Hmmmmmm... W VA - go figure!
A family meal erupted into a gun battle after a father and son clashed over how to cook chicken.
"Roasted!"
"Fried!"
"Go fer yer guns, Paw!"
The two men argued Sunday over the best way to prepare skinless chicken for dinner. "It started out as a fist fight physical confrontation, but it escalated until both of them were shooting at each other," Detective Sgt. A.D. Beasley of the Mercer County Sheriff's Department said Monday. Beasley said each man fired a .22-caliber handgun at the other.
"Draw, varmint!"
Harley Shrader was struck by a bullet that went through the upper part of his right ear and lodged in the back of his head. He was treated at a hospital and released. The elder Shrader was not injured. lodged in his head? treated and released? Jeebus!
Jackie Lee Shrader, 49, was charged with malicious wounding and wanton endangerment. Harley Lee Shrader, 24, was charged with wanton endangerment.
There's no law in West Virginny against being stoopid, or they'd be in large trouble.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/29/2004 12:30:00 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Im sorry Paw.
Im sorry Boy.
Paw? Why let's use the .38s next time.
Okay boy, But it's my turn to draw first.
#7
Harley Shrader was struck by a bullet that went through the upper part of his right ear and lodged in the back of his head. He was treated at a hospital and released.
Don't be giving paw too big a piece of yer mind there wen ya get home Harley. Ya might be needin' it agin one of these days.
#1
Remember, the Saudi government finances the dissemination of propaganda that teaches these people to believe this sort vile crap. The Saudis have NEVER been our friends. The White House's ongoing and decades-long love affair with the Saudis is a national disgrace. Bin Laden's family should have been held in America for extensive interrogation after 9-11. They almost deserve to be confined to a penthouse suite in New York's Freedom Tower. Let them wet their pants every time a jet liner flies by their windows.
#2
The answers all use similar wording - i.e., slogans. What further proof is needed that these attitudes are the result of indoctrination. It's taught in their homes, in their schools, in their mosques, on TV - everywhere. You can't eliminate terrorism by adjusting your own foreign policy because the Jihadi mindset is deliberately fostered and will continue to be so no matter what your policy is. There is little connection to real grievances.
If it's ever going to change, it's going to take decades to do so. But until it changes, the whole Middle East will remain a cesspit and the rest of the world will suffer the consequences. I hope one day there will be a reckoning with the Saudis the Wahabis.
One way to counter it would be to expose it to the wider world audience. But no one wants to hear about it. Places like MEMRI or LGF are ostracized and marginalized. They are labeled racists for promoting negative stereotypes of Muslims. They'd rather focus on events closer to home. What did we do? It must be our fault. Or maybe it's just Dubya's fault. The problems will go away if we elect someone who promises to be nice to them.
I finally saw Fahranheit 911 the other night. It's a perfect example of the common thinking. Moore denigrates the Saudis but he never really examines who they are and what they're about. They're just ciphers for Moore's own local obsession with Bush and Conservatives. They're nothing more than a convenient brush to tar Bush. But the American public and the rest of the world too needs to know about this stuff.
Posted by: John in Tokyo ||
09/29/2004 1:27 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I love the quote about how it would just be so simple to wipe out Israel, if only the Arabs were united in Jihad! They're living in a fantasy world - dreaming of triumph and annihalation.
Could anyone in Saudi Arabia dare point out how deluded this is (not to mention immoral)? Would someone be willing to mention directly, in public, that they already tried this a few times and failed? Could anyone dare speak the cold truth, namely that they are currently less likely to or capable of accomplishing this goal than they were in the past?! I wonder if anyone at all would have the guts to suggest that, maybe, just maybe, the answer is less Sharia and Jihad, not more. How many Wahabbis ever consider that the reason they are incapable of competing with Israel, much less destroying it, is because they are backward? And do they realize that the main reason they are backward is because of all the obsession with Jihad and Sharia?
Here is one of the central paradoxes and I believe that many Wahabbis are very aware and conscious of it. They cherish the dream of destroying Israel. They realize the need to reform their own lands in order to achieve the kind of level that Israel has. But recognize that bringing reform would mean relinquishing their dream. So they have an option. Guess which course millions of them chose to follow?
Posted by: John in Tokyo ||
09/29/2004 1:53 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Someday a breakthrough in energy production will happen and the Saudis will be in deep doo doo.
#7
To repace the raw energy content of all US oil imports (10M bbls/day), my calculations say it requires about 600 nuclear reactors (1000MW each). But since the nuclear power is output as electricity, the net reactor count required is about 300, assuming 45% net oil to electricity generation efficiency. This is definitely doable, but requires almost all new passenger cars be electric powered. Depending on electricity-battery-electricity conversion efficiency (wihich I don't know), the net reactor count could be as low as 200, assuming gas engine efficiency is 25-30%.
Economically, I think this is a long term winner, not only saving oil import cost, but also defence costs, and allows us to tell the Arabs to go pound sand. The problem is there is a HUGE up front cost of building reactors and retooling the auto industry, but once done, operating costs are very low. Only a national initiative with government mandates can overcome the initial capital barrier.
FYI, about 100 nuclear power reactors are in US operation accounting for about 20% of electical power.
Posted by: ed ||
09/29/2004 9:31 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Yes 300 new nuclear reactors would be nice. But you can't just grab an icon and point and click it into existance. Each reactor would cost $1-5 billion.
#9
10M bbls/day oil import at $50/bbl = $182.5Billion. That is almost 2% of GDP and half of our trade deficit. If that amount of money stayed in the US and circulated 4 times, it would add 7% to our GDP.
A 2x1000MW PWR electric generating plant is going for about $8Billion after all regulations and legal challenges. A more realistic figure is probably $1Billion when mass produced and regulations and court challenges are streamlined. For instance Iran is paying Russia ~800Million for Bushehr. With simpler, mass produced, inherently safe designs, costs could be even lower. But for our purposes, lets use a high figure of $2B per reactor/generating plant combo. That means for the cost of 3 1/2 years of oil imports ($550B), enough nuclear generating capacity can be on line to replace all oil imports (and possibly double the figure).
Lets say 1/4 of our defence budget (~100B) is spent ensuring the flow of oil. That would buy between 50-100 of the above power plants per year. The real defence spending to ensure energy flows is probably closer to $200B, or 100-200 generating plants per year. Worst case, for $100B/year, it would take 6 years, of what we already spend to defend the mideast, to replace the 10M bbl energy import capacity, and 1.5 years in the best case.
So now which is cheaper, spend $150-200B each year on oil imports and an extra $100-200B in defence spending, or build our own nuclear generating capacity (at $600B), which once built can last 40 years. Of course one can't click a power plant into existence, but there is no good reason to take 10 years to build a nuclear power plant. Once the assembly line is in place, why can't it take 3 years to build the same plant, beginning a few the first year and ramping up to 50 plants or more a year? Same for the electric cars to use the power.
Better to ensure our domestic energy production and let the rest of the world fight over the mideast.
Posted by: ed ||
09/29/2004 12:00 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Amen. Count me in for nuclear. Believe it or not, you'd have willing allies among the greens on this.
Just to reinforce the above analysis, note that all of the above assumes oil does not rise beyond $50/bbl, which could well happen given that 1) OPEC's excess production capacity is already being pushed to its limits; 2) we can expect more, not less, instability in Nigeria, Russia and other potential swing producers; 3) given the spread btn Treasuries and euro-denominated debt, the dollar is still overpriced and probably should drop another 15-20%, which in turn would raise the price of imported oil by not 15-20% but 18-25%.
1) not all oil is used for electricity production, and we'd still have to import oil for gas/diesel. Domestic production isn't enough.
2) you haven't included the cost of disposal of nuclear wastes, nor of decommissioning the plant when it's time to do so. We just went through that in Illinois with an old plant, and it's a high cost.
That said, it's a viable option, and as Lex notes, some Greenies are beginning to realize that the environmental problems of nuclear energy production are preferable to the problems associated with gas/oil.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/29/2004 13:36 Comments ||
Top||
#14
But if we used the nucular plants to produce hydrogen fuel cells we could eliminate the need for gasoline and diesel.
And with no income from oil, the Arabians would probably appreciate it if we gave them a few bucks to store our used-up nucular plants in their no longer productive deserts.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/29/2004 13:44 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Fair is fair:
How about this?
"No. Because the Muslims are eternal enemies. The murderous Muslim violate all agreements. I can't shake hands with someone who I know is full of hatred towards me."
#16
The vast majority of oil is used for transportation with smaller amount used for electric generation, heating, and petrochem feedstocks (in US nat. gas is preferred feedstock). The US imports ~60% of oil consumption with more than half coming from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. The first priorty is the replace the fraction from the mideast, then any imported portion. This goal can be met my replacing oil generated electricity and replacing the majority of personal cars with either electric cars (available) or hydrogen fuel cells (per Fred). Long haul trucks and high use cars can still use domestically produced (or even Americas produced) petrol. A 10 year time frame of people buying electric cars will accomplish this.
As far as decommissioning. Let's say it costs as much to decomm a reator as it does to build the reactor/generation plant ($2B+$2B). At 300 plants over 40 years comes to comes to $30B/year to build and decomm. While the cost of oil imports and defense of resources comes to $250-400B/year. Of course nuclear fuel, operation, maintence, transmission, and battery or fuel cells adds to costs, but so does refining, storage, and transportation of fossil fuels. Now increase the cost of nuclear plant, decomm, or operation, or car price increases by any justifiable amount and you are still hard pressed to come within 1/3 what oil imports cost the US. Finally, additional energy capacity build is under our control. We won't have to beg, coerce, or compete with other nations for a declining resource.
Posted by: ed ||
09/29/2004 14:23 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Another part of this arguement is that there are developments for thorium powered nuclear reactors that have the ability to mix in nuclear waste and convert it into either non-nuclear or short-lived (ca 100-200 years) isotopes. And we have plenty of thorium in our own backyard.
The term Islamic should be dropped when referring to terrorists in a bid to foster better relations between the West and Islam, Lord Carey says.
I'll be happy to stop using the term...just as soon as the terrs stop ululating "Allahu Akbar" as they triumphantly hold up the severed head for the video camera.
Hokay, Mr. Carey, how 'bout "Islamofascist"?
The former ArchDruid bishop of Canterbury said removing the word would "deprive a terrorist of his religious legitimacy".
The Allenists have no legitimacy, religious or otherwise. Period.
It would also send a clear message to "the average Muslim" that they were not being blamed for terrorist attacks.
The "average Muslim" has said remarkably little about the terror being committed in Allan's name. I'm not sure if it's because they agree, or because they're scared of the Izlamonuts too.
His comments come after Muslim leaders expressed concern about a growing gulf between the Islamic world and the West. Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has warned that linking international terrorism and Islam was damaging. "There is an urgent need to stop tarnishing the Muslim world by unfair stereotypes," he told the United Nations this week.
And the solons at the UN stroked their long, flowing beards and piously agreed.
Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has also said there is an "iron curtain" falling between the Islamic world and the West.
Note to Perv: That's not a bad idea. The security fence in Israel is working quite well. So well that Jordan is getting nervous that the intifada might start coming their way...
However, Lord Carey said that while there was a divide, he wanted to resist using such a serious phrase as "iron chador" "iron curtain". "There is a lot of hope in the situation, but I certainly want to say the situation is serious. We must do more about it, and it's a question of everyone pulling together," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. He had begun a personal campaign "to challenge anyone who talks about Islamic terrorists", Lord Carey added. "I think we have to drop the word Islamic because in so doing we deprive the terrorist of his religious legitimacy. He wants religious justification for his evil deeds, and we shouldn't give it to him," Lord Carey said.
Give, don't give...whatever. The terrs tell us over and over that these acts are God's will. You'd best recognize the danger you're in and label it accurately.
"And second, by dropping Islamic before terrorist we are taking a lot of pressure off the average Muslim who simply doesn't want to be portrayed as a fellow murderer."
Fetch me my violin. The really really tiny one.
Wanna borrow my femtoviolin?
He said he accepted that the problems in the Middle East and Iraq had to be addressed, "but it would help the building of bridges if we helped the average Muslim to understand that we are blaming Israel not blaming Islam for this".
I've watched my fellow citizens be murdered and mutilated and desecrated by the thousands, all in the name of Islam. Where is my bridge? Why do I have to "reach out", to "understand"? I deeply resent being labeled kufr and infidel, being lied to in the guise of taqiyya, and hudna. I'm actually angry that I even know these terms
."We're blaming that tiny, tiny minority of people who are using Islam as a weapon to get their own back against the West and to undermine all we're trying to do." Lord Carey reiterated his call for Muslims to denounce terrorism more often. "Terrorists are very evil people and I want to hear Muslims say that more and more," he said.
We all do, Lord Carey.
Posted by: tipper ||
09/29/2004 11:51:23 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The term Islamic should be dropped when referring to terrorists in a bid to foster better relations between the West and Islam, Lord Carey says.
[...]
Lord Carey reiterated his call for Muslims to denounce terrorism more often.
"Terrorists are very evil people and I want to hear Muslims say that more and more," he said.
The first step to tackling a problem is to admit that a problem exists.
#2
Socrates might have something to say about this. If a man is a Muslim and a terrorist, does it not logically follow that he is a Muslim terrorist? Logic and Common Sense 101 must not have been a required course where this guy went to school . . .
Posted by: The Doctor ||
09/29/2004 12:12 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"I think we have to drop the word Islamic because in so doing we deprive the terrorist of his religious legitimacy."
Actually that's a brilliant idea, provided the muslims go along. So drop the "Islamo-" prefix and simply call them fascists. Surely the Beeb and the rest of the MSM can't object to that and still be taken seriously by anyone.
If Hitler had been viewed by Germans as an alien fascist rather than a "national socialist" patriot, his rise could have been slowed or even prevented
#6
Weâre blaming that tiny, tiny minority of people
as many here know, i will stand up for the muslims who do not support terror, and I beleive that, ultimately, we ARE fighting a minority within Islam. BUT - BUT - BUT - it is NOT by any means a tiny minority - it is a LARGE and POWERFUL minority, which is why the struggle is so difficult. When someone says something as dwnright idiotic as the above "tiny minority" statement, it just undermines the whole attempt to clarify that Islam and Islamic terror are not identical.
#7
This is all about the PR war, folks. It's similar to Feith's idea that we need to get all nations to view terrorism the way they now view slavery.
Hearts and minds still matter. If a majority of muslims don't start to fight with us against their fascists, then we'll be fighting this war for another hundred years, and will probably do so more or less by ourselves. Not a smart strategy, esp for a debtor nation with an increasingly weak currency.
#8
This is really kind of sad. How is it that the Anglican churches have strayed so far from their path? The Episcopal, Lutheran and Prebyterian churches also have sunk to depths that make it impossible to put money in their plates. This whole debacle is reminescent of the communists' method of destroying from within.
As good Christians flock from these churches in droves - how many food lines will go empty and unmanned - how many homeless people will not recieve shelter? How many old people in need, or those struggling with death will find these once welcoming halls to be empty and cold?
The why and how this came to be really doesn't matter. Regardless if it is just PC run amuck or a true effort at sabotage from the top, as far as I'm concerned - these organizations are now defunct.
How very sad that something so good could be so completely and totally rotted from within.
#9
I deeply resent being labeled kufr and infidel, being lied to in the guise of taqiyya, and hudna. I'm actually angry that I even know these terms
Dude, I am so dwon with that. I am really pissed that islam is a subject in my life at all and that I know anything about it. Sometimes I could just choke wishing for the days when it was a non-subject.
But now the only way to get rid of it and erase it from my existence is to take part in the cause to rid the world of it in all its current forms to bring it to the point where any adherants of it are so just in name and by quirk not in practice.
None of us asked to have this sh*t intrude on our lives and force itself into our conversations. But how like islam, the agressive virus that it is to do so.
