I wanted to post this for the headline alone... delete if you want to
Disco lights are luring baby turtles to their deaths on the fringes of a Greek marine park in the Mediterranean Sea. Environmentalists say that rare loggerhead turtles scramble out at night from eggs in the sand on beaches in the west Greek island of Zakynthos and instinctively head for the brightest horizon -- normally the white foam of waves under the stars. But neon lights from discos and cafes along the back of the beach at Laganas, built for tourists who also go for boat trips in the bay to try to spot turtles, are often fatally brighter. "Some turtles crawl up the beach the wrong way and die of dehydration or get eaten by seabirds or dogs," said Anders Kofoed, a Danish volunteer working for the Greek conservation group Archelon. "The park isnât working properly." Yeah Iâll say. BTW, if Rantburg breaks the 300th comment mark, will that be a record?
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 5:20:18 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why don't the Greeks put a bright light out to seaward to convince the turtles to head the right way?
#3
I think I may be 300. All praise to Allan, or Allah, whichever is available.
Posted by: af ||
09/05/2003 17:54 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The record's 341, on 4/2/2003...
Posted by: Fred ||
09/05/2003 17:59 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Why does the world ignore me? I've been trying to warn the world (and Greece, in particular) of the growing threat of baby turtle ecstasy use. But do they listen to me? Nooooooooo......
Posted by: Paul ||
09/05/2003 18:09 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Disco lights are luring baby turtles to their deaths...
#7
If you buff up their shells, can they be made into belt buckles?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/05/2003 19:22 Comments ||
Top||
#8
the greeks are a bunch of idiots on many levels (and when i say greeks there is no relation to the greeks of the past - as the current geeks like to believe)--yes i wrote geeks
Damm near killed him! Thanks to Silent Running:
A horrific firecracker accident which left an Illawarra man incontinent and unable to have sex has prompted warnings from police and health authorities. The 26-year-old man suffered a fractured pelvis and severe burns to his genital area after a firecracker exploded between the cheeks of his buttocks. Kids, leave these things to professionals!
The man suffered extensive injuries from the explosion and required emergency surgery. He now has a colostomy and a catheter, and is sexually dysfunctional. Good, now he wonât breed more idiots like himself.
Dr McCurdie said he believed the man had stumbled while the firecracker was in his buttocks, and fell down on it. Thereâs more really gross details at the link, if you really need to know what happens when you sit on an explosive.
It is not known whether the man had been imitating the cult prankster film Jackass, a hit in the United States. In the low-budget film, the men place firecrackers in their buttocks and they shoot into the air. I canât think of any other reason to do something this stupid. The story doesnât say if alcohol was involved, but Iâd say that was a safe bet.
"I used to be a dumbass, back when I had an ass..."
Posted by: Steve ||
09/05/2003 12:16:23 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
with this guy it sounds like a brain injury
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/05/2003 12:50 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Well, at least he got out of the gene pool before he could do any more damage. This guy has taken a figure of speech and has run with it, literally!
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/05/2003 13:26 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I beleive he has received a permanent blow job.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/05/2003 13:59 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I'm a bit tired of the media insinuating that Jackass is somehow responsible for everything. The guy was 26-years old for petes sake.
#5
My son is 28, and would do something like that. Of course, he's our ADOPTED son, and his natural parents really did a nasty number on his brain before he was two. He'll always be twelve to fourteen, intellectually. I can't tell you what the person reported here has as an excuse, but if it's not a good one, this one's a Darwin Award keeper!
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/05/2003 15:05 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The EFL neglected what I feel is the explanation. This took place in Australia. Drunken Aussies, God love 'em, are known to be a bit daft.
#8
Well, according to some (luckily for me) distant aquaintinces, you don't have to be Austrailian to enjoy doing this. Drunk and stupid yes....
Posted by: S ||
09/05/2003 19:57 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Well, gang, I guess we have covered this subject in some depth, so we can move on to the next item of business, which is:
___________________________
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/05/2003 20:48 Comments ||
Top||
EFL/FU:
The U.S. military said on Friday it was pursuing remnants of a large Taliban force in the mountains of southeastern Afghanistan after killing 70 to 100 of them in more than a week of fighting. "We believe we have been very successful, we believe we have the enemy on the run," Colonel Rodney Davis told reporters at Bagram air base. "From what we can determine they have withdrawn to some extent. There has been relatively light resistance in the last 24 hours, but weâre not going to stop, weâre going to press on." Keep after them, boys.
The Taliban force in Zabul province, which numbered up to 1,000 men, was the largest concentration of forces from the Islamic militia since it was ousted from power in late 2001, and the battle, which began on August 25, the biggest in at least 18 months. Zabulâs intelligence chief Khalil Hotak said the corpses of 124 Taliban fighters, including two Arabs, had been found in and around the mountain caves. Davis put the figure slightly lower. "We can confirm coalition and Afghan militia forces have killed somewhere in the range of between 70 and 100 enemy personnel," Davis said. "That is probably a conservative estimate." "Weâre still putting the pieces together, literally."
The commander of Taliban forces in Zabul said only seven of his men had been killed and 10 to 20 wounded, dismissing the U.S. figure as propaganda. "Lies, all lies."
"If their claim is true, why donât they show the bodies," Mullah Abdul Razzaq Nafees told Reuters by satellite phone. Cuz thatâs a islamic thing.
Davis said Operation Mountain Viper would continue against forces he described as "primarily Afghan, primarily Taliban."
So not a lot of Hekmatyar's boyz involved, mostly Paks and a few Arabs...
="Weâre taking the fight to the enemy," he said. "If they move to the west, weâll move to the west. If they move to the north, weâll move to the north." No Tora Bora this time.
In the past, Taliban forces have often frustrated their U.S. pursuers by slipping away into the rugged mountains of southeastern Afghanistan, or over the border into Pakistan. On this occasion, government officials from neighboring provinces say they have sent forces to cut off Taliban escape routes. Goody.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/05/2003 9:18:10 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Chasing the Apache circa 1870 redux. Just don't let them slip back into Mexico boys.
Posted by: Don ||
09/05/2003 9:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This must be a typo, the Dimmocrats said we're not in Afghanistan anymore. I'm confused, I thought we abandoned them and the Taliban were taking over again. Dean said so, so it must be true.
#5
In the middle of this offensive against elusive Taliban in the trackless mountains of Afghan Land, Rooters has the phone number for their commander ? WTF ??
Why don't we pummel the reporter and get the phone number, then give the commander a ring ?
*ring*
Hello?
"Hi, I'm calling about your pizza order" (okay boys, launch the missile...)
Posted by: Carl in NH ||
09/05/2003 11:51 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Sounds like there are conflicting reports. Does the BBC or NYT have someone on the ground who provide an objective assessment?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/05/2003 13:00 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I'd lean toward the Afghani Figures: kinda hard to count bodies from an aircraft.
Showing the bodies on TV, given the location and the reluctance of reporters to bestir themselves from their hotels, is somewhat problematic. Given the Afghanis, I think they'd show the bodies if they had a camera on hand. But they don't, so they can't.
#8
The rebels don't fight that well but boy can the retreat fast! This is an important battle because soon winter will set in and they won't have the air support. I only hope Omar and Osama are amongst them.
From the best theft of the week files:
Australian authorities have ordered an urgent review of security at Sydneyâs international airport after the theft of two mainframe computers from a restricted customs area. It is believed they were taken by two men posing as technicians at the end of August. The federal government is investigating the security breach, but has denied media reports in Australia that the computers held thousands of confidential files. The two suspected thieves told guards they were employees of the airportâs computer department. They were allowed to enter the customs division mainframe room, which is a high-security zone. The men spent two hours disconnecting the computers, before calmly walking out, pushing the machines on trolleys. Sweet. Just goes to show that you can steal anything with a phoney work order and a large set of balls.
The government has insisted that no sensitive information was kept on the computers. Of course not.
The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper had claimed that top security communications between customs investigators, the federal police and Australiaâs main domestic spy agency ASIO had been lost. Sounds like somebody trying to eliminate evidence of a crime.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/05/2003 8:42:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Maybe not: Two men described as being of Middle-Eastern appearance walked out of the intelligence center at Sydney International Airport with two computers, prompting fears Australia's security has been breached by terrorists. The men, dressed as computer technicians, presented themselves to the security desk Aug. 27 as employees of a company that regularly provides service to the airport's cargo processing and intelligence center, according to The Age newspaper of Melbourne, Australia. The men were given access to the top-security mainframe room after supplying false names and signatures, and they seemed to know where to go, the paper said. Responding to stern memos from national counter-terror officials, the Australian Customs Service insisted no sensitive information had been lost, The Age reported. But customs officers issued angry denials, contending the two mainframe servers held thousands of confidential files related to operations against terrorists and international drug cartels.
As they say, developing.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/05/2003 9:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This is unliely to be theft as the term "main frame" to me means cannot be sold at a pawnshop for crack money.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/05/2003 11:43 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Usual interminable discussion on Slashdot, if anyone's interested...
Posted by: Old Grouch ||
09/05/2003 20:40 Comments ||
Top||
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said on Friday an age old dispute with the neighbouring Czech Republic, which is to join the European Union next May, should be laid to rest. Tensions have simmered for nearly 60 years since Pragueâs expulsion of millions of ethnic Germans after World War II. Uh oh, here we go again.
ââThe Czech Republic and Germany have every reason to look forward and what sometimes led to misunderstandings or differences of opinions should be relegated to the past,ââ Schroeder told journalists during a one-day visit to Prague. Misunderstandings?
After World War II, three million Sudeten Germans were stripped of property and citizenship because most had supported Nazi Germany when Berlin annexed the borderlands in 1938 and the rest of Czechoslovakia in 1939. Gee, and they were suprised the Czechâs held that against them?
The row was left to fester during four decades of Communism. Growing nationalism in European politics last year resurrected the battle over the so-called Benes decrees which authorised the expulsion. The EU has ruled the decrees are not a barrier to the Czech Republic joining the bloc. What a suprise, guess the rest of europe hasnât "gotten over it" either.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/05/2003 2:40:23 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Clearly they need to demand a "right of return".
#3
No need for a right to return. In the EU everybody can freely settle where he or she likes.
The "misunderstandings or differences" do not refer to the war atrocities but to rather recent differences of opinions about the expulsion of Germans which the Czechs consider perfectly legitimate.
#4
>>recent differences of opinions about the expulsion of Germans which the Czechs consider perfectly legitimate.<<
What are they>?
Posted by: g wiz ||
09/06/2003 3:04 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The Germans want the decrees to be "revoked" or "nullified" (ex tunc - from the start), to state their illegimity (but without indemnification as a consequence, they just want a symbolic act), the Czechs said the decrees were legitimate then but that they had "expired" and would "no longer be upheld". The Czech ambassador Frantisek Cerny said 1998 in Berlin that the basis of three of the decrees (dealing with the expulsion and expropriation of Sudeten Germans) were based on an assumed "collective guilt" of all Germans in Czechoslovakia and had automatically "expired" (ex nunc - from now on) as being against human rights, when the Czech Republic signed the EU Human Rights Convention. Their full validity had been confirmed by the Czech Constitutional Court in 1995 (no further ruling in the light of the "new situation" created in 1998).
