wrote of a preacher with such a mind, who when he had an affair with a choir leader, was so convinced he was damned that the two went on a crime spree, heaven being closed to them. Joseph Stalin also was aware of this, at one point drawing a line on a map of Europe and decreeing that any Soviet soldier who crossed that invisible line was to be later killed, as they might have been exposed to "corruption", which they might bring home.
#5
At least Harris has to be given credit for awakening from his coma. This is much like the turn around that happens to every sputtering, fuming gun control/confiscation moron when they or one of their personal family has been mugged or murdered, often times in their own home. Then they realize, but for a functioning gun, their relative would be alive today, not in a cemetary.
#6
Harris has been writing about the horror of Islam since at least 2004 (his book, "the end of faith" has a lot in it about jihad, honor killings and the like. I don't know how much before that he was so inclined. For all I know his 'awakening' may precede the awakening of many of us Rantburgians.
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.
On the London School of Islamics website, Iftikhar Ahmed posts this 
...I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day Morning. These are not spur of the moment reflections, but things I have been meditating on for about a year now. The conclusions that I have slowly and very reluctantly come to are very heartbreaking to me...
A helpful reader has drawn my attention to a second brilliant summary of the legality of Israels presence in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria under international law. 