#10
Agree with the sentiments but unfort'y the rest o world's now on our doorstep, for good. Global islamofascist terror is globalization's dirty little joke on all of us.
Its not as bad as it seems on the surface. Take the Episcopalians for example. In many respects this branch of the church is just as good as dead, but I am a member of a vibrant and growing orthodox parish. Knowing these people and also knowing that they are part of a revitalization movement within this denomination as well as knowing that they are part of a much larger world wide group of conservative Anglicans gives me cause for belief that a turn around is coming.
When orthodox Episcopalian churches are growing, while the more liberal congregations are dying, then it becomes a matter of time before the conservatives become a majority. These folks are true believers and they possess a boldness and creativity that comes from a degree of desparation. They may be a tiny minority now, almost off the radar at the moment, but I predict that they will become more of a force as time goes on.
This same effect may also happen with the other mainline protestants. It could be that their own dedicated conservative movements are even now beginning to mobilize.
The church has always had times when it seemed that it was truly down for the count and without hope for revival, but it always manages a comeback. Just wait and see.
#12
"I think we have to drop the word Islamic because in so doing we deprive the terrorist of his religious legitimacy. He wants religious justification for his evil deeds, and we shouldnât give it to him," Lord Carey said.
I agree with lex. Maybe we should just call them facists. It would really get to them: "Oh, you're not Islamic freedom fighter-martyr-whatever, you're just a (run of the mill) FACIST."
I also agree with peggy: "I am really pissed that islam is a subject in my life at all and that I know anything about it. Sometimes I could just choke wishing for the days when it was a non-subject."
#17
Did any one try being this nice to the Nazis during WWII maybe be thats why we won. Atleast they had the balls to come out and fight wearing a uniform. These Islamic bastards have nothing no morals and no BALLS we cannot be nice to them. May I very humbly request his lordship to shove it where the son dont shine, maybe he is also one of them cross dressing A-Holes.
#18
peggy - don't know if you'll see this today - but good post above.
I agree "the church" will survive. But as a life long episcopalian turned presbyterian, turned adrift by the thought of my money in the offering plate going to fund nuttiness, I can only say that I'm looking for a better church to express my faith.
The last Episcopal church I went to was little more than a platform for the latest dem talking points of the day - even their songs were wacko - one about "the sparrow and the whale" - I kid you not. We laughed out loud and got a dirty look from the rector. I only went once and don't know where to go next.
The Anglican "church" is dying, if not already dead. But it's reason for being is alive and well... so I'm sure it will survive in one form or another.
EFL
IN Tony Blair's Government it's called The Grid. A single timetable plots the big news events of the weeks ahead, from party conferences to World Cup soccer qualifying matches, and ministerial announcements are timed accordingly. Media interventions are plotted to exploit quiet days and overshadow the opposition's efforts.
In Baghdad, the terrorists appear to have a grid too. And it is determining the fate of Kenneth Bigley. The 62-year-old British hostage is, mercifully, still alive as I write. But that is not because of any inclination towards mercy on the part of his captors, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. No, Bigley has been kept alive for as long as he has because it serves the ideological ends of his terrorist captors. And the tragedy of his death, if and when it comes, will have been timed to achieve the maximum political impact.
The shadow that has been cast over this week's Labour Party conference in Brighton has been carefully contrived. By killing two Americans and then keeping Bigley alive, by parading him on videotape, by putting words in his mouth that held Blair responsible for his fate, and then by ensuring his plight became a central issue at Labour's conference, Zarqawi has manipulated the British media, and Britons' emotions, to serve his purposes. Just as al-Qa'ida scented weakness among the Spanish population when it plotted its bombing of Madrid for the climax of Spain's general election campaign, so it has been carefully using Bigley's capture to shift British public opinion in an anti-war direction at a time when Blair is under an even more intense spotlight than usual. And from the terrorists' point of view, the British media have played their role perfectly. There are three ways, in particular, in which the media collectively have played into the terrorists' hands...
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/29/2004 4:59:14 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Responsible news organisations do not broadcast material they know will help our enemies at a time of war. And a failure to realise we are in a war with Zarqawi and al-Qa'ida lies at the bottom of so much of the media's failure properly to cover the challenge the West is now forced to confront."
So correctly put.
Since the "news" media don't seem to get it I have decided that good old fashion sucker punching and shit beating are OK when dealing with them. If you want to act like a trator to your culture, society and nation expect a good old fashioned ass beating from people who don't have the access the media seem to have. I know I can do a week or 2 in jail for my country, society and culture not that I would go out of my way to do so but given the opportunity I might. This is especially true for any media people working for the BBC, or of the N.Y.T or LA Times.
#4
The best way to beat the BBC etc is to create a rival media presence. Blogs need to step up to the next level. Instead of merely linking to the MSM, we need a technology platform that will allow us to research and source the news ourselves and then report on it 24x7.
We know that hardly anyone watches network news anymore. Who needs the NY Times?
#5
Heartless Bastard, that was me dumping your comment, on account of language. A note to all posters: the editorial staff enjoys snarkiness and a bit of ribaldry as much as the next guy (or gal), but please keep your conversations somewhere above the level of the comment I just sent to the sink trap. I now return RB to its regularly scheduled festivities.
#7
Pretty much sums up what I have commented on before regarding the AWZ motive. I thought for sure they would decapitate him during Blair's speech and do a webcast for UK residents. But I guess they have political smarts but no server. Brits do have a choice - Sky brings FNC but you have to pay for it, of course since its dish and cable delivery. Also, you have to put up inane music and graphic breaks during commercials. Soon FNC has to get an international edition to really compete with the likes of BBC, RTE, RAI, etc.
Posted by: Jack is Back ||
09/29/2004 12:26 Comments ||
Top||
#8
it's too bad that these guys don't realize that it's not working the way they hoped. They really don't comprehend the West's love of goodness and charity - just like we can't comprehend the Islamist love of death and ghoul.
I really think they believe that this is undermining our will. What the don't realize is that all they are undermining our will to react towards them with goodness and charity.
I see a disturbing trend among very good, nice people to dispense with the kindness we have attempted and to simply go ahead and crush these people.
They forget that, were we to fight like our parents and grandparents did in WWII, their cities would be devestated by the end of the week. We just don't want to - yet.
The only thing these beheadings undermine is our will not to unleash what it takes to crush them.
#9
Anonymous5032,
Informing is great. The problem is lying bastards who can get away with outright lies by vurtue of their "protected" status. I say screw them they are enemies of our civilization, social structure and, social contract. A good shit pounding might wake them up. It's much better than killing them which I do not think or say is a good thing. They need to wake up and realize they live in the real world where if you are a fool you get a fools treatment.
#10
Sock: âThe problem is lying bastards who can get away with outright lies by vurtue of their "protected" status.â
I live in LA. Iâve wondered what I would do if I ran across Michael Moore. I detest the jerk. But beating him up or destroying his property would not help our country. We are a society of law. People have the right to speak their mind and promote their views even when I find them personally offensive.
I donât think the âlying bastardsâ should get away it. And today I donât think they are getting away with it. The Rathers of the media world are starting to look over their shoulders at the blogosphere and worrying. Every article they write is now part of an easily accessible permanent record. Each mistake they make or lie they promote will be thrown back in their face.
The problem with the MSM and terrorism is more complicated. The BBC is anti-American and its bias shows. But Fox isnât anti-American and Fox also spreads the terrorist message. The MSM uses ânewsâ as entertainment. The fact that the ânewsâ entertainment cost American lives and hurts our country wonât stop the MSM.
The MSM itself is aware of the problem as evidenced by the above article. The same topic is being discussed on several other blogs. Possibly a âshamingâ approach will work. If the worst media abuses are denounced loudly change may occur. Or people may just weary of the hostage/terror game to the point where it is no longer news worthy. Or people may just turn away from the MSM altogether.
Physically attacking the authors of unpopular views is against the basic fabric of our society. If such behavior became common, I couldnât speak out in support of Bush in parts of LA without being beaten. (The people beating me would be totally convinced of the rightness of their action, as they would be certain I was evil.) Politicians with the biggest mobs would âwinâ all debates.
#11
Anonymous5032.
No politician or political movement is telling me to defend them or go after the "press". I am about waking these stupid arses up. They have been comfortable and safe in their lies. It's time to make them pay for their knowing lies. Lies that are made to promote a socialist agenda. When you piss on my leg and tell me it's raining it's time for a pounding. I gave up on reading the LA times and my local papers becuase they are nothing but spin and don't even bother to cover real news. They are all about trying to socially engineer the herd and create a socialist California. If you think we are going to get through this crap by playing nice you are nuts. Sorry I don't buy into laying there and taking it. All complaints about the press and it's distortions are ignored. Nothing has changed. The press ignores the truth and keeps putting out distortions. It's time we take more direct action. I don't see how being non violent is going to fix this. These pricks have no fear of punishment for lying. It's time to change that.
#12
rather's arrogant display of another segment using lies and tricks, to say the Bush admin is promoting a draft, supports your point SPOD. (see ratherbiased.com)
Their arrogance, self-righteousness, and condensation is staggering.
#13
"I know I can do a week or 2 in jail for my country, society "
If you are here in Texas, as I have gathered from your posts, and you actually carry out what you suggest and get caught.
You can count on at least a five year sentence. I hope you don't mind getting cornholed and sucking dick, because that is exactly what you'll be doing.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
09/29/2004 00:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I knew that there was a bad group of gangs from Central America filtering up through Mexico, but from the information at the link, I guess they are already here.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/29/2004 15:07 Comments ||
Top||
Nothing a "lead enema" can't unblock.
Chechen separatist leader Aslan Maskhadov is among members of a rebel group, which has been blocked in the forest in East Chechnya, the Itar-Tass news agency reported on Wednesday citing the head of the Nozhay-Yurt district administration, Vakha Magamgaziyev. The official said that the rebel group had been encircled in the forest located in the junction of three Chechen districts: Nozhay-Yurtovskiy, Vedenskiy and Kurchaloyevskiy. The call signs of Maskhadov's associates are regularly heard in the rebels' radio messages, Magamgaziyev said.
I hope "blocked" in Russland isn't the same as "surrounded" in Arabia...
Posted by: The Caucasus Nerd ||
09/29/2004 4:45:48 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Complete article because of registration
By Hamish McDonald, Herald Correspondent in Beijing
North Korea has already turned its stockpile of spent nuclear fuel into new nuclear weapons, a senior official has claimed at the United Nations as the isolated communist country baulks at further disarmament talks.
If the claim is correct it means North Korea may have added up to eight new bombs to its nuclear arsenal since President George Bush's Administration forced a diplomatic showdown over suspected covert nuclear activity just under two years ago.
Previously, Pyongyang was believed to have been hiding two or three nuclear devices made before 1994, when the Clinton administration negotiated a bilateral deal shutting down North Korean nuclear facilities and putting its spent-fuel stockpile under international supervision in return for fuel oil, new power stations and other aid.
Multiplication of North Korea's nuclear arms stockpile and a stalemate in six-nation talks hosted by China mean that Mr Bush has little to show for the tougher line he adopted to distinguish his administration's policy from the allegedly appeasing approach of President Bill Clinton.
Some Western diplomats in Beijing now question whether the Bush
Administration's approach has not made a bad situation worse. They question the diplomatic strategy it has adopted - rejecting direct bilateral talks with Pyongyang in favour of concerted regional pressure - and the way in which it has been conducted.
The crisis began in October 2002 when a State Department official, James Kelly, confronted a top adviser of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, with evidence the North had imported equipment for producing highly enriched uranium, thereby cheating on the 1994 agreement. According to Mr Kelly, the adviser confirmed and defended the program.
But within a month the US media were quoting inside sources as saying the US Government's suspicions were based on import and export documents and that Washington's intelligence agencies had no idea where covert uranium enrichment facilities in North Korea were located.
The leak encouraged the North Koreans to backtrack on the admission made to Mr Kelly, claiming a misunderstanding.
Tensions grew as the US refused to negotiate directly - "to buy the same horse twice", as top officials declared - and demanded the North admit and dismantle its nuclear programs.
In January last year the North withdrew from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and announced it had plans to build up a nuclear deterrent against US attack.
Pyongyang's Vice-Foreign Minister, Choe Su-hon, told the UN on Monday that the North had reprocessed all the 8000 spent nuclear fuel rods previously under international safeguards, and had "weaponised" the plutonium they yielded. Western experts said this would be enough for about eight bombs.
The six-nation Beijing disarmament talks that Washington pressured China into hosting last year have, meanwhile, hit a roadblock, with Pyongyang dismissing the worth of holding a fourth round, previously scheduled for this month.
The chances of North Korea attending new talks before the US presidential election on November 2 are diminishing rapidly, despite recent efforts at persuasion in Pyongyang by a succession of foreign leaders, including Australia's Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, Britain's junior Foreign Minister, Bill Rammell, and the Chinese Communist Party politburo member Li Changchun.
#1
Even though I'm voting for Bush - I think he really screwed this up. I don't have allot of faith in what he'll do about Iran either.
I think they know a helluva lot more about this than we do - and I wonder if that means they aren't doing anything because both countries alreay have the bomb fielded.
Hope I'm wrong.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
09/29/2004 14:32 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I do not see how bush screwed up. The nkors were well on their way years before Bush. This is something that should of been dealt with in the 90's. So Bush instead of paying tribute said no more.
Why should the US negotiate under threat? It is the countries of the region that have the most to lose. And anyways a war in korea, be it nuke or conventional is not in the US best interests.
We should now do two things.
1. Loan Japan a nuke arsenal till they get one up and running.
2. We should state clearly any attack will be met with the total destruction of every nkor city, and sales to terrorists will be met with the same fate.
OR
Just toast the place and let the diplo cards fall where they do.
Let the chicoms wallow in the mess they created. They will now have to deal with a resurgent, nuclear Japan.
By the time Bush came into office our options were very limited. Unless we bowed and did what the nkors wanted.
The statement 'Give me liberty or give me death' rings true here.
As for Iran we still have some time on our side, plus you do not have the dymanics that exist in SE asia. It will be a much easier fight (just a figure of speech comparing fighting in Korea as compared to Iran - not that it will be easy).
Posted by: Dan ||
09/29/2004 15:16 Comments ||
Top||
#5
YS - Remember This
From Imus Interview...
IMUS: Either give us a name (foreign policy advisors) or we won't vote for you.
KERRY: But there are people who are advising me and who are very respected in the community.
IMUS: Holbrooke?
KERRY: He is one who is advising me. I have Joe Biden is advising me. There are -- Madeleine Albright obviously you know.
IMUS: That's a mistake.
How did we get in the North Korea Mess in the First place?
#6
I suppose that it's a measure of power that the press believes everything bad that happens in the world is GWB's fault. It could be that the 8 "work accidents" scheduled for next year in North Korea will be his fault as well.
#7
it doesn't matter what ush doesin the situation. the north koreans are gonna do what they want too until someone finally kicks the shit out of these ppl. Only damn thing being done wrong is that we are still sending them foo, let them starve. QAn dif anyone in beijing is worried about it whether western diplomats or not why won't they do anything about it? If we did do something about it then they would say that america is bullying another shit hole country around right? TOO hell witht he whole lot of them
#8
Isn't it traditional to detonate a nuke in order to prove that you have them?
Really, it wouldn't change anything - they could destroy a major city *last* year, and they can destroy one *now*. I suppose it doesn't make me a very good American, but I don't value a million Los Angelenos more than I value a million South Koreans.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
09/29/2004 17:09 Comments ||
Top||
#10
well mitch you can screw yourself - if your an american shame on you. a seditious traitor if i have ever seen (read) one. and a bit of an ahole? where you from..some little shit town on the plains? with country men like you who needs an enemy? big fucking dumbass
if la goes so does the US economy..california represents so much of our economy (and LA is a huge piece of california's economy.) you will feel the pain, regardless of your views on the politics. instantly be reduced by a few trillion dollars.