The Czechs have refused any dialogue about the decrees. It is believed that Czech camps for Germans (Aussig and Brno), forced labor, hunger and diseases as a consequence of inhumane treatment led to the death of 240000 Germans. 3,5 millions of Germans and about 100000 Hungarians were expelled.
The Czechs also justified the expropriation saying that the money and property would be use to indemnify the Czech victims of National Socialism. This obviously did not happen in many cases. Most Czech Jews who were expropriated by the Nazi did not get their property back from the Czech State. Most of these "aryfied" properties are still in the hands of the state, not in those of the victims. Also Sudeten Germans, who actively fought against the Nazi regime, suffered the same fate, they were expropriated and expelled along with the Germans who supported German annexation in 1938. Btw Hungarians pretty much suffered the same fate as the Germans. Interestingly enough quite a few German Jews living in CZ and killed in the Nazi death camps were expropriated post mortem as "Germans".
Germany (and the EU) don't accept the Czech idea that the decrees are no longer valid as long as the Czech Constitutional Court doesn't declare them so. Which seems to be accurate because the decrees are still applied (in heritage disputes for example or in disputes about the non legal application of the decrees)
Via comments at LGF:
Police have arrested a correspondent for Al-Jazeera TV at his home in southern Spain accusing him of having links to the al Qaeda terrorist group. Authorities believe that Tayseer Allouni — who interviewed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden nearly two years ago — provided support for two suspected members of the group. The arrest warrant was issued by Judge Baltasar Garzon, who has been leading the investigation in Spain into alleged members of al Qaeda and other militant Islamic groups. The warrant accuses Allouni of having links to "important members" of al Qaeda and using his status as a journalist to get an interview with Osama bin Laden in October 2001, Hamed Layasi said in an telephone interview from her home in Granada, where the arrest took place. Authorities believe Allouni provided support for Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas, alias Abu Dahdah, who was arrested on November 13, 2001, and is thought to have been an al Qaeda ringleader in Spain. Allouni is also suspected of providing aid to Mohamed Bahiah, alias Abu Kalhed, a suspected al Qaeda fugitive thought to be in Afghanistan. "A group of police came with a judicial order at noon today and searched the home," for about three hours while Allouni was present, before taking him away, his wife Hamed Layasi said. Asked if the charges were true, Layasi said, "Surely it is not so." "Nope, nope, lies, lies, etcetera..."
She said she would soon hire a lawyer to defend her husband. "Got any good names?"
Hamed Layasi said the warrant says that Allouni "took advantage of his status as a journalist to get an interview on October 7, 2001 with Osama bin Laden, where bin Laden called for a holy war." While ducking a daisy cutter...
Police took several books and newspapers in Arabic and two computers — one belonging to Allouniâs son and the other belonging to a production company that Hamed Layasi identified as Andalusia Directo, which she said provides programming to Al-Jazeera. Since the September 11 attacks, Al-Jazeera has aired numerous video and audio recordings purported by have been made by bin Laden. Several dozen suspected Islamic terrorists have been detained in Spain since the September 11, 2001 attacks, and some have been linked to that attack. Others have been released on bail or for lack of evidence. No one has gone to trial. Hereâs hoping for a first...
#3
I always figured al-Jazeera was the semi-official media wing for al-Qaeda Inc.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/05/2003 13:45 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Okay, be honest....was anyone but NBC, CBS and CNN surprised by this...
We could have solved a lot of middle eastern diplomacy by a "surgical" strike...."Oh Geez, we're sorry, that was your news room..I thought it was in Tora Bora.........."
EFL/FU:
Two powerful time bombs exploded at Athensâ main court complex Friday in attacks the government linked to the trial of suspected members of Greeceâs deadliest terrorist group. A group calling itself Revolutionary Struggle claimed responsibility in a call to an Athens newspaper. It did not give a reason for the pre-dawn attack. "Reason? We donât need no stinkinâ reason!"
Government spokesman Christos Protopapas suggested the bombings sought to influence the trial of 19 suspected members of the November 17 terrorist cell, which is blamed for 23 killings and dozens of attacks since 1975. Since the trial began in March, groups using a variety of names have claimed responsibility for firebombings and other attacks in support of the November 17 suspects. The explosions occurred within 20 minutes of each other at the fence-enclosed compound that includes courts, prosecutorsâ offices and other legal departments. The area was mostly deserted when the first bomb went off at 2:50 a.m. A second - and stronger - bomb detonated just a few yards away at 3:10 a.m., injuring a police officer, authorities said. SOP, first bomb pulls in the police, second bomb goes for the kill.
The first bomb blew out windows and a door on one building. An armored police booth was damaged by the second blast. Except for the damaged building, the courts operated normally Friday. Experts said the bombs were triggered by battery-operated clocks. They were similar to one placed by another group - calling itself Popular Revolutionary Action - outside the offices of a U.S.-based American Life Insurance Co., in July. The bomb did not explode. Rookies.
Also Friday, arsonists threw gasoline bombs through a bank window in the northern city of Thessaloniki, causing minor damage but no injuries. An anarchist group claimed responsibility and demanded the release of jailed suspects from other arson gangs. The Athens Olympics should be fun next summer, just remember to pack your flak jacket.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/05/2003 9:03:51 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
SOOOOOOOO, I guess the demonstration events for the Athens Olympics will be:
Bomb Defusing
Field stripping an AK-47 blindfolded for time
Bomb assembly for time.
Bomb detonation with points given for body count.
The IOC should have their head examined for choosing Athens given the fragile and volitile state of that region.
#2
Strange, it has been quite calm the last couple of years with regard to terror in Greece. I wish our Greek friends a terror free olympics next year, which I plan to visit.
Posted by: Murat ||
09/05/2003 10:00 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Murat, hook up with Aris in Athens while you're there, for the further glory of Rantburg! Down a few Ouzos and let the games begin! Hope you have a great time.
#6
Another time I agree with Murat: Being in Georgia when the Olympics were in Atlanta, I can say its not pleasant having a bomb go off during the games. Here's hoping things go well and without incident.
#7
Was in Derry, N. Ireland when my favorite pub was boomed. A quick clean up, new TV and they were back in business. Kinda hated the plywood windows, though.........But the beer was good and Donald Duck was on the telly.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/05/2003 21:41 Comments ||
Top||
Former President Jimmy Carter said Friday that flexibility between the United States and North Korea is the key to resolving the crisis over North Koreaâs nuclear program, a standoff that he called "the greatest threat in the world to regional and global peace." (Hmmm I thought you (Jimmy) went over there and talked them out of nuclear weapons?)
The 2002 Nobel Peace Prize laureate said North Korea needs to agree to complete inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency and abandon any plans to become a nuclear power and the United States needs to make a "firm commitment" that it will not attack. Attack? Why we need another country to feed? Carter should give back that âPeace Prizeâ and hide his head in shame.
Carter, on a trip to Japan and China to promote the peace and health programs of his Atlanta-based Carter Center, said the matter warrants "the top priority in the international community at this time." (Maybe the PRC can let him stay there?)
Carter accused the Bush administration of aggravating tensions between the United States and North Korea, which he called a "paranoid nation." (Right Jimmy, we helped them restart the reactor!)
"The United States has refused direct talks, has branded North Korea as an axis of evil, has declared an end to no first use of atomic weapons, ... has invaded Iraq, and has been intercepting North Korean ships at sea, and has condemned the peace initiatives of [President] Kim Young-sam of South Korea and President Clinton in the United States," he said. So thatâs the answer! Follow the devine guidance of Jimmy and Billy? These two have done more than enough damage to world peace. I guess he was not satisfied with the mess he and Bill created while in office and wants to ride roughshod over any future U.S. policy. He kind of reminds me of the crazy uncle that every family has.
#2
Yea.. Appeasement will work. After all it worked to keep Nazi Germany from invading europe and it worked to keep Iran from invading our embassy there and taking hostages.
The fact is that N Korea is desperate. Their people are starving and their government has totally failed them so they are resorting to nuclear blackmail of their neighbors. Do you think they would give a shait about selling nukes to terrorists?
The fact is that the N Korean government has been known to export hard drugs. This may not bother some people but it bothers me.
The fact is that N Korea has already made (and broke) agreements not to develope nukes - both with the US (yes Clinton!) and S Korea....which leads us to...
The fact is that the NK government (kimmie) cannot be trusted to abide by its treaties. Kim Jong II is a farking liar.
#3
Carter wouldn't know a pie if it hit him in the face. His appeasement of Kimmie came to naught and he has branded the fool by everyone but himself. Pot calling the kettle black when he rails on GW. Jimmah needs to live with the fact that his actions have enabled Kimmie to keep up the brutality of his sick regime.
Jimmah the humanitarian, hah!
If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/05/2003 16:45 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"The United States has refused direct talks [yeah, Jimmy, like only two parties have a stake in this], has branded North Korea as an axis of evil [Dubya calls 'em like he sees 'em, and I like that], has declared an end to no first use of atomic weapons [why tie one hand behind our backs with this maniac?], ... has invaded Iraq [for lots of good reasons], and has been intercepting North Korean ships [loaded with false manifests and hidden missiles] at sea, and has condemned the peace initiatives of [President] Kim Young-sam of South Korea and President Clinton in the United States [who in eight years did nothing except further NKor's nuke program]," he said.
How did this Naval Academy grad, former governor, and former president ever get to be sooooo stupid? Some festering low-level peanut allergy?
Posted by: Tom ||
09/05/2003 17:18 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Jimmy Carter: The Ex-President that wouldn't dry up and blow away.
Doesn't he have ALOT more houses to build or something?
What does he REALLY know about making hard decisions? Didn't he fudge the hostage crisis back in the day? Or was that his whole term? That's right! It was both!
Then there was that relatively recent North Korean nuke deal that the Grand Pigmy suckered him on. Funnier yet was that he cock blocked Clinton on that fiasco. Jimmy, it's 2003! You're not the president anymore. Go away. Go back to farming peanuts you yahoo.
Posted by: Paul ||
09/05/2003 17:33 Comments ||
Top||
#8
From another USNA grad, I need to say this in JC's defense. When he worked onboard nuke subs, they didn't know as much and some of the officer staterooms were awful close to the reactor core. Its a trajedy.
Jimmy sees NK as a threat to world peace. I see NK as a threat to the regional peace of South Korea, China, Russia and Japan. I doubt that Germany, Norway or Brazil feel the slightess threat from Kim.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/05/2003 19:33 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Super Hose - when the economy of asia is zapped because of these aholes we will all be feeling it- yes it is regional but in the end it is a worry for everyone. as for the countries you mentioned as long as the american cowboy keeps standing at the front of the line with countries like Nkor they will never feel threatened.
as for carter he is the Chamberlin of our time - appeasement will never work.
I agree with your economic damage with some reservations:
1. SK is a large economy with repsect to other area states but not with respect to the world market.
2. Many of the industrials outputs of SK are susidized. Removing those businesses from the market will just ship production to other areas of the world. For example, Hyundai's lost production will be replaced by Toyota or another competitor due to excess capacity in the industry in which I work. Very few of SK's products are unique.
NK is definitiely a concern to the US, UN, and EU. Everyone has an interest in solving this problem especially the NK's who are starving.
Casrters idea that the US should take the lead in this issue is moronic.
While it is true that the US is a stakeholder, but the idea that we should bargain for the fate of the people of Seoul without SK represented at the table is laughable.
The solution that Carter negotiated with NK was the worst form of duct tape. I would not be pleased if I lived in Seoul. This problem must be dealt with rationally and methodically - not like somehting that you want to get out of the way before th election cycle.
I would think Jimmy was smarter. Maybe Billy is sneaking out in his suit.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/05/2003 21:00 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I hereby nominate Jimmy and Billy-bob to be the next crew of the Space Shuttle. With any luck, it'll be a one-way trip.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/05/2003 21:02 Comments ||
Top||
#12
You gotta admit, as President... he was a helluva peanut farmer.
Somewhat EFL
In late 1997, al-Amreekee took off for Kashmir. Through friends in Durham, he hooked up with Lashkar-e-Taiba (the Righteous Army), a now banned militia blamed for Decemberâs terrorist attack on the Indian parliament. Lashkar leaders, closely allied with Osama bin Ladenâs al Qaeda, have announced plans to "plant Islamic flags in Delhi, Tel Aviv, and Washington."
We're all pretty much aware of that. The ultimate aim of the Islamists is world domination...
After training at a Lashkar base in Pakistan, al-Amreekee got his chance: His unit began ambushing Indian troops in Kashmir. But the American didnât last long. After just 2 1/2 months as a jihadist, he was dead — killed while attacking an Indian Army post.
Too bad. I hope it was very painful...
Americans are accustomed to thinking of the jihad movement as something overseas, inspired among the faithful in spartan Pakistani schools and gleaming Saudi mosques. But there is also an American road to jihad, one taken by true believers like al-Amreekee and hundreds of others. For 20 years, long before "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, American jihadists have ventured overseas to attack those they believe threaten Islam. It is a little-known story. They have left behind comfortable homes in Atlanta, New York, and San Francisco, volunteering to fight with foreign armies in Bosnia, Chechnya, and Afghanistan. Their numbers are far greater than is commonly thought: Between 1,000 and 2,000 jihadists left America during the 1990s alone, estimates Bob Blitzer, a former FBI terrorism chief who headed the bureauâs first Islamic terrorism squad in 1994. Federal agents monitored some 40 to 50 jihadists leaving each year from just two New York mosques during the mid-â90s, he says.
Is it just me, or is it stupid to leave places like this in business? I know, the Brits have Finsbury Mosque and we have at least two New York mosques that serve as funnels. Leaving them in business lets the Feds monitor their activities. It's also a thumb in the eye of any effort against terrorism...
Pakistani intelligence sources say that Blitzerâs figures are credible and that as many as 400 recruits from America have received training in Pakistani and Afghan jihad camps since 1989. Scores more ventured overseas during the 1980s, to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.
I'm hoping that most are cavorting with 72-year-old virgins, but I'm probably wrong...
Surprisinglyâdespite the key role some have played in terrorism — investigators have never tracked them as a group.
And that is dumb. It's also tied to various "privacy act" and intel oversight laws enacted during the 70s...
Immigration agents keep no records on foreign travel by U.S. citizens and resident aliens. Nor does the State Department have files. "Why would we keep records?" asks one official.
"Duhhh... Why would we do dat?"
"These are people who are the droppings of dropping out of U.S. society." With few such records, government files on al Qaeda backers here were woefully incomplete. Thus, after September 11, most of the 1,200 suspects arrested were found by combing immigration rolls for persons out of compliance — not by tracking those with jihadist ties or training in the jihadist military camps of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Those camps — once run freely by bin Laden and his allies — are the connective tissue binding together the international jihadist movement.
Rather than using entry and exit records, the intel guys have to build their networks through analyzing each Bad Guy's contacts...
To date, the United States and its allies have captured al Qaeda fighters from no fewer than 33 countries, including Australia, Belgium, and Sweden. Only two "American Taliban" are in custody: Lindh and Yasser Esam Hamdi, a Baton Rouge-born 22-year-old who spent most of his life in Saudi Arabia. But some counterterrorism officials are convinced dozens more remain active, including several who may play key roles within bin Ladenâs network. Their trails are difficult to track; dual citizenship and false passports are common, and they typically have Arabic names, either given or adopted, with multiple spellings.
We've run into the same problem here. There's no standard transliteration system, and each guy can have two or three legitimate names. Then throw in the absolute love of false passports and it's an awful mess. Sometimes I'm surprised at the success we do have...
Some jihadists become radicalized overseas, as did Lindh. In the past 25 years, Saudi and Pakistani groups have targeted African-American Muslims, in particular, offering scholarships to study Islam and Arabic in their countries, according to Prof. Lawrence Mamiya, an expert on Islam at New Yorkâs Vassar College. U.S. News gained access to records of other American jihadists from some of Pakistanâs best-known Islamic schools. There are thousands of these madrasahs, as they are known, and they provided tens of thousands of recruits to the Taliban. One of the most influential, the Haqqania school outside Peshawar, graduated much of the Talibanâs senior leadershipâalong with at least nine Americans.
Concentrating on American blacks has the added benefit to the enemy of driving the racial wedge deeper into American society...
The records are sketchy. In most cases, they list only the studentâs Arabic name, ethnicity, and home country. In 1995, seven Arab-Americans enrolled in the school, among them Zaid Bin Tufail of North Carolina, Zahid Al-Shafi of Texas, and Ahmed Abi-Bakr of Washington, D.C. All received military training and fought with Taliban units in their drive to unite the country, school officials say. Other students included two African-Americans: a "Dr. Bernard" from New York, who arrived in 1997, and "Abdullah," whose parents left their native Barbados and settled in Michigan; he, too, joined the Taliban and was reported "martyred" near Mazar-e Sharif in 1999 or 2000. None of them, however, shows up in checks of U.S. public records. Records at another madrasah, the Tajweed-ul-Koran in Quetta, show that three Americans studied there in 1996. Two were African-Americanâ"Omar" and Farooq" are the only names listed in the registerâand school officials described the third, "Haidar," as a tall, white fellow, about 25, "with a strong build and small golden beard." The foreigners, they say, left for military training with the Taliban in Kandahar. At another pro-Taliban school in Quetta, the Jamia Hammadia, workers recall a 25-year-old American student from ChicagoâAbu Bakar al-Faisalâwho arrived in 1995 and died while soldiering with the Taliban in 1999. Al-Faisal, they say, had broken with Louis FarrakhanâsNation of Islam before coming to Afghanistan. Even sketchier records exist at the Jamia Abi-Bakr school in Karachi, where officials say about a dozen African-Americans studied. The madrasah is linked closely to Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Kashmir militia Jibreel al-Amreekee joined.
Harakat ul-Mujahideen seems to be a favored home for traveling jihadists. In 1995, Harakat officials claimed they were hosting several hundred foreign Muslims at their training camps, including 16 Americans. That year, at Harakat offices in Lahore, Pakistan, two Saudis boasted of their own American backgrounds to a reporter. In smooth English, Muhammad Al-Jabeer claimed to be from Chicago, where heâd studied for an M.B.A. His friend, Ahmed Usaid, said he hailed from New Jersey and held a B.S. in computer science. Usaid, Harakat sources say, died in battle near Mazar-e Sharif in 1999 and was buried in Afghanistan.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
09/05/2003 5:28:47 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Not surprising. Azzam.com used to have a 'Jihad lands' section that included Chechnya, which was a website dedicated to the mujahideen. All you had to do was read their emails of support, pre-9/11, from the States, to get the idea that they had plenty of support here. They even had instructions describing how to get to Chechnya. They even stated what types of people they wanted, preferably military-trained of course.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 5:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'd be curious to know how many of these American Jihadists were born in the US and how many came to the US were naturalized and the many temptations of the US caused them to seek purity jihading around.
Pakistan has moved troops into Bannu district in North West Frontier Province (NWFP) to carry out a search for Al Qaida fugitives, government sources said yesterday. We heard about that yesterday, tell us more.
The transportation of troops on Wednesday combined with remarks by Pakistanâs Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat that the noose was tightening around elusive Al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden had fuelled speculation that he was hiding in the region. The operation was launched late yesterday after some 35 helicopters ferried the troops into the district on Wednesday, the sources said, adding that the focus was the village of Shamal in the area. Scores of soldiers were believed to be involved in the operation. Bannu district adjoins the semi-autonomous tribal area of North Waziristan, which borders Afghanistan and is situated opposite the Afghan provinces of Khost and Paktika.
Yeah. Yeah. We've heard it all before. A great hue and cry, with helicopters and all that sort of stuff that he can hear from 60 miles away. He's beat it for Aleppo or Medina for a week or two by now, and he'll come back when the heat's off.
The operation sparked shameless protests in the NWFP by several lawmakers belonging to the Muttahida Majlis Amal (MMA). The legislators, speaking yesterday in the assembly in Peshawar, alleged that US troops were also participating in the search operation and demanded that it should be halted forthwith. They said no Al Qaida men were present in Bannu district, the home district of provincial Chief Minister Akram Khan Durrani. "There were Pakistan and US forces in the area and they were looking for Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaida operatives," a Bannu legislator from the six-party Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), Abdul Razzaq, said. "There is no possibility of Osama or Al Qaida associates being present in Bannu. The operation is meant to humiliate the Muslims and it should be stopped immediately," he said. "We keep telling you he ainât here, why donât you believe me?"
Local residents reported stepped up activity at the airport in Bannu. "Right now there are 12 helicopters on the ground at the airport in Bannu," in northwest Pakistan, said Inayat Khan, a resident of the area. "Yesterday there were 24 helicopters." Somebodyâs running ops in the area.
Officials said the majority of troops have moved into Angoorada and Azam Warzak areas near the Afghan border. There was no indication of who was being sought or whether there was some fresh intelligence of fugitives in the area. However, both U.S. and Afghan officials have repeatedly said fugitive Al Qaida and Taliban have taken refuge in the region, where tribesmen have expressed a willingness to hide them. There has also been speculation that suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden may have taken refuge in the region. If heâs still alive, thatâs where Iâd look for him.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/05/2003 9:46:52 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
looking for AQ huh? For protective custody?
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/05/2003 10:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
We'll know they're getting close when we see a delivery of clean shorts to the guest house...
#3
Can't they just line up everyone in the village and look for a guy 6 ft 4 or above? You can shave your beard but you can't shave off 4 inches of height.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/05/2003 14:05 Comments ||
Top||
A London security firm has reportedly recruited hundreds of Fijians to work as private security guards in Iraq. The Fijians once served as United Nations peacekeepers. A former Fiji army lieutenant colonel has revealed details of the scheme to the Reuters news agency in Fiji. He says the first 20 of 408 Fijians flew out of the Fijian capital, Suva, on Friday, bound for Iraq. He also says the London security firm he represents will use the ex-Fijian soldiers to guard UN offices, VIPs, banks and oilfields. Reuters says the United Nations would not confirm or deny the report. We heard a rumor of this story some time ago. The Fiji government was a little nervous about having experienced trained soldiers hanging around, something about being worried they might get the idea that the Fiji government needed changing. But they do make a valuable export crop. Brings to mind military SciFi novels I have read, "Hammerâs Slammers" for one.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/05/2003 2:56:16 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That's the reason so many third world countries do UN peacekeeping. Some units have been overseas for decades.