Posted by: Dan ||
09/29/2004 18:38 Comments ||
Top||
#11
What's standard doctrine here? Some diplomatic message goes to NK stating saying something along the lines of ... "ok, you're in the Big Game now, if a nuke goes off *anywhere* with your isotopic spectrum all over it, we'll rapidly raise 80% of your country to 100,000 C within 24 hours" ?
Deterrence has worked for 60 years because it has been believed that the US will retaliate massively if nuclear weapons are used against itself or its allies. Nothing I've read has implied to me that the doctrine has changed.
It's been said that after you kill your first man, the rest are easy - the US is the only country that has used nuclear weapons in wartime. I think there might be a lesson there, the Mullahs in Iran and the fucktards in NK *really* ought to take note of this.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
09/29/2004 19:10 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Don't forget that a nuke is pretty useless unless you can *deliver* it to target. Though NK has missiles that can do it, they cannot do it *quickly*; which is why I suspect so much notice has been made of their "preparing to launch" recently. Remember also that the US is sending the FIRST layer anti-missile defense ships to the Pacific theater EARLY, as in right now. Between them as a radar screen *and* anti-missile defense, 747-based lasers, and other anti-missile systems, the BIG question is not "can they hit us?", but "HOW WILL WE RETALIATE?"
the number of incoming US ICBMs to NK would only be limited by the potential winddrift fallout to Japan and SK
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/29/2004 20:56 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Moose,
Agreed a nuke is pretty useless as a weapon to the Norks unless they want to hit a neighbor. So what can they do with it? Sell it to terrorists for hard currency! Then deliver it in a container with living quarters for two Arabs to Busan for shipment to Long Beach. The hardest part may now be effecting payment.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/29/2004 21:08 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Massive retaliation with nukes only further tortures his victimized population. Knock out his artillery, storm in an hang whomever the skinniest people point out as the bad guys.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/30/2004 0:19 Comments ||
Top||
Here's a unique perspective. More at the link, LA Times registration required
These are the dusky days of old age that kamikaze pilots like Shigeyoshi Hamazono were not supposed to see. Three times during the final months of World War II, Japanese officers sent Hamazono off to die, ordering him to crash-dive a single-engine plane stuffed with bombs into an American warship... Most were still waiting for orders to fly when Japan surrendered to the Allies in September 1945. A few others were spared because they did not reach their intended targets — a failure Hamazono found intolerable at the time. He was on standby to fly a fourth mission when Japan capitulated. Denied the opportunity to redeem his honor, he felt disgraced. "I wished I had died," he says...
"Kamikaze" has ceased to be a slur in Japan. If the Japanese still can't agree on whether the pilots were victims or heroes, brainwashed conscripts or volunteers, they are at least prepared to honor their spirit of sacrifice. Only the modern menace of the suicide bomber has emerged to spoil this sentiment. The survivors bitterly resent the world's appropriation of the term "kamikaze" — meaning "divine wind" and originally coined to describe the unexpected typhoons that saved 13th century Japan from invading Mongol ships — as shorthand for suicide bombers of every stripe. There are the "Al Qaeda kamikazes" who flew passenger planes into office towers, "Palestinian kamikazes" who blow up pizza parlors filled with teenagers in Jerusalem, and "female Chechen kamikazes" willing to detonate explosive girdles in the middle of school gymnasiums crammed with children. Japan's originals are insulted to be mentioned in the same breath. "When I hear the comparison, I feel so sorry for my friends who died, because our mission was totally different from suicide bombers," Hamazono says as he strolls through the Peace Museum for Kamikaze Pilots in Chiran, a former air base on the southern Japanese island of Kyushu. The kamikazes attacked military targets. In contrast, "the main purpose of a suicide bomber is to kill as many innocent civilians as they can," Hamazono says. That, he says, "is just murder."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: VAMark ||
09/29/2004 8:18:13 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I actually randomly met an old duffer in a park (the Mikasa battleship memorial in Yokosuka) who claimed that he had served in the tokkotai ("special attack squadron" - what the Japanese called the kamikazes).
We had a friendly chat about Admiral Togo.
Interesting what 40 years can do to former enemies.
Also interestingly (perhaps), I find it hard to imagine a similar scene with a former shaheed 40 years hence.
Posted by: Carl in N.H. ||
09/29/2004 12:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This IS an interesting point. Islamic terrorists appear to have no capacity for forgiveness or understanding and absolutely no humanity.
#3
If it wasn't for the fact that I'm such an enlightened, sensitive, PC kind of guy, this would be the IDEAL place to plant the old joke about the Polish kamikaze pilot who returned safely from 100 missions...
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
10/02/2004 0:24 Comments ||
Top||
Christer Pettersson, who was tried, convicted and then acquitted on appeal for the 1986 murder of Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, died Wednesday, hospital officials said. Pettersson, 57, had been in a coma since Sept. 16 at the Karolinska Hospital. A convicted criminal with a history of substance abuse, Pettersson was the only person tried for Palme's murder, after being identified by Palme's wife, Lisbet, as the killer. He was convicted in 1988, but acquitted on appeal after police failed to find the gun used to kill the popular prime minister. Palme was gunned down in downtown Stockholm on Feb. 28, 1986, as he walked home from a movie theater with his wife. His killing, which stunned the country, remains unsolved.
I'm still waiting for Hallmark to get back to me on my idea for an apathy card. Something along the lines of "Not thinking of you," and "I barely noticed that you're dead."
I don't think Palme's killing is actually "unsolved," since Mrs. Palme fingered Petterson. The fact that he got off because he tossed the gun into the drink is more of an indictment of the Swedish judiciary than it is of the Swedish cøps.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/29/2004 10:43:31 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A story behind the story was that by that time Swedish socialism was entirely supported by the arms industry, having sucked their civilian economy dry for vampiric welfare programs. But even that wasn't enough, so Palme was proposing to nationalize the arms industry. This brilliant idea ended with Palme, afterwhich began the slow and steady decline of their welfare state as such--the realization that to maintain it was economically impossible. So it could truly be said that Palme was assassinated by the law of diminishing returns (and by businessmen who realized that he was going to destroy their country.)
#2
Palme was posing as a peace-negotiator while secretly selling weapons to both Iraq and Iran. That'd explain how Sweden managed to keep its Socialist economy going for a while -- sucked some oil profits out of ME tyrants.
Basim Ghozlan, the manager at Det Islamske Forbundet, one of the largest Muslim organizations in Norway, stated that suicide bombers are accepted if they kill enemies.
Oh, yeah. Sure. That's okay.
«If the goal in itself is accepted, than this should also be accepted,» Ghozlan said to the Norwegian radio channel Kanal 24.
That would rather imply to me that if the tactics are filthy, so's the goal...
In a Q&A section at the Muslim website islam.no, Ghozlan responded to a young boy who asked about suicide bombers. The Muslim leader answered the boy's question by defending the use of suicide bombers. «If you attack a cruel enemy, then it's not a coward way, rather the opposite. The people who do this are actually very brave,» Ghozlan answered. He stressed that for example Israel claims that all settlers are legitimate goals for suicide bombers.
I think the setence should probably include "(comma) where he" before the word "claims." Otherwise it makes no sense whatsoever, instead of being the usual sophistry.
«Suicide in order to hit the enemy: if the war is legal, seen from Islamic point of view, and if you do not have any other way of striking the enemy than by giving your own life, this is allowed. The demand not to hit the innocent must not be forgotten.
"So the best thing is just to tell yourself that none of 'em are innocent and let 'er rip."
"Unfortunately, we see in many cases that suicide bombers hit many more innocent than they wish to. In Iraq innocent people are killed almost daily because of such blind bombs. This is no jihad. The Prophet never urged anyone to do anything like that. If it happens in occupied areas where the suicide bombers attack settlers and soldiers, it is another issue. The situations have to be discussed separately,» Ghozlan wrote in his answer to the boy.
He means "settlers" like little 4- and 5-year-olds.
«I almost become a little scared when I hear this,» said Petter Eide at Amnesty International Norge.
Oh, do you really? Almost. A little.
He stated that Ghozlan's statements are completely unacceptable.
Then why are you accepting them?
«What he says is that he is actually legitimates murder,» Eide said to Kanal 24.
Yeah. That's what he's saying. Hardly any of the usual obfuscation the colonists use in countries where the don't have a big enough segment of the population to be able to bully the majority.
He urges Muslims in Norway to reject Ghozlan's statements. «I really hope the Muslim environment in Oslo address these statements because they are completely unacceptable,» Eide said.
"But if they don't, well, I guess I'll just have to accept them, won't I?"
Frida Nome, an expert in Middle Eastern issues, said that she did not think these statements were shared by most Muslims.
"No, no! Certainly not! They are our friends!"
«I don't think Muslims in general support this,» Nome said. «I think it's odd that he dare say this in Norway.»
Doesn't sound in the least odd to me.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/29/2004 10:49:07 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
With maggots like Ghozlan spewing sh!t like this, a person almost has to hope that Norway leads the way and becomes the first coutry to outlaw Islam.
Central members of Kristiansand Progress party claims Hitlerâs «Mein Kampf» and the Koran are one of the same, and they want Islam banned in Norway.
Until Islam rids itself of this sort of drift into militancy, it is nothing less than a political ideology that seeks covert overthrown of every non-Islamic government on earth.
The day is drawing nearer when Islam will be banned outright in all civilized countries. After Beslan, my once-solid opposition to this concept has essentially zeroed out. If there is not an immediate, vigorous and genuine effort made by Islam to purge itself of these violent psychopaths, then it must be dismantled as a political agency without benefit of religious protection.
#2
«If you attack a cruel enemy, then itâs not a coward way, rather the opposite. The people who do this are actually very brave,»
This works both ways. It justifies bombing, shooting, beheading the muslim invaders in Norway.
Posted by: ed ||
09/29/2004 1:20 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I thought this shi'itte was called "hate speech".
Posted by: Comment Top ||
09/29/2004 2:49 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It takes a warped mentality to equate blowing up kids with Bushido.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/29/2004 2:57 Comments ||
Top||
#5
History will rember Islam as a Cult responsible for kidnapping, torture, rape, dehumanization of opposition and extreme cowardice in the face of even moderate odds. Thankfully the last remainder of this dangerous cult gave it up in 20__ and the remainder are a part of the desert that glows in the dark.
#9
In the world of PC, things considered "hate speech" are given a pass when Muslims spout it. Read the PC rulebook.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/29/2004 11:40 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Truth time for EUrabia. If you want to preserve your welfare states, you need immigrants, and millions of them. But if you can't figure out how to expel the jihadists and assimilate the rest, then you will preserve your welfare state only at the expense of western liberal civilization. They get the haters; we get the strivers.
Perhaps EUrabians might want to take a few lessons from the hated yankee capitalist melting pot on this one? Maybe there's hope for the notion of "the West" after all.
The cloak-and-dagger story of the month concerns the fact that the (mis)information on Iraq's WMD that has been subjected to a barrage of ridicule, disgust, and castigation by members of the "peace camp" may actually have been planted by one of those members, precisely to do just that: subject Uncle Sam and the members of the coalition of the willing to⊠a barrage of ridicule, disgust, and castigation (while collecting the laurels of appearing infinitely wise, rational, careful, tolerant, diffident, understanding, etc, etc, etc)âŠ
The latest news is brought to you by the Daily Telegraph's Bruce Johnston:
The Italian businessman at the centre of a furious row between France and Italy over whose intelligence service was to blame for bogus documents suggesting Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy material for nuclear bombs has admitted that he was in the pay of France.
The man, identified by an Italian news agency as Rocco Martino, was the subject of a Telegraph article earlier this month in which he was referred to by his intelligence codename, "Giacomo".
His admission to investigating magistrates in Rome on Friday apparently confirms suggestions that — by commissioning "Giacomo" to procure and circulate documents — France was responsible for some of the information later used by Britain and the United States to promote the case for war with Iraq.
Italian diplomats have claimed that, by disseminating bogus documents stating that Iraq was trying to buy low-grade "yellowcake" uranium from Niger, France was trying to "set up" Britain and America in the hope that when the mistake was revealed it would undermine the case for war, which it wanted to prevent.
âŠMr Martino is said by diplomats to have come forward of his own accord and contacted authorities in the Italian capital following the earlier article in the Telegraph. They said he had written a letter of resignation to the French DGSE intelligence service last week.
According to an Italian newspaper report yesterday, members of the Digos, Italy's anti-terrorist police, removed documents from Mr Martino's home in a northern suburb of Rome on Friday afternoon.
"After being exposed in the international press, French intelligence can hardly be amused or happy with him," one western diplomat said. "Martino may have thought the safest thing was to hand himself over to the Italians." Investigators in Rome suspect that Mr Martino was first engaged by the French secret services five years ago, when he was asked to investigate rumours of illicit trafficking in uranium from Niger. He is thought to have then been retained the following year to collect more information. It was then that he is suspected of having assembled a dossier containing both real and bogus documents from Niger, the latter apparently forged by a diplomat.
In September 2002 Tony Blair accused Saddam of seeking "significant quantities" of uranium from an undisclosed African country — in fact, Niger. US President George W Bush made a similar claim in his State of the Union address to Congress four months later, using information supplied by MI6.
The International Atomic Energy Agency expressed doubts over some of the documents' authenticity, however, and declared them false in March 2003.
In July, the White House withdrew the president's claim, admitting that it was based on inaccurate information. British officials still say that their intelligence about Iraqi uranium purchases was supported by a second, independent source.
#1
Then where the hell did the uranium found on the ground in Iraq come from? Across the eighth dimension?
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
09/29/2004 1:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Uranium? There is no Uranium in Iraq. Your stomach will commit suicide and roast in hell infidel.
P.S. That mountain of yellowcake is batter for the Syrian border wedding cake.
Posted by: Mohammed al-Sahaf ||
09/29/2004 1:48 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Phil, actually that yellowcake had been in Iraq previous to the first Gulf War, identified to the UN and was under seal - for what that is worth.
What I don't understand is that there is other evidence that Niger had been contacted through a different channel. I think that Joe Wilson covered that in his book - which I refuse to purchase or even check out of the library.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/29/2004 2:01 Comments ||
Top||
#4
SH: There was also evidence that Saddam was contacting other nations in the region. I'm also beginning to wonder, personally, about whether the UN could really control or track the materials they had placed under seal. Iraq was supposed to get rid of its WMD, not stick UN labels on them and leave them lying around (or hiding them) until they could get their cruise missiles finished.
Some of the stuff being used against us is alleged to have been old stuff that was "under seal." (For instance, the sarin shell). This implies that some of the stuff that was under UN seal was dispersed and unmarked... i.e. not under seal in any meaningful way.
I have to go to work now. I'll be back after 5. Y'all think really happy thoughts towards the server, OK?
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
09/29/2004 8:49 Comments ||
Top||
#5
What I don't understand is that there is other evidence that Niger had been contacted through a different channel. I think that Joe Wilson covered that in his book - which I refuse to purchase or even check out of the library.
Don't bother with Wilson, he's a lying piece of CBS.
Instead, look to the British report on the BBC "sexed up" story. They concluded that yes, the British government had information other than the French memos that pointed to Iraq trying to get uranium while sanctions were in effect.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
09/29/2004 10:10 Comments ||
Top||
#6
France is trying to make a move from the irrelevant Axis of Weasels to the targetable Axis of Evil.
The Justice Department has charged that a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office — potentially endangering the lives of federal agents. The stunning accusation was disclosed yesterday in legal papers related to a lawsuit the Times filed in Manhattan federal court. The suit seeks to block subpoenas from the Justice Department for phone records of two of its Middle Eastern reporters — Philip Shenon and Judith Miller — as part of a probe to track down the leak. The Times last night flatly denied the allegation.
#3
A much more effective solution would be for the FBI to name the reporters and say that they were cooperating fully in the investigation of the terror cell.
#4
You know, if anyone o these terrorists get away or off because of this, then I want to see the editor of the rag known as the "New Yourk Times", explain the nuances of the first amendment, to the relatives of anyone killed by a terrorist attack, perpitrated by individuals involved in this incident.
#6
A free press doesn't include treason or sedition.
We don't have a free press. We have enemy propagandists masquerading as a free press.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
09/29/2004 16:55 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I want to see the editor of the rag known as the "New Yourk Times", explain the nuances of the first amendment, to the relatives of anyone killed by a terrorist attack, perpitrated by individuals involved in this incident.
Yusuf Islam, the British singer formerly known as Cat Stevens, was the guest of honour at a Toronto fundraising dinner hosted by an organization that has since been identified by the Canadian government as a "front" for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. The Jerusalem Fund is one of four "fronts" named in a secret Privy Council Office memo that was sent to Jean Chretien, then prime minister, on May 23, 2000, discussing what it called groups that "have unsavoury links with terrorism. "In a limited number of cases, fundraising in support of violent foreign struggles takes place in Canada through the cover of ethnic, religious or community-based associations and groups, lobbying and even criminal activity," the report says. "Front groups operating in Canada include the Jerusalem Fund for Human Services (Hamas Front), the World Tamil Movement (Tamil Tigers Front), the Canadian Kurdish Information Network (Kurdistan Workers Party Front) and the Babbar Khalsa (a Sikh extremist front)." Hamas, also known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, is responsible for most of the suicide bombings against Israelis. Canada has outlawed Hamas under federal anti-terrorism legislation, making it illegal to support the group.
The expulsion was criticized by Muslim groups, and Mr. Islam denies any ties to terrorism. "I never knowingly gave any terrorist group money," he said after being deported from Israel in 2000. "I've given to poor people and hospitals. I've helped to buy ambulances in the Holy Land. Obviously quite clear and supportable aims."
But on June 20, 1998, Mr. Islam gave the keynote address at a Jerusalem Fund fundraising dinner held in Toronto. The event was videotaped, and a copy was obtained by the SITE Institute, a U.S. terrorism research organization. The video opens with a scene of Niagara Falls, overlayed with the Jerusalem Fund logo, which features the al-Aqsa Mosque and the maple leaf. It begins with an unidentified man explaining the activities of the Jerusalem Fund, which he describes as "helping the Muslims in Palestine" by financing hospitals, health clinics, families in need and orphans. "Palestine is close to the heart of each and every Muslim. What the Muslims of Palestine have been doing for many years now has been that bright light shining, that hope ... that they are still believers that can raise the banner of jihad in the most difficult of circumstances."
Mr. Islam then begins a 45-minute speech in English in which he says it is "intolerable" for Muslims to "stand and watch" the situation in the Middle East. He describes Jerusalem as the centre of a land that is holy because of its connection to Allah. "So this city which is blessed because of its religious nature. Therefore, what we see today is the result of the departure of religion from this area, of the uprooting of religion. So many of the people of the faith have been exiled from this region, moved on, to make way for what? Strangely and ironically, they moved on in the name of so-called religion, on behalf of ... the Jews. "Of course, that would explain what is happening. Because the moment that religion and religious virtues disappear, there for sure follows trouble, tyranny, oppression," he says. "So what do we see then today? The concoction of a so-called new society based on an old society." He says there could be "no redeemer except Allah. No political concept or construct or treaty or agent except the laws of Allah, which he instructed for this world. Jerusalem is that, the symbol of that. Out of the hands of the righteous then it falls into disrepute and blood.
"Jerusalem, al-Quds, it is a mirror reflecting the reality ... If it is dark, if it is bloody, then so too is the world. Today it reflects injustice of the secular man over the religious man. And how can the secular man be given the control and the sanctuary of the divine place of worship when he doesn't even respect what is holy? How? And how can those of faith allow that to happen? Therefore, peace will not return until we return to the Holy Land."
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/29/2004 12:32:19 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#6
"I never knowingly gave any terrorist group money,"
"What the Muslims of Palestine have been doing for many years now has been that bright light shining, that hope ... that they are still believers that can raise the banner of jihad in the most difficult of circumstances."
As usual, there seems to be a bit of difficulty in how to reconcile this man's words. He claims to be an "ambassador of peace," yet supports the death fatwah against Salman Rushdie. Likewise, here, he proclaims to never have knowingly contributed to terrorist groups but nonetheless extolls raising the banner of jihad in Palestine, where jihad means only one thing.
#7
First Cat says,"I'm not to blame. I'm not a terrorist." Then he goes on to fan the flames of that exact thing.
"Jerusalem, al-Quds, it is a mirror reflecting the reality ... If it is dark, if it is bloody, then so too is the world. Today it reflects injustice of the secular man over the religious man. And how can the secular man be given the control and the sanctuary of the divine place of worship when he doesnât even respect what is holy? How? And how can those of faith allow that to happen? Therefore, peace will not return until we return to the Holy Land."
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., has "a different view of Osama bin Laden," her campaign rival charged Wednesday in an attack ad that uses a picture of the al-Qaida leader and the senator's words to challenge her credentials in the war on terror. "She did not praise Osama bin Laden and we should stop playing politics with the war on terror and get on with winning it," countered Alex Glass, a spokeswoman for Murray. She called the commercial a "desperate political attack" by GOP rival George Nethercutt, who trails in the polls.
The ad shows Murray telling an audience in 2002 that bin Laden had been at work in unnamed countries "for decades building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities. And the people are extremely grateful," she says. "He's made their lives better. We have not done that."
Nethercutt appears briefly on screen in the ad, saying he approved it "because winning the war on terror means fighting terrorists, not excusing them." Nethercutt, a five-term House member, has consistently trailed Murray in the polls and lags behind his rival in campaign cash as well. He launched the ad at a time when party officials and donors alike must decide which candidates deserve their strongest support in the final month of the campaign. While the National Republican Senatorial Committee has already run independent television ads in a few key races, Washington is not among them. Nethercutt's prospects for an upset are likely to depend in part on gaining strong financial support from the party.
Campaign rivals often clash over the war on terror, but even in the presidential race, neither President Bush nor Sen. John Kerry has suggested the other man views bin Laden as anything but an enemy of America. The ad was posted to Nethercutt's Web site early in the day, and a spokesman said it was airing statewide. Glass said the ad took Murray's remarks out of contest. She said the senator had voted to go to war in Afghanistan in the wake of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to bring bin Laden to justice and eliminate his terror network. She said Murray planned a formal response in a conference call with former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., a Vietnam veteran and triple amputee.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/29/2004 4:12:38 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's embarrassing the way the Democrats keep wheeling out Max Cleland to impart a patina of strength on defense issues to people like Murray who consistently vote against the military. He is, or at least was, a nice man. He must be incredibly bitter to let himself be used this way.
#5
Comrad Murray has been blanketing the area recently with TV ads even more negative and refuses to even debate Nethercutt.
That's cuz Murray is feverishly trying to find the address of the Osama bin Laden Memorial Daycare and Maddrassa When she finds it, she's debate Nedercutt.
An infidel woman has praised me. I don't know how to react. Allah be praised. If I can get a devil woman infidel to say good things about me, we are winning, Allah be praised.
Senator John Kerry's campaign said yesterday that Mr. Kerry did not own a Chinese assault rifle, as he was quoted as saying in Outdoor Life magazine, but a single-bolt-action military rifle, blaming aides who filled out the magazine's questionnaire on his behalf for the error.
"Gilligan!"
"Yes, Mr. Howell?"
"Did you write this?"
Michael Meehan, a spokesman for the campaign, said Mr. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, owns two guns, a double-barreled 12-gauge shotgun and the rifle, which Mr. Meehan said Mr. Kerry "keeps as a relic" and had never fired. Mr. Meehan said the gun had no make or model markings on it and that Mr. Kerry "got it from a friend years ago," adding that such rifles were first manufactured in Russia more than 100 years ago and were used by the North Koreans and the Vietcong.
Was the friend's name Nguyen?
The clarification came in response to an article yesterday in The New York Times quoting Mr. Kerry's response to a question by Outdoor Life: "What is your favorite gun?"
"My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam," said Mr. Kerry, a veteran, according to the October issue. "I don't own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle."
"... and by the way, I was in Vietnam."
Though the comment was presented by Outdoor Life as part of an "exclusive interview with the two presidential candidates," four pages that included many long, conversational answers using first-person pronouns, Mr. Meehan said Mr. Kerry's portions were written by his staff. A public relations representative for Outdoor Life did not respond to a message seeking comment.
I think the Outdoor Life representative just lost it and shot himself. With a Chinese Communist assault rifle that a CIA guy gave him when they were running guns to Cambodia.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/29/2004 11:27:33 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
"My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam," said Mr. Kerry, a veteran, according to the October issue. "I don't own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle."
You would do better to remember the men who stayed and fought even when you were sh*tting on them. The gun is just a weapon, but the people who were there more than anything saved your leftist ass.
#8
I don't know about this. A rifle with no make or markings, made by the Russians more than 100 years ago, a bolt action single shot. Horseshit. It turns out Kerry didn't answer the questions, they were filled out by aides? If he gets elected, will he let his aides do all the work? I was there a bit later than Senator Traitor but the VC were pretty well armed with SKS's and AK's. A bolt action? Chinese assault rifle? Again, horseshit!
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
09/29/2004 21:35 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I'm much more worried about what the turnout's going do be of the traditional Dummycrat base: the dead and the non-existent. Hopefully, Rove's got a secret plan to suppress their vote...
Posted by: Fred ||
09/29/2004 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Er, lex, they're also in Ohio. Remember Toledo?
I'm not too terribly worried by political analysis from the Saudi-based Arab News.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
09/29/2004 12:32 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Max K ||
09/29/2004 12:56 Comments ||
Top||
#11
If Nader's on the ballot then Michigan indeed is up for grabs. But I seriously doubt that muslim turnout, even if the Dems do their Demndest, will be very high. Muslims are not generally represented in AFSCME or the AFL-CIO.
#12
Fifty-three percent of American Muslim voters believe Muslims should vote as a bloc for a presidential candidate.
Folks-imagine the following scenarios in another 15-20 years:
Reporters: "President Ali Hu-ever, should the words In God We Trust be barred from all official government materials?" "President, is it true that you would like to replace the words In God We Trust with the words Allah Hu-Akbar?..."
DNC, CA: "Can we count on your vote for California Proposition 2020-"The Initiative to Restore California to Sharia Law"?
National Address: "We thank Allah for giving us these United States to fulfill his will..."
Demographics and political affiliation of Muslims will be very important in the coming years.
Posted by: Dead and Non-Existent ||
09/29/2004 13:27 Comments ||
Top||
#15
By this time after the start of the war in 1941, there were two regiments of volunteers of Japanese American ancestry, to include many from detention camps, kicking ass on the first Axis. But I guess if you are moderate, well, you are just moderate.
Posted by: Don ||
09/29/2004 13:29 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Not sure I understand your point, Don. Is it that anybody can be a moderate (good) American?
If it is that any nationality can be moderate, no argument there. A**holes and saints come in a variety of colors, as do moderates.
If it is that any US Muslims who promote sedition, "resistance", or violent jihadism are nonetheless protected by an alibi of being "moderate" Muslims, I would disagree.
#20
"Fifty-three percent of American Muslim voters believe Muslims should vote as a bloc for a presidential candidate."
Yeah, cuz they're too stupid and timid to think for themselves as individuals. In Iraq, the Iraqis are dying to secure their political freedoms. Here, the Muslims are all too willing to give their freedoms away to closet totalitarian Kerry. Unreal.
#26
AP, you just made my day. The image will linger (and, to a certain extent, be savored) of JF "Oompaloompa" Kerry taking his boat swiftly through the check valve into the settling tanks.
Congratulations to Porter Goss for being confirmed last week as the new Director of Central Intelligence. We hope he appreciates that he now has two insurgencies to defeat: the one that the CIA is struggling to help put down in Iraq, and the other inside Langley against the Bush Administration.
We wish we were exaggerating. It's become obvious over the past couple of years that large swaths of the CIA oppose U.S. anti-terror policy, especially toward Iraq. But rather than keep this dispute in-house, the dissenters have taken their objections to the public, albeit usually through calculated and anonymous leaks that are always spun to make the agency look good and the Bush Administration look bad.
Their latest improvised explosive political device blew up yesterday on the front page of the New York Times, in a story proclaiming that the agency had warned back in January 2003 of a possible insurgency in Iraq. This highly selective leak (more on that below) was conveniently timed for two days before the first Presidential debate.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/29/2004 9:00:24 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#6
Sounds good. Another thought: we have many thousands of brilliant young asian-americans of Indian, Pakistani, Chinese and Korean descent leaving elite US universities each year and heading to Wall Street or Silicon Valley, where they are now as numerous as non-asians.
Isn't it about time we started to get rid of State and CIA's decadent, corrupt old WASPy Arabists and start recruiting patriotic young asian-american high achievers?
#7
And many of those grads received massive US Govt subsidies - unavailable to citizens. Of course, the downside is they are fresh from the indoctrination center, so...
#8
"And many of those grads received massive US Govt subsidies - unavailable to citizens. Of course, the downside is they are fresh from the indoctrination center, so..."
On the other hand, there are/going to be a lot of "Iraq graduates" who are, right now.
(a) Being tested re. ability & dedication.
(b) Gaining a good insight into the differences
(which cannot be overemphasized) between the
Western and the Islamic fundamental world views.
#9
Give 'em a couple of years to develop a nest egg and appreciation for the way America really works to their benefit and then approach them from the top of their organization with an offer they won't refuse. Isn't that how WBD did it?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/29/2004 10:34 Comments ||
Top||
#10
.com,
I'm speaking of citizens. Born and bred Americans whose parents or grandparents came here fleeing f**ed up authoritarian or socialist regimes.
The best analogy here is to Irish Catholic Americans, who in an earlier era were also suspected of foreign loyalties. During the twentieth century, most Irish Catholics became super-patriotic-- or "more American than the Americans," as it was said of Jack and Bobby Kennedy-- and distinguished themselves in the military and then later in the security agencies.
I suspect the same could be said of Mexican-Americans today. From the asian-american high achievers I know, I see no reason why the same would not apply to them and their children. They tend to be more capitalist and pro-American, or at least inoculated against idiotarian leftism, than their elite peers at Yale or MIT.
#11
unfortunately you cant shut an intel agency down and start over. You got agents (NOT operatives) IE foreigners in place around the world who are used to working with some local CIA operative. There are central files on who the agents are, but the field op knows the people, what makes them tick, etc. You take away a field op and you lose continuity with the agents, and you may lose some agents. You take away ALL the existing field ops, and the whole frigging organization behind them, and you'll have a major disaster.
Old spook, others, care to comment?
The key, as the Op Jour points out, is to remove/reshuffle the senior people. Expect CIA to take it as happily as DoD has taken Rummy - IE not very.
#13
Im not privy to such things, lex - thats one of the things Porter Goss has to go through in detail - clean out the incompetent or marginally loyal, while maintaining as much continuity as possible. But first he has to deal with the more senior folks, like Pillar. But I doubt very much that the network in the ME is totally valueless.
#14
During the 70âs President Carter pretty much gutted the CIA and US Army capability to operate informant strings both in foreign and domestic settings. The Clinton group put an additional speed bump in place when they restricted contact with informants/spies that may have had criminal connections.
Putting an accurate operative in place is a long process of vetting and establishing, if not mutual trust, then at least respect. Once the string is broken, itâs difficult to reestablish with any guarantee itâs not been turned, or co-opted.
Iâm reminded of a young Pakistani SSG Captain I met in the late 60âs in Rawlapindiâ¦his name was something like Moosraf, or Mursharraf or something. Ya neva know where individuals you meet early in your career will end up. Then of course, if thereâs no continuity over the years, it really doesnât matterâ¦to our detriment.