A senior Shiite cleric called Friday for peaceful resistance to the U.S. occupation of Iraq and warned his followers were running out of patience. Imam Sadreddine al-Qobanji spoke to more than 15,000 people who jammed the Imam Ali mosque, Iraq's holiest Shiite Muslim shrine. He said last week's bombing outside the mosque - which killed Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim and dozens of other people - was aimed at sowing discord in Iraq. "Once we find that this road (peaceful resistance) has come to a dead end, we will adopt other means," said al-Qobanji, who had been al-Hakim's deputy. "Those who killed al-Hakim were hoping we would collapse. They wanted to sow discord among us. They wanted to force a change in our path. We tell them we will not collapse, there will be no discord and there will be no change in the path," al-Qobanji said.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/05/2003 14:30 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Actually, when compared against the usual calls made by the usual suspects, I find this remarkably moderate on the face of it. "Once we find that this road (peaceful resistance) has come to a dead end, we will adopt other means," is as good a way to say "I'll never say never" and not lock himself into an untenable position. Even the US won't commit to not attacking NKor, since that would compromise the negotiations. As confirmation, he points out that the attack was intended to throw them off balance and force them to a path of violence against the occupation.
It IS an occupation. However, for the moment, it appears that al-Hakim is willing to give the process some time and allow us to prove that it is temporary.
The Arab League's secretary general said Friday that Iraq belonged in the 22-member bloc, hinting that that it might be ready to accept U.S.-backed interim Governing Council as Iraq's legitimate government. Amr Moussa said the issue of whether to accept the council and let it participate in future meetings would be discussed before the next Arab League meeting begins Tuesday in Cairo. "I leave that to the council of ministers, but Iraq is an Arab country, a member state of the Arab League and its membership has not been abolished or suspended," Moussa said on the sidelines of a conference on Lake Como. Iraq's seat on the 22-member council has remained empty since Saddam Hussein's ouster, as the Arab League has refused to recognize the governing council — dismissed by many in Iraq and across the Arab world as a puppet of U.S. and British occupiers.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/05/2003 14:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The thing I find amusing? The Governing Council is apparently threatening to send a Kurdish member to represent Iraq at the Arab League. The TNR tool threw in the obligatory "Chalabi-stinks" sniff, but I still think the idea of sending a Kurd to the Arab League is damn amusing.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
09/05/2003 16:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Sending a Kurd amusing? Hell thatâs down right brilliant! I would also send an Assyrian to be his deputy! I call it my 1-2 diplomatic punch! Suck on that Arab league!
Deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein probably is in hiding in or around his hometown of Tikrit, the commander of American troops there said Friday. Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno said troops from the 4th Infantry Division had captured several of Saddam's former bodyguards in the past month. "If he makes a mistake, we'll have him," Odierno said. Odierno has recently said that it's believed Saddam has been moving and changing hiding places three or four times a day - a tactic he has perfected over the years to avoid would-be assassins.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/05/2003 14:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
US: pressure and patience. We will get him. His luck barrel is running out. Mosul is too hot for him. The more stability we creat in these areas, the easier it will be for the locals to give tips without fear of retribution.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/05/2003 14:52 Comments ||
Top||
EFL/FU:
Dressed in full combat gear, Iraqi troops returned to the streets of Saddam Husseinâs hometown Friday - this time patrolling with American soldiers. After being trained by the 4th Infantry Division, 31 Iraqi Civil Defense Corps militiamen walked side by side, their AK-47 rifles ready, with U.S. soldiers, greeting townsfolk and the occasional shopkeeper. Most shops were closed Friday, the day Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld flew to Tikrit to meet American troops and be briefed by commanders. For the visit, the Iraqi militiamen redirected traffic from the main highway as a security precaution. But more importantly, the Iraqi militia - known as the Tikrit Patrol - made its presence known to residents. "People are happy to see us," said Joseph Musaad, 24, one of the militiamen. "We speak Arabic to them. We greet them with salaam aleikum (peace be upon you)." Mussad, dressed in a khaki uniform, new boots, a bulletproof vest and helmet, said he volunteered for the force because he believed "Iraqis need security," and because he likes the military and needs a job to feed his wife and their 18-day-old daughter. "We call them the Tikrit Patrol," said Sgt. 1st Class Robert Soden, 36, of Tuscon, Ariz., with 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment. "At first, we were a little bit skeptical, but now, we see they can do exactly the same as weâre doing." Just be careful.
During three weeks of training, the Iraqi force was taught how to search vehicles, set up checkpoints and fire rifles. Some of them were former military or police, and the entire force was picked by tribal leaders. Hope they did as good a backround check as they could.
"People are surprised to see them," said Staff Sgt. Mark Hill, 36, of Tampa, Fla. "One of them stopped the traffic to let an old lady pass. People would rather see them than us, or even the Iraqi police, who they donât seem to respect much." The first few hours of patrol went without incident. Near the bridge intersection, the Iraqi patrol and the Americans found a homemade bomb next to a roadside. A U.S. Army explosive ordnance disposal team was called in. Walking back to their base, the Iraqis perspired in the heat, but looked satisfied. One developed blisters on his feet. Another wore a slightly oversized pair of sunglasses and said the only words he knew in English: "Iâll be back." A good start.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/05/2003 2:12:27 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Gotta vote for Arnold in California, if only for that very last sentence.
Edited for brevity.
When her fiance left Iraq for Germany, Nayzak al Jassm gave him a Koran for luck. Rafael Velez asked her to remember him with a tiny cross that dangles on a gold chain around her neck. Faith, they said, is the only force strong enough to protect them from the disapproving whispers of people who do not believe in love between a Muslim Iraqi woman and a Roman Catholic U.S. Army sergeant. Their relationship - they plan to wed in December - is forbidden by local custom and military orders.
They met at a checkpoint outside a Baghdad bank in May, a month after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein. Jassm, 26, was hired as an Arabic translator for soldiers at the site and brought them home-cooked breakfasts of flat bread stuffed with meat and cheese. On long shifts, Velez, 38, comforted Jassm when passing residents threatened her life for working with the Americans. By June, they realized that their relationship was raising suspicions. They were careful not to stand too close together or laugh too loudly. A tug on the ear substituted for "I love you" when other soldiers or Iraqis were around. Velez gave Jassm a sealed letter to take to her parents, who opened it to read his apologies that security concerns prevented him from asking for their daughterâs hand in person.
The engagement was sealed when Velez sneaked a visit to Jassmâs parents, who served him and another uniformed soldier Turkish coffee in a sitting room decorated with Islamic art. Although Jassmâs father still has reservations, her mother said, they agreed to the marriage as an opportunity for their daughter to live outside a place ravaged by decades of conflict. "I donât ask for assurances - itâs her life," said Samira Amees, Jassmâs mother. "There is only one God, one judge. You can see good people from the Muslims, from the Christians, from the Jews. And you can see bad people from all of those groups. My daughter doesnât have a future here. These are the best years of her life and she has seen nothing but war. I am happy for her." If only more Muslims (and other religions) were as tolerant and open-minded!
Posted by: Dar ||
09/05/2003 1:47:03 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Forgot to add: Hat tip Drudge.
Posted by: Dar ||
09/05/2003 13:47 Comments ||
Top||
#3
itâs her life," said Samira Amees, Jassmâs mother. "There is only one God, one judge. You can see good people from the Muslims, from the Christians, from the Jews. And you can see bad people from all of those groups.
#5
Ptah, true enough many GIs and wives doing ok in the U.S. and abroad. FYI it's usually the groom that adopts the culture of the spouse. This is especially true when it comes to Asian culture. Some adapt other can't. Love is blind at first and then you open your eyes.
#6
Excellent ! My plan is all coming together, we're gonna f**k our way to world peace.
I am not worried about their chances making it outside of Iraq; it's at least 50-50, which puts them on a par with the average American marriage.
Ptah, as the groom of a Japanese wife, now living in N.H., you are right on the money...
Love that home-cooked Japanese food; beef currey, shogayaki, omuretsu, gyoza, etc etc....
Posted by: Carl in NH ||
09/05/2003 17:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I think it's fine. The biggest issue will be what religion the kids are raised with. I wish them all of the best.
I was actually shocked that her parents agreed to it AND the soldier's body wasn't found in pieces the next morning. Yes, it would be nice if people were more tolerant.
Posted by: Paul ||
09/05/2003 17:55 Comments ||
Top||
#8
My dad had a friend from WWII - the two had served together in the US invasion of North Africa until Dad got pneumonia and was evacuated to England. His friend 'won' a Moroccan woman in a poker game in 1943. They visited us in 1963, with their five kids. You never know...
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/05/2003 22:10 Comments ||
Top||
EFL
A 53-year-old British bomb disposal expert has been killed in a roadside ambush in northern Iraq. Ian Rimell, from Kidderminster, Worcestershire, died near the city of Mosul. The married father-of-three was killed and his local bodyguard seriously injured when they were attacked on Thursday afternoon, as they drove along a main road to the northern Iraqi city.
Mr Rimell, who was working for the British-based charity Mines Advisory Group (Mag), was driving in a vehicle with the distinctive Mag emblem when the gunmen struck. The 53-year-oldâs bodyguard Salem Ahmed Mohammed was left in a critical condition. Earlier in the day, Mr Rimell had cleared a scrap heap filled with ammunition and hidden explosives. He later delivered the scrap metal for use in the rebuilding of a local school.
Magâs executive director, Lou McGrath, said: "Magâs staff are devastated by the loss of their good friend and colleague. He added: "We are further reviewing our areas of operation in Iraq following this attack." Mag has been in Iraq without interruption for more than a decade and has 700 staff, who are mostly local, in northern Iraq. It is one of the few international aid agencies that stayed in Iraq throughout the conflict. Mr Rimell, who was awarded a British Empire Medal, joined Mag in January this year after a distinguished career in mine and bomb disposal. Youâd be hard put to find a braver man. Murdered by cowards.
Amir Taheri tells why in the New York Post:
"It is not the American war machine that should be of the utmost concern to Muslims. What threatens the future of Islam, in fact its very survival, is American democracy." This is the message of a new book, just published by al Qaeda in several Arab countries. The Saudi Royal Family has cried "Havoc" on this one and is actively supporting a lot of discord in Iraq.
The author of "The Future of Iraq and The Arabian Peninsula After The Fall of Baghdad" is Yussuf al-Ayyeri, one of Osama bin Ladenâs closest associates since the early â90s. A Saudi citizen also known by the nom de guerre Abu Muhammad, he was killed in a gun battle with security forces in Riyadh last June. . . .
Too bad. So sad. Now rot, sucker.
What Al-Ayyeri sees now is a "clean battlefield" in which Islam faces a new form of unbelief. This, he labels "secularist democracy." This threat is "far more dangerous to Islam" than all its predecessors combined. The reasons, he explains in a whole chapter, must be sought in democracyâs "seductive capacities." Such as free speech, money for the middle class and rights for women.