#15
LH - acc to Reuel Marc Gerecht, we do not have any valuable field ops in the middle east. In his words, the CIA is "flying blind" there.
Given the very serious risk that one or more of Joe Wilson's many CIA confreres will, in his anti-Bush mania, go over to the other side, I think it's time to seriously weigh the costs and benefits of shutting it down and starting fresh.
#17
To hell with reshuffling the senior people. Identify the problem people and remove them. Reshuffling means they'd still be there dragging everybody else down with their inbred habits, while removal and replacement puts in new blood and a better chance for new thinking into the organization.
#18
I like Gerecht, but he's not as current as he'd like to think he is... However, as RN pointed out, the days of one operative handling the same cases for years and years is long gone, if it ever was. Turnover of agents handling cases is as regular and scheduled as are, say, military assignments.
I've always regretted that Bush didn't sack the top three to five echelons of the CIA and the FBI in the days following 9-11. He would have immensely improved the product and service, and he would have had popular support to do it. He could have stiff-armed the lawsuits with urgent national security considerations, and would have done more to protect the USA than all the commissions will ever do.
#20
Only thoughts. Sincerely doubt Bush 41 had anything to do with it. And Rumsfeld didn't do any sort of wholesale firings at DoD, not an accurate comparison.
First thought is that Bush might be too loyal to failing subordinates, like Bush 41. Not likely. Second thought is that the attacks weren't the results of an intel failure, and he sensed that from the beginning--the system needed readjustment, not reconstruction. But while there may have been little to punish, failure to fire left the wrong people (the ones with no imaginations) in charge of the intel he needs to win the GWOT.
Perhaps I'm not objective, but it has always seemed to me that if the law enforcement and immigration enforcement elements had done their jobs, 9-11 couldn't have happened. For example, after John Walker was exposed, the Navy automatically removed every single CMS (crypto) manager from his job and installed new ones, assuming the entire system was broke. If junior seaman Smith makes a mistake that results in damage to his ship, such as running aground or a maintenance casualty, the CO gets relieved because he's ultimately responsible. To the extent that our national law enforcement and intelligence agencies failed to deter and detect al Qaeda's plans, the bosses should have been fired. Every investigation since then has confirmed that the top tiers of the agencies are little more than petrified wood. If we speak of immigration failures, we have to roll State into this as well, and they well deserve a big chunk of the blame.
#22
Field Ops? Growing better - then again they were left to deteriorate to pure shite during the middle Clinton years.
Folks, it takes a 5-6 years of hard work to set up field ops, and a decade until you get full and reliable intelligence flowing from them.
Do the math - we suck right now overall, with some spats that are still very very good, and other ones that are just getting on their feet again.
Plus there are a lot of holdovers from middle management that moved up under Clinton, and whoa re now leaking and spinning like mad, because if they can shove blame onto Bush, the not only get a Republican in trouble (and that tells you they woudl sell the nation for political gain), they also cover their own asses for theer failures prior to 9/11.
As much as I hate to admit it, there are a lot of the desk-bound paper pushers who don't deserve to even lick the boots of the field guys they screw over. And weedin them out will be very hard.
Someone needs to go through the whole intelligence community with a flamethrower - but be sure to have a fire extinguisher for the areas they hit with splashover.
#23
I wouldn't have advised a major CIA/FBI shake-up immediately after 9-11. With repsect to 9-11 much of the information was actually in the system, the signal to noise ratio was way too low though. The intelligence system seems to have been more exposed by the Iraq war although some of the negativity surrounding the Iraq invasion disappears if you assume that the WMD exist and just were shipped to Syria.
The house-cleaning is proceeding at a prudent pace. The accountability comparison for a ship CO is sort of a stretch, because there is a system of training and relieving CO's in place. The shake-up in the intelligence community won't happen through firings it will happen though retirements. With the shake-up will come new plum assignments that will provide the opportunity to pass-over the Richard Clarks of the intelligence world. They will then retire and commence engagement in overt treachery possibly drawing pay from CFR or maybe the Ford Foundation.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/29/2004 22:28 Comments ||
Top||
The White House came out Tuesday against parts of a Senate intelligence reorganization bill, saying they would create "a cumbersome new bureaucracy" for coordinating the activities of 15 spy agencies under a national intelligence director. While endorsing a Senate bill written by Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., the White House said it "is concerned about the excessive and unnecessary detail" in it.
Congress should simply establish the national intelligence director's office, said the White House, leaving the details for later of letting the president and his advisers handle them." Legislatively mandated bureaucracy will hinder, not help, in the effort to strengthen U.S. intelligence capabilities and to preserve our constitutional rights," the White House budget office said in a policy statement to the Senate.
Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, who vice-chaired the Sept. 11 commission, repeated his support for the Collins-Lieberman bill but was not as strong in his endorsement of a version written House Republican leaders and more closely resembling what President Bush wants. He expressed concern, however, that the House bill goes beyond the commission's recommendations. "We believe that some matters that may be very important that may not be part of the core recommendations of the commission should be in our view, preferably, be considered with other legislation," he said.
The Senate on Tuesday followed another Sept. 11 commission recommendation by approving 96-0 an amendment to tighten air cargo security through more and better inspections, background checks on air cargo handlers and new requirements for cargo airlines to develop security plans. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said 22 percent of all air cargo is flown on passenger planes. The airlines are required to randomly inspect an undisclosed percentage of that cargo. The Sept. 11 commission report recommended that the Homeland Security Department's Transportation Security Administration intensify efforts to "identify, track and appropriately screen potentially dangerous cargo" on airplanes.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/29/2004 12:40:28 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The White House came out Tuesday against parts of a Senate intelligence reorganization bill, saying they would create "a cumbersome new bureaucracy" for coordinating the activities of 15 spy agencies under a national intelligence director.
Well sheesh, the WH didn't seem to have a problem with a different "cumbersome new bureaucracy" when existing airport security screeners were turned into federal employees.
#3
Indeed. Sums up their editorial policy, their prejudices, and their political leanings all in one neat phrase.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/29/2004 7:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
From the article:
The paper said the government intends to get the records, which reflect confidential communications between the journalists Philip Shenon and Judith Miller and their sources, from third parties unlikely to be interested in challenging its authority.
Did the NY Times just confirm with this phrase the source was a US governemnt employee.
"We are very troubled at this brazen intrusion into our relationship with our sources, which is unconstitutional and endangers our free press," he said.
What the f*ck is wrong with these people? Its the lack of candor, the hidden agendas engendered by using unnamed sources that threaten freedom of the press.
I bet the day after the NY Times is forced to release those records, they will still be publishing stories using confidential sources. It's a bad habit, like crack for those folks.
September 29, 2004 -- The Justice Department has charged that a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office â potentially endangering the lives of federal agents. The stunning accusation was disclosed yesterday in legal papers related to a lawsuit the Times filed in Manhattan federal court.
The suit seeks to block subpoenas from the Justice Department for phone records of two of its Middle Eastern reporters â Philip Shenon and Judith Miller â as part of a probe to track down the leak. The Times last night flatly denied the allegation.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago charged in court papers that Shenon blew the cover on the Dec. 14, 2001, raid of the Global Relief Foundation â the first charges of their kind under broad new investigatory powers given to the feds under the Patriot Act.
"It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times," Fitzgerald said in an Aug. 7, 2002, letter to the Times' legal department.
He said he understood journalists' concerns about protecting the identities of their sources, but national security and preventing leaks that thwart probes into "terrorist fund-raising" trump such confidentiality. "I would posit that the circumstances here â the decision by the reporter to provide a tip to the subject of a terrorist fund-raising inquiry which seriously compromised the integrity of the investigation and potentially endangered the safety of federal law-enforcement personnel â warrant such cooperation in full," Fitzgerald said.
Times lawyer George Freeman told The Post that Fitzgerald "wrongly" suggested that Shenon alerted the Islamic charity to the raid. "We deny he tipped anyone off," Freeman said. He added that Global Relief would have anticipated the raid in any case because the feds had already hit the office of another suspected terror-funding Islamic charity, the Holy Land Foundation, and the government had frozen the assets of several other charities.
Assholes
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/29/2004 9:13 Comments ||
Top||
#6
If all that is true, that is at least two felonies for Mr. Shenon.
Posted by: ed ||
09/29/2004 9:26 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The NYT and cronies are truly stupid.
If they get what they appear to want - the U.S. loses and terrorists win - they'll be among the first to be killed.
Earth to facist/communist/terrorist-loving press: The only freedom of the press your pet dictators and terrorists will give you is the FREEDOM OF THE GRAVE.
I'll gladly send you the 2 cents you need to buy a clue.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/29/2004 10:00 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The NY Times is fast devolving into a lifestyle guide.
The Times is no more necessary for news or info than a browser and a set of bookmarked sites like RB. Childless urbanites seeking to refine their style and talking points turn to the Times' news and OpEd pages the same way they turn to the arts n leisure section.
#10
"...Global Relief would have anticipated the raid in any case because the feds had already hit the office of another suspected..." So this S for brains says it doesn't matter if the reporters broke the law.Wonder if he is related to the Preis of Oaklnd city Council and C of Police.
Assholes is right,can't call him a prick.A prick is the best part of a man(or so my ex tells me).
#11
The Constitution doesn't say a damned word about newspapers and confidential sources. So much for that dodge. US law does have some words about "obstruction of justice" and "accessory before the fact to a felony", however...
#13
For those of you who don't live in Illinois, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is not a man to cross lightly. The NYT better think about cutting these reporters loose.
From The New York Times, an article published on September 16
A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday. The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms. ...
The intelligence estimate, the first on Iraq since October 2002, was prepared by the National Intelligence Council and was approved by the National Foreign Intelligence Board under John E. McLaughlin, the acting director of central intelligence. Such estimates can be requested by the White House or Congress, but this one was initiated by the intelligence council under George J. Tenet, who stepped down as director of central intelligence on July 9, the government officials said. ...
President Bush, who was briefed on the new intelligence estimate, has not significantly changed the tenor of his public remarks on the war's course over the summer, consistently emphasizing progress while acknowledging the difficulties. ....
The new estimate revisits issues raised by the intelligence council in less formal assessments in January 2003, the officials said. Those documents remain classified, but one of them warned that the building of democracy in Iraq would be a long, difficult and turbulent prospect that could include internal conflict, a government official said.
The new estimate by the National Intelligence Council was approved at a meeting in July by Mr. McLaughlin and the heads of the other intelligence agencies, the officials said. Its pessimistic conclusions were reached even before the recent worsening of the security situation in Iraq, which has included a sharp increase in attacks on American troops and in deaths of Iraqi civilians as well as resistance fighters. Like the new National Intelligence Estimate, the assessments completed in January 2003 were prepared by the National Intelligence Council, which is led by Robert Hutchings and reports to the director of central intelligence. The council is charged with reflecting the consensus of the intelligence agencies. The January 2003 assessments were not formal National Intelligence Estimates, however, which means they were probably not formally approved by the intelligence chiefs.
The new estimate is the first on Iraq since the one completed in October 2002 on Iraq's illicit weapons program. A review by the Senate Intelligence Committee that was completed in July has found that document to have been deeply flawed. ....
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
09/29/2004 10:46:42 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Here's a head-turner for a security-nervous city: A large white object was spotted in the skies above the nation's capital in the predawn hours Wednesday. Pentagon police said the Defense Department is testing a security blimp - fully equipped with surveillance cameras. The white blimp was spotted early Wednesday morning hovering at various times over the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol. The device is expected to remain in the skies until tomorrow, authorities said.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/29/2004 9:17:40 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Phoenix has better UFOs than they do. It got a fully illuminated "V"-wing aircraft hovering over it for the better part of an hour, with some people videotaping it straight up a couple hundred feet over their houses, and it was maybe three days before the government insisted it hadn't happened and nobody had seen anything, releasing a panoramic view of the city at night, with a "See! See! No UFO there!" statement, which impressed no one but the local TV news, who dutifully ran with it. I figure it was a Groom Lake (something else that does not exist, unless you drive out there) plane that had a "blow out" of something or other.
#5
Just thinking, do you realize a decent blimp carrier would need to be 9 km in length? I mean just to get a good alpha blimp strike going from the deck.
Suicide attackers armed with hidden explosives that can weigh as little as a cell phone pose a serious threat to the nation's aviation system despite billions being spent on new efforts to tighten security, according to more than a dozen members of Congress and security consultants. The nearly simultaneous bombings of two Russian airliners in midair on Aug. 24 prompted the U.S. Transportation Security Administration to unveil new security equipment and to order more aggressive searches of passengers. But alarming vulnerabilities remain: There's no reliable way to detect bombs under people's clothing, and the vast majority of carry-on bags are not checked for explosives. "We have very low protection against a suicide bomber strapped with explosives," says Rep. John Mica, chairman of the House Aviation subcommittee. "It ushers in a whole new era of danger for the aviation industry."
Security officials have struggled for years to defend against plane bombings. Blowing up jets is a high-priority goal for terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, which has tried to bring down planes with nitroglycerin poured into a bottle of contact lens solution and plastic explosives molded into a shoe. But the Russian bombings, likely carried out by Chechen female suicide operatives, have renewed fears that a determined terrorist could slip past U.S. security measures. Many of today's modern explosives — and even some older varieties — would be nearly impossible to detect as long as the passenger carrying them was not flagged for additional airport security checks. "It's a matter of time before what happened in Russia happens in Australia, the UK or the United States," says Chris Yates, aviation security editor for Jane's Transport magazine.
A key distinction between explosives and weapons such as guns or knives is detectability. Airport X-ray machines and metal detectors are designed to find metal and weapons, not explosives. Plastique, TNT, nitroglycerin and other common ingredients in bombs can be detected with machines that test for trace amounts of explosives. But security officials typically only do the test after a traveler arouses suspicion, such as by purchasing a ticket at the last minute. In the "trace" detection test, security workers swab a suitcase, purse or laptop. The swab is fed into a device the size of a computer, which can reliably spot extremely small amounts of explosives. However, the test is mainly used on bags, not people. And since the vast majority of bags are not tested, it is not a reliable way to prevent explosives from getting on board flights.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
09/29/2004 12:03:39 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#5
Fred, have you ever considered handing over the ISP addresses of some of these trolls to the FBI? There may be a few who need to be monitored.
As to the above article, despite such ease of bringing explosives on board and the overwhelming predominance of terror attacks being carried out by males of Middle Eastern descent, profiling will still be regarded as the scourge of modern civilization.
As I've said before; Norm Mineta and every single one of our representatives and senators all need to be forced to use public transportation. When all of these parasites are flying along side of us in commercial jet aircraft, their tune regarding profiling will change in a New York minute.
#6
If a man or woman is willing to die to blow up a plane, I don't think there is much anyone can do about it. The hand held explosive detectors are a joke. I popped my airbags and went to the airport a few hours later. Even though I told the screener I had explosive residue on me and my bags from the airbags, the sniffer did not pick up anything. I seriously doubt even the new walk though sniffers can detect explosives hidden in body cavities.
Posted by: ed ||
09/29/2004 0:34 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Zenster, I guess our Serbian troll who thinks underscores are the suppressed truth goes through anonymous proxy servers.
And I bet the FBI has a file on Boris alone in the basement already.
#8
UFO Troll, it is you inviting the terrs to US soil. If US did not try to deal with them outside and tie them there, they would see it as an invitation to US soil, in fact, they already did on 9/11. Simply because no one responded in any meaningfull fashion to all previous attacks.
But logic is not something that you ever displayed in any quantity. Now, scurry away.
#9
It is possible to ban a range. Sure, it may prevent some random visitor to se RB, but Boris would have to seek another ISP. And another, and another. You get the idea.
#15
The thing is he is likely using compromised machines not proxies, he gets them from his other small penised buddies on IRC some place. He would just register again and again.
#17
I have zero problem with registration. I just hate the thought of creating any more work for Fred and the gang. With the flurry of trolls lately, registration might prove to be less work in the long run tho.
#19
Maybe Mr. Mossad will laser designate Boris's bed for the IDF Apaches.
Posted by: ed ||
09/29/2004 1:41 Comments ||
Top||
#20
I'm all for registration. We still have fun over at LGF, when Charles sometimes lets the guard down for a good night of "drinking" threads.
Fer Fark's sake, even AOL'ers can post here.
#21
the best part of Boris ran down his mother's leg. Wonder which sailor in the Israeli Navy left it?....That's why he's such an antisemitic nutjob
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/29/2004 7:35 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Registration Now! Typekey is so effective I can't comment at Captain's Quarters. Probably something the old man said before he went over to the dark side.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/29/2004 8:41 Comments ||
Top||
#23
No. I say simply put any post coming from the proxies in the "fertilizer" hopper which doesnt get much attention and is a circular queue (in ordr to prevent flooding).
Put otherwise unidentified posts in the moderator queue. After they get approved, add the IP to a list of "may be OK IP addresses. After 5 "approved" posts, the IP joins the "good" IP list.
This will put "known good" poster's IPs that are outside of the ban range in the "green light" status (i.e. if you post regularly and are not a troll, your posts go directly to the page instead of to the holding area), most other new posters into the "waiting area" where they will get approved, and the known troll adresses into the "red light" - where they get held until somone wants to go in and clean them out.
#27
They shouldn't allow explosives on to the planes to begin with. Its just stupid, eventually one will explode. Is that what happen to the Russian planes?
Posted by: Jennifer ||
09/29/2004 15:03 Comments ||
Top||
#28
I haven't heard a word from the bum since Gentle disappeared. And with Murat silent for the last few days, I'm beginning to think there's a manage e trois going on.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/29/2004 15:17 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Does anybody know whether or not dogs (or pigs) would be useful in sniffing out explosives on passengers at airports? (#26)
#33
Fred, your web site is an anti-American snake pit of hate inviting terrorism on US soil and revenge against American troops, either shut it down or stop censoring the truth -- below is one small example of your censorship.
#3 Come now Rantburgers, your Zionist lies about WMD and propaganda are killing Americans, the Iraqis are defending against you and the naive Americans are innocent victims whose blood is on your hands.
Posted by: UFO [http://politicsandcurrentevents.com] 2004-09-06 12:53:42 PM
#6 By deleting the truth Rantburg is inciting more hatred and violence against Americans who think that they are fighting for their country when in fact they are fighting and dying for Israel. Fred Pruitt, American blood is dripping from your hands.
Posted by: UFO 2004-09-06 1:39:27 PM
BTW, the evidence of treason against the United States by you and Steve White of many others is overwhelming, so instead of threatening patriotic posters give some thought to the case that can be presented against you.
#34
Fred, your web site is an anti-American snake pit of hate inviting terrorism on US soil and revenge against American troops, either shut it down or stop censoring the truth -- below is one small example of your censorship.
#3 Come now Rantburgers, your Zionist lies about WMD and propaganda are killing Americans, the Iraqis are defending against you and the naive Americans are innocent victims whose blood is on your hands.
Posted by: UFO [http://politicsandcurrentevents.com] 2004-09-06 12:53:42 PM
#6 By deleting the truth Rantburg is inciting more hatred and violence against Americans who think that they are fighting for their country when in fact they are fighting and dying for Israel. Fred Pruitt, American blood is dripping from your hands.
Posted by: UFO 2004-09-06 1:39:27 PM
BTW, the evidence of treason against the United States by you and Steve White of many others is overwhelming, so instead of threatening patriotic posters give some thought to the case that can be presented against you.
#35
Fred, your web site is an anti-American snake pit of hate inviting terrorism on US soil and revenge against American troops, either shut it down or stop censoring the truth -- below is one small example of your censorship.
#3 Come now Rantburgers, your Zionist lies about WMD and propaganda are killing Americans, the Iraqis are defending against you and the naive Americans are innocent victims whose blood is on your hands.
Posted by: UFO [http://politicsandcurrentevents.com] 2004-09-06 12:53:42 PM
#6 By deleting the truth Rantburg is inciting more hatred and violence against Americans who think that they are fighting for their country when in fact they are fighting and dying for Israel. Fred Pruitt, American blood is dripping from your hands.
Posted by: UFO 2004-09-06 1:39:27 PM
BTW, the evidence of treason against the United States by you and Steve White of many others is overwhelming, so instead of threatening patriotic posters give some thought to the case that can be presented against you.
#36
Fred, your web site is an anti-American snake pit of hate inviting terrorism on US soil and revenge against American troops, either shut it down or stop censoring the truth -- below is one small example of your censorship.
#3 Come now Rantburgers, your Zionist lies about WMD and propaganda are killing Americans, the Iraqis are defending against you and the naive Americans are innocent victims whose blood is on your hands.
Posted by: UFO [http://politicsandcurrentevents.com] 2004-09-06 12:53:42 PM
#6 By deleting the truth Rantburg is inciting more hatred and violence against Americans who think that they are fighting for their country when in fact they are fighting and dying for Israel. Fred Pruitt, American blood is dripping from your hands.
Posted by: UFO 2004-09-06 1:39:27 PM
BTW, the evidence of treason against the United States by you and Steve White of many others is overwhelming, so instead of threatening patriotic posters give some thought to the case that can be presented against you.
#37
Fred, your web site is an anti-American snake pit of hate inviting terrorism on US soil and revenge against American troops, either shut it down or stop censoring the truth -- below is one small example of your censorship.
#3 Come now Rantburgers, your Zionist lies about WMD and propaganda are killing Americans, the Iraqis are defending against you and the naive Americans are innocent victims whose blood is on your hands.
Posted by: UFO [http://politicsandcurrentevents.com] 2004-09-06 12:53:42 PM
#6 By deleting the truth Rantburg is inciting more hatred and violence against Americans who think that they are fighting for their country when in fact they are fighting and dying for Israel. Fred Pruitt, American blood is dripping from your hands.
Posted by: UFO 2004-09-06 1:39:27 PM
BTW, the evidence of treason against the United States by you and Steve White of many others is overwhelming, so instead of threatening patriotic posters give some thought to the case that can be presented against you.
#38
Fred, your web site is an anti-American snake pit of hate inviting terrorism on US soil and revenge against American troops, either shut it down or stop censoring the truth -- below is one small example of your censorship.
#3 Come now Rantburgers, your Zionist lies about WMD and propaganda are killing Americans, the Iraqis are defending against you and the naive Americans are innocent victims whose blood is on your hands.
Posted by: UFO [http://politicsandcurrentevents.com] 2004-09-06 12:53:42 PM
#6 By deleting the truth Rantburg is inciting more hatred and violence against Americans who think that they are fighting for their country when in fact they are fighting and dying for Israel. Fred Pruitt, American blood is dripping from your hands.
Posted by: UFO 2004-09-06 1:39:27 PM
BTW, the evidence of treason against the United States by you and Steve White of many others is overwhelming, so instead of threatening patriotic posters give some thought to the case that can be presented against you.
#39
Fred, your web site is an anti-American snake pit of hate inviting terrorism on US soil and revenge against American troops, either shut it down or stop censoring the truth -- below is one small example of your censorship.
#3 Come now Rantburgers, your Zionist lies about WMD and propaganda are killing Americans, the Iraqis are defending against you and the naive Americans are innocent victims whose blood is on your hands.
Posted by: U F O [http://politicsandcurrentevents.com] 2004-09-06 12:53:42 PM
#3 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by: U F O TROLL 2004-09-06 12:53:42 PM
#6 By deleting the truth Rantburg is inciting more hatred and violence against Americans who think that they are fighting for their country when in fact they are fighting and dying for Israel. Fred Pruitt, American blood is dripping from your hands.
Posted by: U F O 2004-09-06 1:39:27 PM
BTW, the evidence of treason against the United States by you and Steve White of many others is overwhelming, so instead of threatening patriotic posters give some thought to the case that can be presented against you.
#40
Fred, your web site is an anti-American snake pit of hate inviting terrorism on US soil and revenge against American troops, either shut it down or stop censoring the truth -- below is one small example of your censorship.
#3 Come now Rantburgers, your Zionist lies about WMD and propaganda are killing Americans, the Iraqis are defending against you and the naive Americans are innocent victims whose blood is on your hands.
Posted by: U F O [http://politicsandcurrentevents.com] 2004-09-06 12:53:42 PM
#3 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by: U F O TROLL 2004-09-06 12:53:42 PM
#6 By deleting the truth Rantburg is inciting more hatred and violence against Americans who think that they are fighting for their country when in fact they are fighting and dying for Israel. Fred Pruitt, American blood is dripping from your hands.
Posted by: U F O 2004-09-06 1:39:27 PM
BTW, the evidence of treason against the United States by you and Steve White of many others is overwhelming, so instead of threatening patriotic posters give some thought to the case that can be presented against you.
#42
Fred, your web site is an anti-American snake pit of hate inviting terrorism on US soil and revenge against American troops, either shut it down or stop censoring the truth -- below is one small example of your censorship.
#3 Come now Rantburgers, your Zionist lies about WMD and propaganda are killing Americans, the Iraqis are defending against you and the naive Americans are innocent victims whose blood is on your hands.
Posted by: UFO 2004-09-06 12:53:42 PM
#6 By deleting the truth Rantburg is inciting more hatred and violence against Americans who think that they are fighting for their country when in fact they are fighting and dying for Israel. Fred Pruitt, American blood is dripping from your hands.
Posted by: UFO 2004-09-06 1:39:27 PM
BTW, the evidence of treason against the United States by you and Steve White of many others is overwhelming, so instead of threatening patriotic posters give some thought to the case that can be presented against you.
A call from a US-based Iranian TV personality has prompted thousands of Iranians to protest for more freedoms.
People took to the streets of the capital, Tehran, and other cities on Sunday after Ahura Pirouz Khaleghi Yazdi urged protests across Iran.
The exile has predicted Iran's Islamic government will fall on 1 October.
Nobody had heard of Mr Yazdi until a few months ago when he set up a satellite channel in California to try to overthrow the Iranian government.
Since then he has become a hot topic of conversation both among disaffected Iranians and exiled opposition groups.
For several weeks he has been declaring that he intends to return to Iran on 1 October to end the rule of Islamic clerics.
He has called on the Iranian diaspora to accompany him in his so-called liberation flight and has urged his supporters inside the country to stage protests.
He is advocating peaceful means and civil disobedience.
TV power
Mr Yazdi, who seems to be about 50, apparently left Iran when he was a child - and his command of the Persian language is poor.
The pro-government press in Tehran has described him as insane.
His simplistic views about overthrowing the Islamic government singlehandedly have also angered serious exile opposition leaders who have labelled him a demagogue.
But analysts say the fact that thousands of people heeded his call and took to the streets on Sunday evening proves that Iranians are desperate for change.
The Yazdi phenomenon also shows how US-based opposition satellite TV stations are becoming an important means of putting pressure on the Iranian government.
Posted by: tipper ||
09/29/2004 11:55:21 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
At one site I saw recently people had reported that one effective protest method was dumping horse manure into the houses of the pro regime friday prayer readers.
#2
Just because the mullahs say that someone is insane doesn't necessarily make it not so. If this Yazdi is the moonbat who's talking about flying fifty chartered airliners into Teheran International, than I'm kind of concerned if anybody's taking him seriously. It has all the earmarks of a Children's Crusade. I don't want to hear about a couple hundred child crusaders rotting away on the Iranian equivalent of Death Row in a couple of weeks.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
09/29/2004 16:04 Comments ||
Top||
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazzi said on Tuesday that Tehran would "react" militarily if Israel were to launch an airstrike against any of its nuclear facilities. "We don't use our capabilities as first user, but it is defensive and we would react to it," he told CNN. Asked what he meant by "react," Kharazzi said, "You have to wait and see."
Kharazzi made his comments after being asked how Iran would respond if Israel were to conduct an attack on its facilities, similar to when Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility in 1981. Israel has given no indication that it would take such an action against Iran. In the interview, Kharazzi said Iran is not developing nuclear weapons and that "we are against nuclear bombs. It's not part of our defense strategy, and we do not believe that it would add to the security of the country. Be assured that we do not have such a program at all."
The United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has demanded that Iran suspend uranium-enrichment and centrifuge activities, but Iran has rejected that demand. Kharazzi said Tehran is cooperating with IAEA inspectors, and he accused the United States of mischaracterizing what is going on because Washington "is looking for its own interest and has got its own political motivation. "Iran is quite transparent. All the sites are under inspection of IAEA." Kharazzi did acknowledge that Iran is developing long-range and medium-range missiles that could hit targets throughout the Middle East and possibly into Europe, but he said the weapons are for "defensive" purposes. "Certainly, we have to be able to defend ourselves. And, you see, there [are] threats these days against Iran. And, therefore, we have to be able to defend," he said, before adding, "And we are able to defend."
In an interview Monday on Fox News, President Bush said the United States was determined that Tehran not develop a nuclear weapon. "We've made it clear: Our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon," Bush said. "We are working our hearts out so that they don't develop a nuclear weapon, and the best way to do so is to continue to keep international pressure on them." Bush said he hopes to resolve the matter diplomatically. "All options are on the table, of course, in any situation. But diplomacy is the first option," he said.
Last week, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said Iran would pursue its nuclear program "whether under supervision or not." The IAEA urged Iran to "hold back," saying it is in Iran's interest to rebuild confidence with the rest of the world.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
09/29/2004 1:23:23 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Kharazzi did acknowledge that Iran is developing long-range and medium-range missiles that could hit targets throughout the Middle East and possibly into Europe, but he said the weapons are for "defensive" purposes."
They intend to defend themselves as far away as possible.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/29/2004 1:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Hit Iran now before they can build any more missiles. Hit all of the missile fabrication plants in addition to their nuclear science facilities. Hit all of the air raid shelters at every target site. Seeing Tehran's government buildings listed as targets on the order of battle would hardly break my heart either.
#3
Bravo Zenster! You get the cigar, by hitting it right on the head! I'm afraid now that MOSSAD may come to interview you for leaking their top secret military plans.
#9
Word of advice to Iran's ruling mullahs concerning Israel allowing Iran's nuke programme to proceed ...forget about it!
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/29/2004 15:29 Comments ||
Top||
#10
If Iran wants to stand infront of their Nuke sites and defend them, I'm not about to call "foul". In fact, I encourage them to stand their and watch the explosions.
Posted by: Charles ||
09/29/2004 18:46 Comments ||
Top||
....There are no Martin Luthers in Islam. But the Solzhenitsyns of Islam are everywhere. Solzhenitsyn was not a reformer of communism. He was a dissenter and he spent many years in exile for his opposition to communism. He would have been completely neglected and forgotten had it not been for the free world that remembered him and made his voice to be heard.
Today the dissenters of Islam are ostracized and scorned by the ummah and they are in hiding. Nonetheless they are active and express their dissent unreservedly. The majority of Muslims are not going to hear them. They are ignored. It is again up to the free people to provide a venue for these voices of dissent to be heard.
Don't ask; "where is the Muslim Solzhenitsyn". It is these Muslim Solzhenitsyns who ask; "where are the free people". "Why no one is listening?", "Why they are we ignored?"
forwhat its worth, I think cable TV should have one of these guys on at least for 15 minutes a week --- it would balance the many 'the terrorists don't speak for Islam' people who've been on TV every month since 9-11
#1
You need to have someone write about it the way Solzhenitsyn die in "The Gulag Archipeligo". I have always been disappointed that there is not someone out there that is muslim and believes faithfully in his religion but is vehemently opposed to the terrorism, violence, restrictions on women, eduction and medicine, etc. to come out and write a great expose in the form of classic novel. Rushdie isn't muslim and his work was typical upper west side radical chic ha, ha, ha until it got dangerous. Where are you Ali?