This form of "unbelief" persuades the people that they are in charge of their destiny and that, using their collective reasoning, they can shape policies and pass laws as they see fit. That leads them into ignoring the "unalterable laws" promulgated by God for the whole of mankind, and codified in the Islamic shariah (jurisprudence) until the end of time. So the mullahs get to skim a little cream off the top and live with their toy boys and silk robes.
The goal of democracy, according to Al-Ayyeri, is to "make Muslims love this world, forget the next world and abandon jihad." If established in any Muslim country for a reasonably long time, democracy could lead to economic prosperity, which, in turn, would make Muslims "reluctant to die in martyrdom" in defense of their faith.
Seems like we've been saying the same thing here. Only he says it like it's a bad thing...
Seems that this jihad thing is an end to itself. It is a pretty tough religious doctrine that requires you to be killed in battle to go to heaven.
He says that it is vital to prevent any normalization and stabilization in Iraq. Muslim militants should make sure that the United States does not succeed in holding elections in Iraq and creating a democratic government. "If democracy comes to Iraq, the next target [for democratization] would be the whole of the Muslim world," Al-Ayyeri writes.
He's just dead, not dumb. That's the whole idea...
I think that Iraq is the focus and maybe it will be the killing ground for these sociopaths for a while.
What was that again about Iraq having nothing to do with terrorism? Just another bit of info that seems to point the finger for the recent Mosque attacks at the Fundementalists in Saudi
Posted by: SOG475 ||
09/05/2003 9:30:19 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's almost refreshing to hear an Islamist openly state their agenda. But UBL wasn't too shy about stating "death to the West" either!
Now in a reasonable world, wouldn't this be enough to shut the LLLs festering gobs?
#4
"The priests fear me, and rightly so. For I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson
#5
Actually the man is right. When was the last time any of us saw an oil/plain rich muslim man or mullah strap on a suit of C-4 and join the Islamic "mile-high" club (TM) anyways?
That's right! NEVER! Can't you poor muslim people see what economic prosperity will do to your "will to die" for them him, the big A?
Those poor rich bastards, having to live in lavish houses, with their 72 (formerly known as) virgins. Jetsetting to all those exotic places full of non-believers and strip clubs. Having to drink gallons of alcohol and stuffing their faces with food that you'd have to work 100 years for, just to get a plate of.
Oh, the agony those fat, horny, drunken, bastards must endure.
Meanwhile, you, who have nothing, can strap on a brand new "Me-B-Gone" exploding vest by RONCO! Impress all of your dirt poor, ignorant, hate filled family members and friends with either the frag grenade economy model, or perhaps the more lavishly decorated C-4 model. But, if you really want to make an impression (and I'm not only talking about on the sidewalk) go for the new Semtex deluxe model which comes with a free Koran. Do it now! Show those rich bastards who REALLY deserves to meet ABBAAli Allah!
Posted by: Paul ||
09/05/2003 13:36 Comments ||
Top||
#6
LOL! Good one, Paul!
Islam is essentially a works-oriented religion, where Allah still has the final say as to who is admitted to paradise and who is damned, regardless of their performance. Participation in Jihad is required, but still isn't a guarantee.
The only guarantee given in the Koran of paradise is DYING while on Jihad: Allah will open the doors to paradise to all Jihadis who ride in on the bomb riddled bodies of the kuffirs and joooos.
I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I'd want references in the Koran.
And yes, I DO have a full copy. Arabic in one column, english in the other, with a seal of approval from an Egyptian religious authority attesting to the validity and authenticity of the translation. Heck, only catholic bibles have this kind of seal of approval.
#7
I've got one of those Qurans also with the big Egyptian mullah good housekeeping seal of approval and some of the preachings in the book are beyond the pale of the western mind to comprehend. I find it difficult to see how they can claim Abraham and Moses as forebearers and advocate some of the absolutely mind boogling violence. I thought the Book of Joshua was bloody, Joshua was a softy compared to some of the writings in the Quran.
Sorry folks, I am not buying this "religion of peace" line at all. If it was, we would have peace in Isreal, a Palestinian State and florishing cosmopolitan erudite societies all over the Moslem world.
U.S. and Turkish officials began discussions Thursday on whether thousands of this nationâs soldiers might be deployed to aid American troops in Iraq, with Turkey reportedly raising several conditions it wants met before joining the effort to pacify its southern neighbor. The talks, which bring together senior military officials and diplomats in Ankara, follow Turkeyâs offer in late March to send an unspecified number of soldiers to help police Iraq. The gesture was aimed at patching up relations with the United States, which were soured when parliament voted on March 1 to deny U.S. troops permission to use Turkey as a launching pad for a second front against Iraq. Turkey is demanding that any forces deployed in Iraq to help the U.S. mission be placed under Turkish command. The U.S. military has sought to keep foreign troops in Iraq under its own command. In advance of Thursdayâs talks, Turkish officials also had called on U.S. forces to move against Turkish Kurd guerrillas based in northern Iraq, which the Americans have indicated they are willing to do. Oh really?
Turkey has faced a long rebellion by those militants, but the U.S. found Iraqâs Kurdish population to be a key ally in the war against Saddam Husseinâs regime during the spring. Early this year, U.S. officials criticized the influential Turkish military, saying it had failed to push for the use of Turkish territory by American forces during the war. Hey, we donât really mean it when we say we want democracy in a Muslim country, a little bit anti-democracy on behalves of the states is preferable!
But Washington has since toned down its remarks and has been eager to see troops from this predominantly Muslim country deployed in Iraq, whose population is also overwhelmingly Muslim. As U.S. casualties have mounted in recent weeks, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has expressed hesitation about aiding the American effort, declaring that "Turkish forces will not be permitted to sink in any quagmire in Iraq." He has stressed that parliament, where his conservative Justice and Development Party enjoys an absolute majority, will need to authorize any deployment. Recent opinion polls indicate that a majority of Turks oppose sending their nationâs forces.
Further signaling the governmentâs hesitations, Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has said that parliament is more likely to vote in favor of a troop bill if United Nations approval is secured for an international peacekeeping force in Iraq. But Turkish leaders have refrained so far from setting that as a condition for their troopsâ participation. Thursdayâs meeting was largely spent with U.S. negotiators providing answers to a list of questions that Turkey raised early last month. The queries include the number of Turkish troops needed, where they would be deployed, what their command structure and responsibilities would be and how they would interface with the U.S. military. Both sides declined to comment on details of the U.S. response, though Turkish media reports said Washington is seeking as many as 10,000 soldiers to be deployed in the predominantly Sunni Muslim region west of Baghdad.
A U.S. Embassy official called Thursdayâs talks "very positive." He said they were "part of a process of consultation that will continue" but declined to specify when. A senior Turkish official said negotiations probably would resume early next week, when another U.S. military delegation is expected in Ankara. That group will focus on measures to dislodge 5,000 Turkish Kurd guerrillas based in the rugged mountains separating Iraq from Iran. U.S. officials Wednesday renewed pledges to drive the rebels from Iraqi territory. "The U.S. is committed to eliminate any terrorist haven in a free Iraq," said a U.S. Embassy spokesman in Ankara. The guerrilla group, formerly known as the Kurdistan Workers Party and now called KADEK, waged a 15-year insurgency against Turkey from bases in northern Iraqâs Kurdish-controlled enclave. The rebels called a unilateral truce in 1999 after the capture of their leader, Abdullah Ocalan. But KADEKâs leaders threatened on Monday to resume the groupâs armed campaign unless Turkey signs a peace agreement with them by Dec. 1. The rebels also have vowed to strike back if attacked by U.S. forces. Turkey has ruled out talking to the rebels, labeling them "terrorists."
Some Iraqi groups also passionately oppose the presence of Turkish troops in their country. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told Al Jazeera television that troops from Iraqâs neighbors would add to instability in his country. Zebari, an ethnic Kurd, pointed to past Turkish military intervention in Kurdish-controlled areas for examples of problems that would probably emerge if large numbers of Turkish troops were deployed in Iraq. "We hope such interventions will not take place, because they would further complicate matters," he said.
Posted by: Murat ||
09/05/2003 8:12:44 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Listen Murat...I say it only once...Islam and Democracy are mutually exclusive...therefore, Islam will have to go bye-bye...
Posted by: Steve D. ||
09/05/2003 8:40 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"As U.S. casualties have mounted in recent weeks, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has expressed hesitation about aiding the American effort, declaring that "Turkish forces will not be permitted to sink in any quagmire in Iraq.""
Today's Turks just don't have the stomach for doing the tough jobs. We don't need "Summer Soldiers" for Iraq.
Americans are willing to help Iraq, the real question is who else is. But at a time when American troops have time for: "U.S. troops have spent more than $15 million in Nineveh province, rebuilding, renovating or refurbishing hundreds of clinics, hospitals, schools, and a music hall; getting water running, digging wells in dried up villages, fixing roads and installing a 911 emergency medical telephone line. Theyâve even set up Internet cafes and sponsored 160 soccer teams ahead of the start of the new season this month."⦠I have to wonder what all the UN maneuverings about more countries sending troops to Iraq is REALLY all about.
Posted by: Dave ||
09/05/2003 8:57 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Turkey is a shithole. I was stationed there for way to long. Nothing but poverty and destitution. Oh, wait, they are still a Muslim country. That's about normal. Then they wonder why the EU doesn't want them to let them join the club?! What a joke. Idiots like Murat are typical of the population. Well, unless you are there spending some money to support their hopeless economy...then they love you. Until you turn your back. We should arm the Kurds. They'd kick the Turks ass with a little help from us.
#4
"As U.S. casualties have mounted in recent weeks, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has expressed hesitation about aiding the American effort" Hey Murat you really need to get around, like Instapundit -
According to this week's story from Scripps Howard News Service, there are 140,000 troops in Iraq, and there have been 286 fatalities from all causes since the war began in March (about 24 weeks ago). That gives us an annualized death rate of 443 per 100,000. Only about half of these deaths (147) were in combat, for a combat death rate of 228 per 100,000.
According to Center for Disease Control / National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, there were 21,836 young black men (age 18-30) in Washington DC in 2000, the latest year that mortality data is available. The total number of deaths in this group from all causes was 132, with 95 homicides. i.e. the death rate for this group was 604 per 100,000 and the murder rate was 435 per 100,000.
In other words, a young black male soldier from Washington DC would have been 36% more likely to die by staying at home than by serving in active duty in the Iraq war, and almost twice as likely to be murdered at home than to be killed in combat. Yes, that's horribly sad, but it puts a few things in perspective.
Posted by: Don ||
09/05/2003 9:42 Comments ||
Top||
#5
There was a lot of talk going around right after 9/11 about giving the Middle East back to Turkey.
Turkey could have taken over Iraqi duty (after the US kicked out Saddam) and watched the area as part of the UN Trusteeship Program while profiting from the oil. But Turkey had dillusions that the French/German axis would allow them to join Europe.
Now, after the betrayal in preventing US troops to open up a Northern Front as they'd agreed, I'd rather see the Turks stay out of Iraq. I think most of the Bush Administration probably agrees.