Posted by: Jack is Back ||
09/29/2004 14:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
At this point any would be Martin Luthers are given "special attention" by Binny and his minions...
The West must stop associating Islam with terrorism, violence and poverty, top officials from three southeast Asian nations said.
Why? Terrorism associates itself with Islam, so why shouldn't it go both ways?
In separate speeches before the U.N. General Assembly on Monday, leaders from Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines said Islam is not an impediment to modernity and democracy and should not be viewed as incompatible with economic growth and ethnic tolerance. Indonesia's Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda said the success of his country's first-ever direct presidential elections this month is proof of an Islamic nation's commitment to the democratic process. "As the country with the largest Muslim population, Indonesia has proven that Islam can be a bastion of democracy and social justice," he said. Indonesia -- which has arrested more than 150 militants in the past two years -- is seen as an important front in the fight against terrorism. The Jemaah Islamiyah militant group has been blamed for several major attacks in Indonesia, including the October 2002 bombings on the island of Bali that killed 202 people, mostly foreign tourists.
In the southern Philippines, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front has been fighting for an independent Muslim territory for about three decades. Another separatist group, Abu Sayyaf, has a 13-year history of kidnappings and beheadings and envisions turning a string of southern islands into an Islamic enclave. "The Philippines believes that conflicts should be addressed before terrorism can begin to define or exploit the conflict. This can be done by working together with other nations," Philippines Foreign Minister Alberto Romulo said.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/29/2004 2:54:03 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't associate Islam just with terrorism, violence and poverty. I also associate it with religious persecution, genocide, tyranny, sexism, racism, blind exultation of criminal behavior, homicide, homosexual hatred, genital mutilation, pederasty, selling of girls to men old enough to their grandfather, and a general, haven't bathed for a week, stinky smell. Is that clashy enough for you Abdullah?
Posted by: ed ||
09/29/2004 1:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Someone in JihadWatch asked succinctly: "What's the difference between islamic Jizya and Bumiputraism?".
Badawi himself an islamic student must necessarily BS and root for his own kind. Problem is this is a world after 9/11, Bali and Beslan and the World notices. He himself in his younger days in the Public Service Commission more than 3 decades ago was already sneaking in his kindreds for government employment without making the minimal grades.
#3
"The West must stop associating Islam with terrorism..."
If Muslims did a whole lot more to stop terrorists associating Islam with terrorism I think we'd be getting somewhere. It isn't Taoists, Anglicans, Buddhists or Sikhs whose beds are infested with fleas.
#4
Islam is not an impediment to modernity and democracy and should not be viewed as incompatible with economic growth and ethnic tolerance.
Thanks, Mark - I need a good laugh as I take to my desk in the morning.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
09/29/2004 3:43 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Bulldog - by their own admission on the Beeb on Sunday eve (chat-show response to the dirty-bomb drama), the Muslim Council of GB said that 9% of London's population was muslim (9% of 8 million = 720,000 muslims in London). Of this the representative of MCB said that only 1% of the muslim population were fanatics that posed a potential threat (1% of 720,000 = 7,200). Loose figures admittedly, but as a crude guide we have 7,200 fundies in London. So why do the MCB bitch that we have 500 people in Belmarsh and other establishments? I see a good case for repatriating/ detaining 7,000. We may need a particularly inhospitable Scottish island for this - where did those anthrax experiments occur fifty odd years ago?
Posted by: Howard UK ||
09/29/2004 4:03 Comments ||
Top||
#6
No. They must be sent to Northern Ireland were that wonderful multicultrial society will welcome them with open *arms.
#7
Gruinard., Howard. As regards the problem of Islamic fundies - there may be a time when we have to actually implement penalties for treasonous behaviour, which will encourage the 'enemy within' to pack off or shut up. If/when we do get our 9/11, I don't see public opinion tolerating the like of Hamza or Red Ken's imported hate-mongers getting away with so much as one instance of shit speech. But that'll probably be what it takes before we address the issue of disloyalty to the country seriously. Of course, the multi-cultis' agenda of segregating groups and discouraging cultural assimilation hasn't helped matters. We must both know plenty of people born and raised in the UK, speak no other language than English (and often talk rather posh), do all things other Brits their age do, yet 'aren't sure' where they feel they belong because of their skin colour and an insistence that they should hold to the habits of their parents, whatever they might be. The domestic cultural 'situation' isn't helped by people who dig trenches for every perceived minority group.
#8
Yep, know hwat you mean - sweet fa will happen util our very own 9/11-Bali-Madrid and then will be the time for the normal muslims to come off the fence and stop speaking'with forked tongue'. Until then put your tin hat on and brace.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
09/29/2004 4:53 Comments ||
Top||
#11
It is a lovely place in November, I can assure you.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/29/2004 11:49 Comments ||
Top||
#12
There IS a difference between the Arabic Moslems and the island Moslems, at least in Indonesia. The Indonesians actually despise the Arabs, considering them uncouth, ruthless, offensive, inexcusable, and "unbrotherly." The Arab Moslems probably hate them because of their lack of deference to the "master race" of Arabia.
#13
Outer Hebrides sounds good Mojo - I'm sure we have other far-flung outposts of our once great empire which are equally suitable... I think we still own a couple of rocks in the Atlantic somewhere.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
09/29/2004 16:22 Comments ||
Top||
#14
The Qur'an itself directly associates Islam with terrorism (as well as Slavery, Rape, Murder, Robbery, etc...) Just look at the life of Muhammad himself. Are these muslims saying that the 'holy' book of Islam is wrong?
Qurâan 9:5 âFight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.â
Qurâan 9:3 âAllah is not bound by any contract or treaty with non-Muslims, nor is His Apostle.â
Pakistan possesses the human material to become a modern state, but it has been squandered for three generations by an elite in the belief that the country's critical strategic location will be enough to get it through difficult times. And now that the "distant future has arrived," Pakistan is unprepared to face a fast-changing world, according to Stephen P Cohen, head of the South Asia programme at the Brookings Institution. In his new book — The Idea of Pakistan — to be published in Pakistan in October by Vanguard Pakistan, the eminent South Asia scholar charts out six possible scenarios for Pakistan's future; from the indefinite continuation of the present military-directed order to the rise of authoritarianism to the country's breakup to the emergence of an Islamist state to a major war with India and its aftermath. Dr Cohen considers it a reasonable possibility that in five years Pakistan will be "pretty much what it is today". Pakistan's present political and social order, dominated by an oligarchic establishment with the military at its core and a centre-right ideology strongly resistant to social or political change, could continue "indefinitely".
It's called "stagnation." It's a conservative authoritarian strain held in stasis, that can't change out of its mold because of the equally conservative sectarian forces. Were the oligarchs to weaken and be displaced by the sectarians, the result would be a state that's failed on a spectacular scale, complete with breakup and warfare among the remnants. If the sectarians were thoroughly destroyed — the least likely possibility — the probable result would be their return in another guise; the sectarian idea's ingrained into the very idea of Pakistan. While the mullahs were regrouping, the oligarchs would be arguing among themselves over the boodle. Such liberals as there are get trampled under any scenario. I can't see them as being a force except as a minor ally to some other faction. "Secularism" seems to have only four letters in Urdu.
#1
You'll note a reoccuring theme among leftist collectives like the Brookings Institute. Condescending racism. It goes very far back, philosophically, and represents the desire to find somebody they can feel superior to. They also have a deep and abiding hatred of those who prove that they are neither inferior, nor wish to be lorded over by neurotic leftists. The list includes African-American slaves, Native Americans, and now any darker skinned peoples who live under the heel of tyrants. How long ago was it that they were saying that Arabs are "incapable" of appreciating or living in a democracy? Now that the Iraqis are clamoring for democracy, it must be the Pakistanis who are "inferior". Next the Bangladeshis? Or will they move south to Africa? It seems in their minds that democracy *destroys* the primitivism and misery that leftists love to see in others.
#2
Mr anonyomous it has destroyed Pakistan. All the major fuck ups occured in the democratic times. The reason is simple feudalism, when you have feudal lords having such a grip over 70% of the country that no one can vote against them and they have armed people in pooling booths to ensure that, where is democracy. The poor man has nowhere to go. Observe the GDP and the Exchange rate of Pak Rupee over the last 20 years and just check who was in power you will see a clear trend there. The growing problem is that a large number of these feudals have turned to religious extremism to keep their people in control and to keep the government out of their affairs.
In a country where 95% people cannot read or write in even in their native language, the only source of influence is their feudal lord or the Mullah in friday prayers. A military dictator is better in the sence that he has a whole Army backing him, which is largely free of the fear of the feudals and enjoy a previlaged status. It was Ayub Dictator ship which lead Pakistan to its industrialization and early capitalist system in 60s when the people where turning commies left and right. The democracy in 70s by bhutto sent PAF fighter pilots to 1973 Nazi-Israel war and nationalized every industry and almost made Pakistan into a communist state. He is also known as the father of the Islamic Nuclear program. Close friends with Gaddafi and Hafiz El Asad. The Zia Dictator ship was instrumental in kicking Russia out of Afghanistan (which came there in the knowledge that the previous bhutto "democracy" is favourable to it. The Nawaz democracy championed the Taliban friendly approcah and brought a huge ammount of religious extremism to play. Not to mention the Kargil fiasco. Now it is the Musharraf Dictator chip which is keeping the country from slipping into a complete religious chaos. Dont forget that the MMA (religious nut coalition) has been able to form government in 2 provinces and is the largest opposition party. It is being supported by Nawaz (whhabi bastard) group and PPP (commie bastards). Before opening your mouth you should know what the fuck you are talking about. It is not the tone I acquire most of the times I know right now the only people who are shouting for democracy in Pakistan are Religoius nuts if you dont believe me go to www.dawn.com (largest English Daily) or www.janggroup.com.pk and then click on The News.
#3
End the Madrassahs, teach the people something they can use besides rote memorization of the Koran, and Pakland could (I repeat, could) become another India. Let the Turbans get in charge and it will be Taliban South
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/29/2004 21:01 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I agree, it is a long way to go before democracy can even be thought about. First it was the communist bastards in the Universsities now it is the religious nuts both in Universities and Madresas, and that segment is growing. The economy has to be strong and the people have to see that working like crazy brings luxuries, and sitting in a Madresa brings a JDAM but that is at least 15-20 years in future.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/29/2004 21:17 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Mrs. D - I was just being snarky.
It's not that you don't make good points - Fawad, because you do. I just think you are being too pessimistic. If they can't handle it cold turkey, then let's look to the future rather than writing them off.
The Indonesians were able to handle it until the spoilers came in.
#9
Overhauling of the social structure to eliminate Feudalism. Transfer of an economy which has 70% employment in Agriculture to an industrial based economy. And the Cultral transformation to make the young ones chase skirts in Bars rather than blow themselves up for the 72 virgins is too much. The bad part is that things have been moving backward for the last 10 years instead of forward. Hence the pessimism.
A generation is only 40 years. I agree the problem is the madrassas - which teach them to move backwards. If that could be changed - they'd see positive change within our lifetime.
#11
Fawad: I can't be as pessimistic about Pakistan as you are, for the simple fact that the problems you cite often cease to be problems when real democracy comes into play. Much of the brutality, the horror, come from pre-democratic systems that are still in play: tribal systems, religious authorities, corruption and anti-democratic political theories. These are not *caused* by democracy, they are its enemies. Compare what has happened to Pakistan with what has happened to an equally subdivided nation, South Africa. Most pundits expected SA to fall into ruin, chaos, and civil war, and are frankly amazed that it didn't--that it had a peaceful transition to democracy *despite* being filled with anti-democratic institutions. So what was the difference? A number of individuals, people of education and goodwill, who understood democracy and were uncompromising about creating it. A relatively small core group of democrats in South Africa *forced* a peaceful transition, by insisting on creating an honest framework for transition of power. And every new person who learned what true democracy *is* becomes a powerful ally to their cause. And though it will take years, slowly "alternative" institutions will fade away, supplanted by democratic institutions.
So what is the democratic alternative for Pakistan? It begins with the creation of a core group of real democrats. People who have seen and learned about democracy from *other* countries. Who optimistically hope that they and other like minded people can *refuse* what degrades the government and people of Pakistan. That they can, even just personally, *refuse* to be corrupted in their office; *refuse* to compromise their core values; and *refuse* to retreat from liberty. Now, these may sound like bold or idealistic goals, and they are, but democracy *is* an idealistic revolution. The most successful revolution to ever exist on the planet. Nation after nation has fallen to its philosophy, in many different forms, but still the same basic concept. It may be an irresistable force, a true global conspiracy. Every democrat can create a hundred more democrats just by telling them the big secret. By letting them know that other people do it, *and it works*.
#12
What do you do in a situation where the people choose "Communism" (Bhutto Democracy), "Nationalization" (Bhutto Part II 1990), Islamic Extremism (Nawaz Part 1 & II). Even if Free and Fair elections are held today, we will have the same problem as in Aljeria. You will have a democratic Islamic Theocracy.
The mindset of that society has to change. The people there cannot change in a day, as 2b says a generation lasts 40 years, provided we start working on the next one now.
I had the misfortune of being stuck there for 5 yerars on a Power Generation Project supposed to last only 1. I saw the post Zia Democracy and the corruption it brought. We paid so much in bribes, it was not even funny any more. Come Musharraf, and a Colonel is appointed from EME, he carries out a thoruogh professional evaluation of our work, signs the approval refuses even our offer to take him out to dinner ( he saw it as bribery) and off we are full payment and back to USA.
This is just a simple Thermal Co-Gen Project we are talking about. I felt the change in environment instantly the day Musharraf came to power, our local employees were not harrassed any more by Nawaz Goons, We faced no problems in closing the project and Handing over which appeared to be impossible in "Democracy".
I respect your sentiments but you have to see that mad house sometime to form the bridge between beautiful words and actual "action Items". As we say we dont even have a rough sketch, the materials guy hasnt even dreamed up a material and we never saw the fabrication needed in even a Sci-Fi movie.
Give it 40 years.
#13
Anonymoose, ". Most pundits expected SA to fall into ruin, chaos, and civil war, and are frankly amazed that it didn't--that it had a peaceful transition to democracy *despite* being filled with anti-democratic institutions."
This is what the international media wanted everyone to believe and everyone now believes it.
* The transition to democracy was in fact wracked with horrendous violence.
* During the last ten years or more, on average one white farmer has been murdered every three days in an ongoing attempt by blacks to take the land by force. It makes Zimbzbwe's statistics seem mild.
* Have a look at how many whites occupy significant positions within the black, Xhosa-dominated government.
* Try to get a job as a white South African.
* SA has the highest rape rate in the world and the highest murder rate, with the exception of Columbia - which is basically in a state of civil war.
* For two weeks after the April 1994 election ushered Nelson Mandela into power, most of the nation was in a state of peaceful euphoria. Then the violence began anew.
#14
And how do you know that Colonel wasn't a democrat? Don't confuse being "soft" with being one. Some of the strongest advocates for real democracy are unbelievably hard-assed, even fearsome: if you get in their way they will kill you. And this is true throughout its history. One of its strongest selling points is that it is *better*, that is, more "efficient", than the systems it replaces. Tribalism, racism, sexism, corruption, religious authority, all are inefficient. They get in the way to economic development. Mafias and organized crime thrive only in poverty in much the same way: success is their enemy, as is education and homogeneous society. So what is left for the anti-democratic institutions to do? They try to subvert democracy, to twist it to their advantage. And for a time, they may have some measure of success. But as a different example, look at India: fighting since its inception as a free nation to stay democratic. Dozens of factions, castes, languages, sensibilities, etc., all duking it out in a democratic chaos. Its will be a long and painful evolution, and it is still far better off than many other "democratic" nations. I say "democratic", even though they aren't, because they must *claim* to be democratic or else fear the attentions of the democrats of the world, the revolutionaries who actively hunt and seek to undermine undemocratic regimes. And this is a concern in Pakistan, too. Forces in Pakistan that are "undemocratic", or are perceived as "anti-democratic", are in the sights of powerful people *outside* of Pakistan, for utter destruction. Not people, but institutions, are seen as "the enemy", whether they know it or not. And democrats are peculiarly tenacious in seeking out, undermining and destroying their enemies.