#6
I thought the idea of additional troops was to help stabilize the situation in Iraq. A Turkish military presence is not likely to help with that. If they are going in, send them way down south, away from the Kurdish area.
#7
Wow, there's something that blew past that Murat didn't see.
The Great Hegemon, the Policeman of the World, The masters behind the puppets of the goveernment of Turkey, the United States...
.... turned the ships bearing the equipment of the 4th ID around and went the long way around to get into the fight.
Hell, THIS is how an EMPIRE is run? No wonder that the Belgans, Germans and French (past masters and Empire holders themselves), snicker at our ineptitude.
Meanwhile, TURKISH Special Forces and army units barge their way into Iraq, with no permission whatsoever. Did they happen to have civilian approval and a parliamentary vote to do so?
Murat, things would be a lot easier on you if you didn't (in effect) jump up and down and demand, "DON'T LOOK AT THOSE FACTS! IGNORE THEM! LOOK AT MINE, AND MINE ALONE!"
Pfft. Do you honestly think Rantburgers are the kinds of people who will obey, much less listen to, anyone who demands that what they know be ignored? Our intelligence agencies ignored some facts and 9/11 happens. F*ck doing THAT again.
Three gunmen opened fire Friday at a Sunni mosque as Muslims were leaving after morning prayers, wounding three people, one critically, according to Iraqi police and eyewitnesses. According to police, a car carrying the gunmen drove up to the Qibaâa Mosque about 5:45 a.m. ...and the men got out of the car and fired on the crowd of about 30 to 40 people with automatic weapons and handguns. Eyewitnesses described the shooters as Iraqis. They got back into the car and sped away. hmmm, saw this tactic on an al-qaeda training video
The mosque is located in Shaâab, a mostly Shiite neighborhood in the Iraqi capital.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 5:26:52 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Someone is trying hard to create Sunni-Shia clashes. Actually to be honest a very effective way to create anarchy. But there are question marks whether everything can be blamed on the al-qaeda, who can guarantee that it is not an ordinary divide and rule tactic quite well known to the British?
Posted by: Murat ||
09/05/2003 5:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'm not saying it was al-qaeda. But this get-out-of-car-then-start-spraying tactic has been seen on an AQ video, the one where they practice kidnapping, or something. Could be that it's become a fashionable way to kill, I guess.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 5:45 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"..who can guarantee that it is not an ordinary divide and rule tactic quite well known to the British?"
#5
Well Buldog I donât think you need info about divide and rule tactics, the British empire used that in excessive ways. I am not saying it is, but there are also no proofs against that it is not a way for the occupying powers to get Iraqis clutched on each others throats instead of resisting occupation.
Posted by: Murat ||
09/05/2003 6:09 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Ratty, if you really believe the British would go about actively trying to inflame sectarian violence in Iraq, when the last thing the coalition want right now is a descent into anarchy and bloodbath, then you must be completely detached from reality. Are you genuinely insane, or just the epitome of "moron"?
#7
Murat, that won't work. The job is to pacify Iraq, not turn it into another Vietnam or Lebanon. A Shia/Sunni war does not help us in the least, and actually harms our efforts there immensly. We need a peaceful, democratic Iraq, not a series of petty kingdoms at war with each other.
Posted by: Ben ||
09/05/2003 6:30 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Well Buldog, the British have used these tactics abundantly and sometimes also very effectively a success story is âLawrence of Arabiaâ. A short-lived anarchy that undermines the resistance against occupation powers is not that unwelcome to call it insane. It is a very viable instrument that could be used by occupying powers.
Posted by: Murat ||
09/05/2003 7:40 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Divide and conquer is not a new philosophy, Murat, and was used long before the British came along. However, there's a time, and a place, for such strategies, and Iraq, right now, ain't one of them. Iraq is patently not the place for such an approach. You make the mistake of thinking the coalition (or, as you say "occupying powers") are in Iraq as some sort of Imperial venture, out to subjugate the locals and render them powerless. Maybe all you can understand is the principle of power and subjugation when it comes to international affairs, but believe it or not, the coalition want a stable Iraq, not a state of anarchy. I'll say no more here as you're just being stupid.
#10
Bulldog, you don't have to agree with me, open up any British or American paper to discover they call the forces there occupation troops and the situation 'occupation'.
Posted by: Murat ||
09/05/2003 8:39 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Divide and conquer would make sense...
...if the US wasn't already in charge. The "conquer" part is already finished. Therefore there is no reason to divide.
Idiot.
Posted by: Pete Stanley ||
09/05/2003 8:42 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Please don't call my friend Bulldog an idiot Pete.
Posted by: Murat ||
09/05/2003 8:57 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I personally think that the Saudis are in there with this and the Najaf bombing.
None of the neighboring countries want a viable democracy in Iraq. The Saudi Royal Family in particular would find it difficult. I think the Saudis have encouraged allowed Wahabis to infiltrate into Iraq to stir it up. The Saudi Royal Family is in very tenuous condition right now and a democracy next door is the last thing they want.
Divide and conquer conspiracy theories aside, you always have to take the first step of saying "Who benefits the most from anarchy and failure in Iraq?" The answer is Syria, Iran and the Saudi Royal Family. This is not real hard to connect the dots on.
Not to toot my own horn but a while back, I did predict that Syrian, Iranian and Saudi operatives would be in Iraq to prevent the formation of a viable democracy in Iraq.
#14
Why is it "anarchy" and "chaos" when, what do you know, the people who used to be in charge resist losing power. SHOCKING. QUAGMIRE QUAGMIRE QUAGMIRE. The new catch phrase is "the worst US foreign policy mistake since Vietnam". I've heard it 5 times this week. I'm sorry, we've been there what, six or seven months. All the talk from the left about America having no staying power was absolutely true - about themselves. Six months and it's a complete disaster. Pardon me while I go Puke Like Schroeder (the name of my new band).
#16
Murat, please explain how Lawrence Arabia was a good example of divide & conquer. An arguement could be made that it was a 'use and discard' as the British used the Arabs to do the dirty work for them. The Arabs were divided before the British were involved (both against the Turks and against each other). Please elaborate.
Was there really an Arabs and Turkish lovefest prior to Larry of Arabia's intervention?
#18
Rafael >> ROTFL Getting out of the car and spraying...I don't think they need a video to come up with that one.
I think it's either a reprisal attack for the bumping off of Ali Babah last week or Saudi/Al-K-duh goons shooting for instability. (no pun intended.)
Posted by: Paul ||
09/05/2003 13:53 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Well they could have stayed inside the car, like an LA-style drive-by shooting. The video that I had in mind is the one that CNN replays once in awhile, where they practice blowing up cardboard bridges, kidnappings, etc. A rather funny video actually. They look more awkward than fearsome.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 16:57 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Rafeal >> Now THAT would require a video presentation. IF you're gonna go "Gangsta" you have to know how to slouch in the seats just the right way and how to hang out the windows. They've already gotten the poor accuracy and killing of innocent bystanders down to a tee. Perhaps they can start on the 3rd or 4th video in the series. "Learn to Gang Banging in just a month."
Yeah, I know the vid you're talking about.
"When Lame Newbie Terrorists Strike!"
I wasn't knocking you Rafael. Just being a wiseass.
Posted by: Paul ||
09/05/2003 18:06 Comments ||
Top||
By David Ignatius
Friday, September 5, 2003 Heavily Edited Ghassan Salame, a Lebanese political scientist who was senior political adviser to the U.N.âs chief in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and who narrowly escaped when Vieira de Mello was killed by a truck bomb on Aug. 19 has a personal plan - not a UN proposal. Salameâs basic argument is that Iraqis have to take more responsibility for their country, and the only way to achieve this goal is to give them the political power they have been demanding. To that end, Salame proposes that three steps be taken immediately:
⢠First, a provisional government should be created. The easiest way to do this would be to merge the existing Governing Council and cabinet. The two 25-member interim bodies are duplicative, with the heads of key political factions sitting on the council and their deputies typically serving as ministers. The merged body would be reduced to 20 to 25 people, and the United Nations would then recognize it as Iraqâs legitimate government. "The present political situation is not tenable," says Salame. Instead of "creeping" gradually toward eventual Iraqi control, America and its allies should agree to "go straight to the Iraqis."
⢠Second, Iraq should quickly regain control of its national budget, so that the provisional government is forced to make hard decisions about where to spend limited money. Rather than give Iraqis this power of the purse, the United Nations is currently planning to replace its cumbersome "oil for food" program with a jury-rigged "development fund." Bremer would sign checks, in consultation with a monitoring group drawn from international organizations such as the World Bank. But if Iraqis controlled the budget, they would have to negotiate the compromises that are the essence of politics. Instead of blithely calling for 1,500 new schools, as the interim Governing Council recently did, the new provisional government would have to set priorities.
⢠Third, a constitutional conference should begin work now on a document that will provide a democratic political structure for the new Iraq. Its membership should include the 25 members of the constitutional committee already named, plus another 100 or so members to be selected by the provisional government. The goal would be to have a new constitution ready for a nationwide referendum in January, with elections to follow in March or April.
Salame says he is worried that in its efforts to stabilize Iraq, the United States is turning back the clock by transferring power to tribal and religious leaders. "Itâs a Lebanization of Iraq, and I regret that," he says. "The country is becoming less secular, and reverting to its old cleavages." He hopes the new constitution will not mirror Lebanonâs religious spoils system but will create something more modern and stable. What makes Salameâs proposals compelling is that they are quick and clean, and they place responsibility where it has always belonged, with the Iraqi people themselves. To those who wonder if the United States can risk moving so fast, Salame would probably answer: Can it risk moving more slowly? After reading it through twice, I decided not to play smartass with inline comments. One point is certainly well-taken: the Lebanization / non-secular arrangements that the US is allowing (even encouraging, it seems) in the mistaken belief (IMO) that this is all the Iraqis will accept and the most peaceful way to get to a stable "democratic" government, is not anywhere near the ideals we, ourselves, believe in, itâs merely expedient. Is that enough? Is anything less than a purpose-built democratic republic based upon the same principles we rely upon worthy of the effort? Thereâs a reason why people line up all around the world, sometimes risking everything, to try to come to the US. I donât think half-baked expediency is it.
If we stipulate a non-negotialble framework defining an absolute set of principles and then take Salameâs approach and hand it off - retaining an oversight veto, it seems to make more sense than what weâre doing now. Just as they will have to live within a budget, they will have to define their goverment within the framework. It should be obvious that we mean business and are willing to fight for this -- So: Can the ideas be combined as a means of moving forward both sooner and toward a worthy end? Is anything less an acceptable outcome given our effort and blood and treasure? And, I hope itâs obvious, we should NOT care who doesnât like the principles we endorse, they donât have a say in Iraq. We do. Letâs make the most of this one shot to get it right.
Posted by: .com ||
09/05/2003 2:21:02 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Perhaps Salame is looking too much at what's going on topside? That seems to me all just show to occupy folks while the civil society we're seeding at grassroots level grows a bit...
#2
First, a provisional government should be created
But created from what? Is there anyone in Iraq right now worthy of handing over the reins to? Is there some dude that can lead Iraq slowly but steadily towards democracy and economic well-being? It seems to me this is what the US is waiting for: for some level-headed guy or group to emerge so that power can be transfered; an Iraqi Karzai.
He hopes the new constitution will not mirror Lebanonâs religious spoils system but will create something more modern and stable.
Exactly. What use is it to hand over power to a regime whose constitution will begin with "And there's no God but Allah..."
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 2:39 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Rafael - What use is it to hand over power to a regime whose constitution will begin with "And there's no God but Allah..."
Precisely my point about imposing a framework of principles - which wouldn't know Allah from Jehovah from Buddha. I posted this because I find it insane that we had the stones to win the war and appear not to have the stones to win the peace - a peace that actually means something - something worthy of the lives lost to gain it.
As for who, the "Governing Council" and "Ministers", as Salame suggests. Why not start there? They key is the requirement that whatever they come up with cannot violate the framework principles - maybe that should be given a name, The Iraqi Bill of Rights⢠- or TIBOR, for short. We imposed such rules in post-WWII occupations, why not here in the same way? Certainly nothing "special" about Iraq other than they have this religious power heirarchy - which has to be put on a leash anyway or it's all pointless. Who you hand it to doesn't matter except that they can get shit done because they have established constituencies. TIBOR protects each constituency from the others. We back the TIBOR with the same ferocity that we used on Saddam - and make that crystal clear. No more Mr Nice Guy to anyone who fucks with another's TIBOR. That would take Sadr and others out of the picture as soon as they opened their Iranian-scripted mouths - which is long overdue any way you slice it. Hell, is there any other way to do this, other than just pulling out and letting them devolve into an Iranian theocracy based upon demographics or have an all-out civil war?
If we're not gonna do this right, we might as well save lives and money and bring everyone home NOW for a 3-month paid R&R followed by a 3 month ramp-up. Then take out the Black Hats and SyrLeb. Then another 6 month reset, then Saudi Arabia. Then another reset and do Egypt. Then another reset and do Pakistan. Then another reset and do...
Only doing Iraq right will buy you anything other than the ouster of another asshat regime bent on your destruction and providing state coverage and money to the asshat foot soldiers. You will have to repeat this with each regime, otherwise. IMO.
#4
Yeah but there has to be someone who says that this framework of principles is something to strive for and has to be respected, with a baseball bat if necessary. Otherwise you'll have people like Sadr, or another religious nay-sayer of the month, who will denounce such a TIBOR, and who do you think the population will listen to? I'm basically comparing this to Eastern Europe, where upon the collapse of communism, in each case there was somebody already waiting who did in fact form a government, filled ministerial positions etc, and took the country in a new direction. I don't see anyone like that in Iraq. Perhaps it's too early. Maybe the key is in Iraq's pre-Saddam government, but I don't know anything about it other than that Sammy killed a quite few of those people on his inauguration day.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 3:56 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Salame is basically right in his conclusion of a Lebanization of Iraq. The first reason why most of the middle eastern countries are not democracies is the lack of gradual reforms leading to democracy, because most of them are in a locked in a continues circle of theocracy. Theocratic and dictatorial regimes block fundamental reforms leading to secularism, a process what need years for the people to get adapted to.
In short, the US is making a fundamental mistake trying to get Iraq into democracy before turning the people warm for secularism. You canât establish democracy before you separate politics and religion in the minds of the people.
Posted by: Murat ||
09/05/2003 3:59 Comments ||
Top||
#6
And you are right Rafael where to get the person to realize that.
Posted by: Murat ||
09/05/2003 4:01 Comments ||
Top||
#7
separate politics and religion in the minds of the people
Mission impossible?? I hope not. I'm trying to think of a precedent and all I can come up with is Algeria. They changed over to democracy, had elections, people elected religious fanatics, ruling government anulled election results, and a good time was had by all ever since.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 4:09 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Thatâs what I meant Rafael, Algeria tried democracy without getting the people secular first and it backfired. I can think of only one example that succeeded, Turkey. But Turkey is also an exceptional case, because Turkey was reset as one smartass concluded above. After WW1 the Ottoman empire was defeated and Turkey was created after a liberation war led by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Ataturk became president of the newly created Turkey in 1921 and ruled until death in 1938 (in principal one can see 17 years of rule as dictatorial). But because he was the war hero the people did not regard him as a dictator but as a saviour. With a semi-dictator like rule he managed to reform Turkey into secularism first before Turkey went into real democracy. What I want to say is democracy in Iraq can be established when reforms that lead to secularism is implemented before, with or without help of the baseball stick.
Posted by: Murat ||
09/05/2003 4:39 Comments ||
Top||
#9
And the smartass says that the troops which blitzed Saddam are the baseball "stick" big enough to enforce the secularism - the TIBOR - which many (no I won't claim to know how many...) Iraqis will appreciate in short order when no tribe or clan or sheikh or cleric can intimidate them. Being freed from having to kow-tow and suck up just might catch on, I think.
It will grow on them just as Ataturk's reforms did in Turkey. 17 years is a long time - and his consistency over that period is what made it real.
Recap:
If we are not going to do this right - and make a lasting difference of a self-sustaining secular democratic model in Iraq, then we should pull out, write off our losses, go home, pull R&R, reset (rinse), and repeat as needed. It will be a tragedy, but that's the only thing that makes sense. Win the peace -- or prepare for a series of hot foreign wars to go on until the assholes realize they can not win.
Only the leverage of a successful peace will make this unnecessary.
#10
Government is organization directed by common goals and desires. Protecting the "volk", common religion, even common ethics. Even Tikriti's using Iraq to line their pockets.
Saddam spent a lot of effort removing non baathist power groups. The only ones left are the religious groups, who would be glad to make a new Iran out of it.
We need to rebuild real political bodies and that is going to take time for them to build their confidence and numbers.
#11
Pulling out is of course out of the question. But maybe the answer is the EUropeans. They certainly collected enough brownie (chocolate?) points from the Arab world at the UNSC. That is unless, France goes Sharia in a couple of years.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 5:18 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Murat:
There is another reading of the Algerian elections: the turnout in the first round of
the elections was around 25%. And the problem
is that the islamists got so many votes of these 25% that they were granted a majority in the chamber even if at second round all the remaining 75% had voted and had voted against the islamists.
So the Islamist "victory" didn't reflect the wish
of the people but that they caught it sleeping. Now it would have been better if the Algerian Army had acted as the Turkish one who gives Islamists a bit of rope, allows them to put the nose around their neck and then oblidgingly pulls the chair. :-)
You are saying Islamists but you mean fundamentalists, Algeria is for 99% Islamic. The core reason of teaching the people secularism is that secularism puts an end to fundamentalism.
A question how can you measure how Islamic a country is and how to measure how fundamentalistic?
Posted by: Murat ||
09/05/2003 8:34 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Algeria is 99% Muslim. The Islamist word was a creation of the Saudis in the 60s or 70s("Islamist conference", ie militant islam conference) and made popular by Khomeiny's followers.
If you want to see a muslim, non-islamist country I suggest you look at Turkey when Kemal was in power when it was decided that the law of 7th century Arab nomads just got in the way, that the Turks were not a such inferior people they needed to use Arab glyphs for writing, that Arab-inspired garb was forbidden or that going to Mecca meant the end of a political career.
You have ever heard of synonyms? Islamic and Muslim are synonyms. At the same time muslim and non-islamist does not exist my friend. Thank you for the flattering words since I am Turkish.
Posted by: Murat ||
09/05/2003 9:54 Comments ||
Top||
#16
.com wrote:
"No more Mr Nice Guy to anyone who fucks with another's TIBOR."
I say "Hear! Hear!"
Rafael wrote:
"Otherwise you'll have people like Sadr, or another religious nay-sayer of the month, who will denounce such a TIBOR, and who do you think the population will listen to?"
I don't like the sound of that. Everyone should ignore that Sadr guy.
then .com wrote:
"And the smartass says that the troops which blitzed Saddam are the baseball "stick" big enough to enforce the secularism - the TIBOR - which many (no I won't claim to know how many...) Iraqis will appreciate in short order when no tribe or clan or sheikh or cleric can intimidate them."
Now you've completely lost me. What is this about troops enforcing secularism with my big "baseball" stick?
Posted by: Tibor ||
09/05/2003 10:35 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Islamic could be a synonym to Muslim (except that I am not sure the word existed in the 60s) but Islamist (the word I used) definitely isn't: Islamist like Communist, Socialist and so on refers to a political movement: the replacement of both native laws and local traditions by Shariah and a theocratical government.
To give you an example of the distinction: I have seen a number of Afghans who were ardent
muslims but still rejected Shariah ("This is Arab and we are better Muslims than them") and definitely rejected theocracy (they told that Mullahs had ever been the lowest of the lowest in Pashtun society and that it was really difficult for a Mullah to find a father accepting to marry his daughter to him). You can call thse Afghans Islamic but definitely not Islamist.
The words Islam and Muslim are used hundreds of years, anyway I donât want to discuss on words and the wrongly use of it.
For the meaning of the word Shariah, the shariah is the way of accepting the laws of the Quran in a twisted fundamentalistic interpreted way. To make things worse every fundamentalist sectarian can interpret the shariah from his own point of view, compare it with the mormons.
So, to be short a country can be very devoted Muslim/Islamic without being fundamentalist. For instance Turkey is one of the most or probably the most moderate Islamic country on earth while Iran is the most fundamentalist country of the world. Do you think that Iran for that fact is more Islamic than Turkey? How to measure that? If you measure by the number of Mosques in the country, well than Turkey must be twice more devote Muslim, while there are more mosques in Turkey (around 80.000) than in Iran and Saudia Arabia combined. Yet it is the only secular Islamic country, surprised?
Posted by: Murat ||
09/05/2003 11:17 Comments ||
Top||
#19
I would be interested in hearing how Murat thinks an islamic country should move through secularism to democracy.
My only experience with a culture that "moved" from religeous domination to secularism was Quebec during the 1960's, but they were already democratic. The Catholic church had tremendous cultural and social strength in the community, and within a couple of years that influence simply faded away. People simply stopped paying heed to the parish priest in everyday life and yet the role of the church is still an important part of individual faith.
Posted by: john ||
09/05/2003 12:18 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Murat,
I am interested in the role of tribes in Turkish Society. I don't think that integration of these family association into government is necessarily a bad thing. My understanding of Secular means without religion, but not necessarily without tribalism.
Stripping away all vestige of exhisting society didn't work in Sun Yat Sen's China nor did it work for the Soviet supported communist government in Afghanistan.
What parts of tribal society can be kept in a sucessful social framework?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/05/2003 12:22 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Ghassan Salame was appointed to the UN by Syria. He takes his marching orders from Bashir Assad. We can still analyze his ideas on their merits, but we should understand that embedded in his proposals may be booby traps that he has set for us. The reason he can set such traps is because we are still learning about Iraq, whereas he has spent his whole life doing so. Do you really think that Assad would deliberately push for anything that would make our life easier?
The roles of tribes in the Turkish society? Fortunately we donât have many âtribesâ in our society, there are however some Kurdish and Arabic tribes living in the southeastern parts of Turkey, they live in a kind of hierarchic society in which they obey their tribal leaders who are usualy big landlords. These landlords often have lot of money and are owners of companies with criminal practices. Some of them are involved in drug trafficing etc.