The US says Syria has agreed to tighten its border with Iraq to prevent militants from crossing the border. The move followed two days of talks in Damascus between Syrian and Iraqi officials and US military commanders, US State Department officials said. There has been no word yet from the Syrian government. The US has long pressed Damascus to crack down on what it sees as terror groups and to prevent insurgents from moving in and out of Syria. "A number of understandings have come out of this meeting with respects to commitment with the Iraqi interim government and the coalition and the Syrians to stop illicit activity across the border," US Secretary of State Colin Powell said in an interview with the AFP news agency. "I think it is a positive step, but what really matters is action and not just an agreement," Mr Powell said. . . .
Mr Boucher declined to comment on "the specific details" of the deal. "But we do have fairly concrete understandings - particularly between the Iraqi government and the Syrian government on thing like communications,.. how they can deploy forces, how they can move together to cut off the border traffic," he said. This follows directly from an apparent breakthrough last week at a meeting between Mr Powell and the Syrian foreign minister, our correspondent says. Washington may feel it has some real leverage at the moment on Damascus, which currently appears particularly isolated, with new UN pressure over its presence in Lebanon, analysts say.
#4
maybe it's an easy gesture cuz they're all out of militants, kinda like closing the barn door after ....
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/29/2004 19:41 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Or maybe he knows that the terrs have pissed of too many people. Now even Ivan wont help Baby Asad because his babies were killed by the muslims in Beslan. Actually he will be worrying about Ivan coming after his ass.
#6
Baby Assad is backing down in Lebanon too. While he's no doubt trying to be squirrelly, he's definitely on the retreat. The US presence in Iraq plus Israel's defeat of the intafada has altered the balance.
A man accused of coordinating Sudan's Janjaweed militia is a legitimate tribal leader, and attempts to pursue him could lead to the "dismemberment" of the country, a top Sudanese official said.
Hey! Sounds good!
The U.S. State Department has named Sheik Musa Hilal and six other Sudanese as suspected coordinators of the government-allied Janjaweed, the Arab militia largely blamed for the violence in Darfur. But Sudan's state minister for foreign affairs defended Hilal as a prominent tribal thief chief.
"So that makes what he's doin' legit, see?"
Hilal "has nothing to do with the Janjaweed. He is a tribal leader, of a very big, very significant tribe," Minister Najeib el-Kheir Abdelwahab said in an interview Tuesday. Sudan welcomed any international attempt to pinpoint Janjaweed leaders, Abdelwahab said. But "by not adequately identifying the leaders of the Janjaweed, by pointing to some tribal leaders ... if we are not cautious about that, you will ignite a significant tribal conflagration. And this can lead ... to the dismemberment of Sudan."
Posted by: Fred ||
09/29/2004 10:35:06 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
As long as he isn't the very model of a modern major general, I say whack him.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/29/2004 19:00 Comments ||
Top||
September 29, 2004: The US Army has installed 100 helmet-mounted displays (HMD) in Stryker armored vehicles deployed in Iraq. The Nomad HMD are being used to provide increased situational awareness for vehicle commanders by displaying command and control information, such as "Blue Force Tracker" friendly forces locations, on the display while the commander is riding with his head outside of the vehicle in the open hatch looking around. It allows the commander to be "heads up" at all times rather than ducking down into the vehicle to check a computer display and then pop back up to look around again.
Nomad uses a low-power laser beam to directly "paint" a picture onto the retina, using a monocle that hangs off the helmet over one eye. The first units were deployed with the 3Rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division currently in Iraq and were field-installed in Kuwait. The second Stryker Brigade, the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry has been impressed with the positive field reports and is requesting increased capabilities out of the device. A second-generation Nomad will have a remote control and the ability to toggle between FBCB2 information, the Stryker's onboard infra-red sensor, and the remote weapon's station image. Down the road, the manufacturer would like to take the cable-based system and switch it to wireless technology to allow the vehicle commander more freedom and to be able to operate the system outside of the vehicle. HMDs are a novelty on armored vehicles, but they have been in use in attack helicopters for over a decade and are starting to show up in large numbers on fighter aircraft around the globe, including American, European, and Russian planes. — Doug Mohney
Posted by: Steve ||
09/29/2004 9:29:59 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It also means more time his gord will be exposed to sniper fire.
#2
Down the road, the manufacturer would like to take the cable-based system and switch it to wireless technology to allow the vehicle commander more freedom and to be able to operate the system outside of the vehicle.
Anyone else having Hammer's Slammers flashbacks?
Crazyhorse -- yes, a vehicle command who's "heads up" is more exposed to snipers and other fire. However, they can see much more and fight more effectively. Like everything else, there are tradeoffs, and the vehicle commander is the one who has to make the call.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
09/29/2004 10:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
At some point in the near future, a large refrigeration vehicle and Jean Claude van Damme and Dolph Lundgren lookalikes wll be spotted on the streets of Baghdad.
September 29, 2004: In the last two days, at least ten hostages were freed, this included two Italian women relief workers, their two Iraqi co-workers, as well as four Egyptian and two Iraqi employees of an Egyptian company installing cell phone gear throughout the country. The Italian relief workers, who had been in the country since the early 90s, and opposed the invasion of Iraq, were threatened with death by their captors if Italy did not remove the 3,000 troops it has in Iraq. Italy refused, and their was universal condemnation of the kidnappers for the death threat. After three weeks of this, the kidnappers agreed to release the women for a million dollars in ransom. The Egyptians appear to be a strictly commercial snatch, with ransom demands being made, and apparently met.
Kidnapping has been a major problem in Iraq for decades. Saddam Hussein and his thugs used it as a way to control the population. If someone's loyalty was in doubt, they, or a member of their family was arrested, or simply grabbed by one of the many official, and semi-official organizations that kept the population terrified into compliance. Saddam maintained over a dozen different police and intelligence organizations, the better to have them keep an eye on each other. In addition, there were dozens of criminal gangs that were allowed, within limits, to operate as long as they did Saddam's dirty work. As with any criminal culture, there was a lot of violence. Saddam was extremely brutal with gangsters who got out of line, and many Iraqis are nostalgic for that particular aspect of the hated Saddam's rule. The current problem comes from the fact that, when Saddam's armed forces were defeated in early 2003, his official, and unofficial, gangs remained in business. Without the restraints of Saddam's secret police, the gangs went wild.
These criminal organizations are found all over Iraq. On the borders, and ports, they specialize in smuggling. In the big cities, they do the usual gangster thing (extortion, theft, loan sharking, prostitution and kidnapping.) In some Sunni Arab and Shia Arab areas, the gangs are religious in orientation, doing violence in the name of God and a future Islamic Republic. They are still gangsters. In most of Iraq, the gangs are restrained by tribal militias or local police forces that can match them in firepower and violence. But in some Sunni Arab areas, the gangs rule. The Sunni Arab city of Fallujah is the most extreme example of this, a place without police or strong local tribal authority, which allows al Qaeda (a terrorist gang) to operate freely. But this is expected to stop by the end of the year, as American and Iraqi troops move in and shut down the gangs. The government understands that crushing the gangs, and bringing the crime rate way down, is a major chore. But the country, and economy, cannot prosper if the gangs are not crushed.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/29/2004 9:23:06 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's difficult for those who have not lived under a totalitarian regime to grasp that the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, Ceausescu, Castro, Arafat et al are basically gangsters who spout bogus ideology. John Gotti in fatigues (or a kaffiyeh).
Every totalitarian leader uses multiple "security forces" that watch and prey on not only their wretched subjects but also each other.
Every totalitarian leader has his finger in as many economic pies as he can find. Arafat's definitely a billionaire (twice over, acc to British intelligence). Castro's probably a billionaire. The mullahs have to a man socked away millions outside of Iran. Today's Russian thieves patterned their offshore money laundering tricks on the CPSU's example during Brezhnev's era. Not a stretch to say that it's the non-western world's "leaders" who keep the private banks of Lugano and Geneva in business.
Crucial to recognize that their ideology is bunk. The only principle sustaining a Saddam or a Brezhnev or a Castro is power: as Winston learns in 1984, the purpose of torture is torture. The purpose of power is power.
With an expansive gesture towards his crumbling border checkpoint, Ra'ad Samarrai expounds upon the digital, paperless future he says lies in store for Iraqi customs control.
"Next month, there will be no paper here only computers," he proclaimed during a visit by U.S. marines to his crumbling concrete offices on the Iraqi-Syrian border.
As head of the al-Waleed customs post on the Iraq-Syrian border, a frontier identified as a major illegal entry point for foreign insurgents joining the anti-U.S. struggle in Iraq, his enthusiasm goes down well with the visiting troops.
It does not yet appear to have infected his colleagues, a collection of middle-aged men behind creaking wooden desks who show few signs of life apart from flicking away a passing fly or reaching for another cigarette.
With few light bulbs let alone computers in offices falling apart after more than a decade of sanctions against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Samarrai's goal of securing his country's borders with technology is at best a fanciful ambition.
So far, the only computer visible in the checkpoint is used to identify stolen cars.
"We don't have any connection to Baghdad," said Ibtissem Hussein, the new machine's operator, tucked away in her booth next to the customs hall. "Somebody has to come along with a new disc once a week so we can update our data."
After being shot at three times in the last month alone, Samarrai admits he is facing an uphill struggle in a border outpost where the smuggling of anything from people to petrol has been a way of life for centuries.
"Do people round here want to stop the foreign fighters? If I'm honest, no," he said.
No one knows the number of potentially al Qaeda-linked foreign insurgents now in Iraq. Whatever their total, their impact is high.
Securing Iraq's borders through the wastes of desert once trodden by the caravans of the ancient Silk Route is no easy task.
In many cases the frontier, which runs for 800 km (500 miles) in the western province of al Anbar alone, is little more than a waist-high sand embankment frequently broached by vehicle smugglers.
Besides patrols by U.S. marines, equipped with heavy machine guns, night vision goggles, helicopters and armoured vehicles, the task since the handover of sovereignty in June 2004 is falling increasingly on Iraq's fledgling border security forces.
In al-Anbar, there are plans for 32 castellated border forts in time for Iraq's planned democratic elections in January, but already, there are signs of trouble. Of eight forts already completed, two have been attacked and destroyed.
Morale among the border police, most of them teenage recruits who have been pushed through a crash course by the U.S. marines, is low.
Receiving about 240,000 Iraqi dinars a month in pay, they complain they are worse off than their urban counterparts.
Holed up in a makeshift, dusty training camp, they are also woefully short of basic equipment such as boots, let alone machine guns and night vision goggles.
"Each time we go out on patrol, we are only given five rounds of ammunition," one recruit complained to the U.S. marine delegation. "I have to pay for the fuel myself."
The Americans, meanwhile, appear to have only one concern.
"So, are you guys keeping out the foreign fighters?" the visiting marine commander asked the recruits the moment he arrived.
The U.S. military admits the situation is far from perfect, but says tightening up Iraq's borders, to be able to monitor who and what is coming in and out, is vital to improving overall security and preventing the insurgency intensifying.
"Right now it's real thin," said one senior military official. "If they get through here, they're in."
With the freedom of movement Iraqis now enjoy, the need for reform is more pressing than ever.
Al Waleed, one of the smaller checkpoints on the Syrian border, sees as many as 2,000 vehicles and 20,000 people crossing each week -- flows unimaginable in the time of Saddam, when only merchants were allowed travel permits and even then had to go through a bureaucratic rigmarole to leave the country.
Foreigners are occasionally picked up -- five Afghans were intercepted at Al Waleed last month, according to police major Maher Dib -- but a nationwide recruitment drive to boost the total number of 16,000 border officials to 24,000 is hitting red tape and cash shortfalls, he said.
At al-Waleed, border officials also complain about a lack of cooperation from Syrians, who "come and see us only when they want a cigarette," said Dib.
All visitors to Iraq are now meant to obtain visas in advance, to try to make it harder for foreign militants to enter the country. In reality, until border posts such as al-Waleed are properly wired up with passport scanners and online databases, there is little to stop the likes of Zarqawi getting in on a tourist visa.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
09/29/2004 1:19:24 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I tried unsucessfully to find the link from a couple of months ago where the Coalition was rebuilding 20 or so border stations from scratch - I think they were on the Syrian border. This Rooters story looks should be weighed against the information available at this link.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/29/2004 2:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Rooters By Ed Cropley.
Glad you were there Ed. Or were you? Weren't you really safe at a bar in the green zone in Bagdad many many miles away. Isn't this all a pack of lies. How would we know either way? No picture of you with the folks you were interviewing. Just "quagmire" BS and racist, defeatist blather. What I said about you Mr Cropley is just as apt to be true since you have no pictures or other evidence to prove you were even there. Please forgive me for not trusting your liberal commie ass or reporting. OK.
Maybe some Marine will do us a favor and have a firearms "accident" right behind your ear.
#4
If Iraq's borders are so porous, why are most of the fighters either fresh Iraqi Shiite recruits for Sadr or Saddam's former security men trying to regain their former perks? The reality is that this is (mainly) a home-grown insurgency.
#5
ZF - sounds like there's a substantial number of non-Iraqi fighters....30-40% ?
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/29/2004 11:23 Comments ||
Top||
#6
More to the point, these border guards are pretty much just sentries. They're not expected to do any fighting. Giving these guys sophisticated equipment would be like casting pearls before swine, right before they sell it off to the mujahideen. The fact that these guys are getting little ammunition and equipment may also be an indicator that our GI's don't really trust them, but are too diplomatic to say so out loud.
#7
FG: ZF - sounds like there's a substantial number of non-Iraqi fighters....30-40% ?
Saddam's security apparatus numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Where the heck are they? I can't believe they all decided to actually work for a living. Many of the American commanders have indicated that most of the guerrilla dead are Iraqi fighters. If most of them were foreigners, why bother taking their dead with them? It's not like they would have any intelligence value for the coalition, given its inability to freely question people in Muslim countries.
India and Bangladesh are likely to finalise plans for joint patrol along the border over the next few days but there has been no meeting point yet over claims of insurgents operating from each other's territory. Bangladesh Rifles chief Major General Jehangir Alam Chowdhury dismissed Delhi's allegations that anti-India insurgent camps were active in Bangladesh. "There is not a single terrorist camp in Bangladesh," he said after the five-day talks with the Border Security Force got underway today. The Bangladeshi force, armed with its own list of anti-Dhaka camps in India, claimed that some of the locations of rebel bases cited by Delhi were cantonment areas or places where the BDR's offices were situated or had been traced to the Bay of Bengal or coastal areas. BSF officials later laughed their asses off away the response, saying Dhaka was playing copycat. The BSF had earlier dismissed the BDR's list of insurgent camps in India suggesting that their locations matched those of BSF outposts or schools.
"No, no! Certainly not!"
Chowdhury went on to dub the insurgent camps a "creation of the media", though he made it clear that forward movement was possible on other issues. BSF chief Ajai Raj Sharma, who listened to Chowdhury rubbishing his claims, looked on with a smile on his face. He spoke once the BDR chief was out of sight — they had come to North Block for a courtesy call on home minister Shivraj Patil — to defend the Indian position. Sharma said he had told his counterparts during the daylong deliberations that there was not much anybody could do if they did not want to look at facts. "If it is daytime and you keep on insisting that it is dark, what can anyone do?" the BSF official asked.
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.