Your understanding of secularism is quite wrong, secularism means separation of Church and state, in other words keeping religion out of politics. The US are for instance secular, while Iran is not (Clerics reign). It is very difficult to base a nationhood on tribal societies (Africa, Liberia), I have no idea how to establish that Super Hose if that is what you mean by succesful social framework.
Posted by: Murat ||
09/05/2003 14:38 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Most things a person in Iraq needs can and should be dealt with by local politicians. Iraqi's should see the face of the politicians and understand democracy at that level before a national government is truly set up.
Creating a national government in Iraq before there is some kind of democracy at the local levels would be creating a government doomed to failure. I think Bremer sees this as well.
Turks are NOT Arabs. Their only point in common is religion (and I think they follow different branches of Islam). For the rest they come from Central Asia not from Arabia, their language is not a Semitic one and AFAIK they have had a strong state (ie not a conglomerate of tribes) since _at least_ the fall of Constantinopolis.
Now a question to Murat: how did the Turks become muslims? Did they convert voluntarily? Perhaps I am influenced by Arab's woeful military performance in XXth century but I don't imagine them defeating the Turks.
#26
The answer re the Turkish conversion to Islam - it happened in the course of the tenth century in Central Asia and was voluntary, before the various Turkish tribes descended on the Middle East, conquering all of it, basically, by the end of the twelfth century. .
I did not mean to imply that there were tribes in Turkey. I got only a small taste of Turkey during my travelling days. I stopped in Izmir twice for a couple of weeks total. I enjoyed it very much and felt welcome there.
Let me try to ask this a different way. Here is the back drop for my question. I assume that you have a better understanding of the general culture in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan than I do. I understand that tribal life is an important part of the cultural fabric in these countries to the extent that loyalty of tribal elders has always been important to the political sucess of rulers in those three countries.
I read a history of Afghanistan that pointed out that the Russian backed government was unwise to try to supress all elements of Afghan culture. The Taliban did the same, but Sadaam carefully played tribes against each other and used tribal support to his advantage.
Hamid Karzai's governemtn has its basis in the loya jurga whcih is consistent with their tribal culture in the same way that Lenin incorporated the Dema (culturally familiar to Russians) into the Soviet culture.
Here is my question for you: Should the Coalion be trying to encourage the Iraqi's to build a form of democracy that is culturally familiar to them rather than zeroing out their system and trying to build a western system from scratch? Are there elements of the Ottoman system that Turkey built its current governemtn on sucessfully that would be recognizable to the Iraqis? In your opinion would the coalition be better off using Turkish consultants to assist in nation building rather than trying to Yankify the place?
I ask this because I read a good book called Somalia on 5 Dollars a Day by an officer in teh 10th mountain during the semi-sucessful portion of the Somali relief effort. The 10th mountain effort was sucessful by strengthening the existing tribal structure that had been surplanted by the war-lords.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/05/2003 20:40 Comments ||
Top||
We knew this, but a good story to see on the AP wire. EFL.
The 101st Airborne Division fought its way to northern Iraq during the invasion and seized Mosul encountering little more resistance than scattered small arms fire. Since then, the troopsâ exploits in Iraqâs third largest city - once home to the northern headquarters of Saddamâs Husseinâs army - have been a relative success story in the often chaotic and stuttering U.S. occupation of the country. The soldiers here know it. The Iraqis do too, by and large.
The troops can claim the coalitionâs biggest prizes so far in the hunt for members of Saddamâs regime - the July 22 capture of the dictatorâs sons Odai and Qusai during a six-hour firefight at a palatial villa in this city. And aside from the gunfight, they have made headway helping Iraqis move forward - Mosul boasts a city council that was billed as Iraqâs first postwar elected body. Soldiers say residents sometimes flip "them the bird" and gunshots often ring out, but mostly theyâre celebratory shots, not aimed at U.S. troops. In other parts of the country, particularly the so-called Sunni Triangle south of Mosul, Americans are being attacked on an almost daily basis. The semblance of stability has not gone unnoticed by some Iraqis in Mosul, a prewar stronghold for Saddam supporters. "We are much better off than the people in Baghdad. Other than the problem of electricity, everything is fine here. We go out at 2 a.m. and are not afraid," said 60-year-old Nohad al-Issa. Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of the 101st Airborne Division, said Mosul is gifted with an "educated entrepreneurial citizenry that has known a good economy. Itâs also blessed with ample water, has oil and "fantastic farmland." Petraeus was a great choice for this job. Heâs done almost everything right.
The city, which lies 240 miles north of Baghdad on the banks of the Tigris River, is part of the countryâs breadbasket and the areas to the south are dominated by rolling fields of wheat and barley. About two-thirds of its people are Arab, with Kurds as the largest minority. There is also a significant Assyrian Christian minority. Petraeus hails the May election of the city council as his biggest achievement and claims to have "enabled" Iraqis, through reconstruction projects, "advice and encouragement." Using funds seized from Saddamâs regime, U.S. troops have spent more than $15 million in Nineveh province, rebuilding, renovating or refurbishing hundreds of clinics, hospitals, schools, and a music hall; getting water running, digging wells in dried up villages, fixing roads and installing a 911 emergency medical telephone line. Theyâve even set up Internet cafes and sponsored 160 soccer teams ahead of the start of the new season this month. Also in the works is a plan to create 3,500 jobs by granting loans to people wanting to set up small businesses.
One of the biggest complaints Iraqis throughout the country have with coalition forces is the lack of electricity, and although Mosul has not been spared 12-hour power cuts, work is being done to improve the situation. The Army is pumping oil at Kisik refinery and overseeing a power-for-oil agreement with neighboring Syria whereby Damascus provides Mosul with 50 megawatts of electricity in return for 16,000 barrels of oil per day. But the success stories donât mean everyone is happy. In Bab al-Baydh, a poor neighborhood in Mosul, some men complained bitterly that they couldnât find work. "We havenât seen any change. ... There may be freedom, but nothing else," said Hamed Mahmoud, a 33-year-old jobless man. So get off yer lazy butts. Thereâs lots to do.
Others were more damning. "I canât believe an infidel would ever help a Muslim," said Saad, who was too embarrassed refused to give his second name. But others in Mosul took a more neutral line. They donât feel any great love for their occupiers, but want to get on with their lives. "Who likes occupation? " questioned Ghanim al-Basso, governor of Nineveh province. "But we donât want them to leave before they repair what they destroyed or what was destroyed. When this is done, we will tell them âMay God be with you.â" And the ambivalence of Mosulâs residents toward the U.S. troops has meant the soldiers remain wary. "Itâs just the feeling you get when driving through town and the way they stare at you ... the uneasy look, as if to say, âwe donât want you here, why are you hereâ kind of stare," said Staff Sgt. Gary Trout, 35, from Altoona, Penn. A look practiced for about 14 centuries, so donât feel bad, Sarge.
And the troops know the success rate has to continue if they are to move forward. "We are in a race to win over the people. What have you and your element done today to contribute to victory?" reads a note posted at their base inside one of Saddamâs former palace. Finish the job and come home, boys.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/05/2003 1:18:47 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is what we can do when we're not being attacked. Too bad the rest of the world only counts success in dead bodies. Our dead bodies.
Posted by: Charles ||
09/05/2003 2:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Saad says "I canât believe an infidel would ever help a Muslim," What is going to do now that Saddam is gone, we are digging wells, rebuilding hospitals, clinics, roads, and music halls? What happens to his beliefs in the face of such help?
Posted by: Ben ||
09/05/2003 6:49 Comments ||
Top||
EFL
BAGHDAD (AP) - American officials want to speed up training for Iraqi security forces, including former members of Saddam Husseinâs military and intelligence services, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday. Making Iraq safe is a job for Iraqis, and no more U.S. troops are needed in the country, Rumsfeld said after meeting in the capital with top military and civilian officials of the American-led occupation. "Security is a problem, but itâs a problem that, ultimately, the Iraqi people will deal with, with the help of coalition forces," Rumsfeld said at an impromptu news conference. Thus laying the groundwork for what we do after Jacques votes ânonâ.
Rumsfeld arrived in Baghdad on Thursday afternoon for his second visit to Iraq in four months. He said coalition forces had completed more than 6,000 humanitarian projects since then. "It is getting better every day. I can see a change since I was here," Rumsfeld said. "That is not to say it is not dangerous. It is. But it seems to me that the trajectory weâre on is a good one."
Despite problems in restoring and repairing Iraqâs electrical system, Baghdad at night glows with light, Rumsfeld said after returning on a Black Hawk helicopter from one downtown compound to an American base near the cityâs airport. "For a city thatâs not supposed to have power, thereâs lights all over the place. Itâs like Chicago," Rumsfeld said. And parts of Baghdad are safer than the Woodlawn and West Austin neighborhoods in Chicago.
Moments after he arrived in searing desert heat on a C-17 transport plane, Rumsfeld shook hands and posed for pictures with grinning Air Force service members on the tarmac. He then stepped over a traffic barrier and visited wounded soldiers in an air-conditioned hospital tent nearby.
The daily attacks on U.S. soldiers as well as a series of car bombings that has killed more than 100 have prompted some in Congress to call for more American troops to be sent to Iraq. Rumsfeld said the top generals in Iraq do not want more than the 140,000 U.S. troops now in the country. "Mostly what we want is more Iraqi forces," Rumsfeld said. "We want more force protection, more infrastructure protection, more police, more border guards, and that should be done by Iraqis."
The defense secretary said the U.S. military is "looking at ways of accelerating" the process of bringing former members of Saddamâs military - and possibly his security services - into the Iraqi security forces. Iraqi enlisted soldiers and junior officers from lieutenant colonel on down could be eligible to join the new Iraqi army, Rumsfeld said. All will be carefully screened to weed out those with anti-American leanings, he said.
Between 50,000 and 60,000 Iraqis are doing security work now, more than half of them working as police officers, Rumsfeld said. Hadnât seen those numbers before.
U.S. officials still do not have a good idea whether Saddam loyalists, foreign fighters or other forces are behind the bombings, defense officials said Thursday. The military is unsatisfied with the amount and quality of information they have about anti-American forces in Iraq, particularly about foreign fighters, Rumsfeld said. "Theyâre not comfortable at the moment with what they donât know," Rumsfeld said. "Oh well, weâll just have to kill them when we find them."
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/05/2003 1:09:06 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Have to kill them? No, it's more like this.
" Oh well, we're just going to end up mutilating them with machine-gun fire anyway. It's not like we're trying to take them alive. "
Posted by: Charles ||
09/05/2003 2:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Donald Pinocchio Rumsfeld came and lied commented some more after shortchanging talking about force levels necessary in the quagmire operations theater
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/05/2003 3:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Hey Mike, how about defining quagmire for us? What actually defines it for you? Five months? A few bombings? A couple of hundred KIAs? There are tons of reports, many of them right here, that show clearly that most of Iraq is peaceful and that conditions are improving. So things aren't perfect everywhere, so we're changing our tactics to suit the situation. That's classic American behavior. We try something, and if it doesn't work, we try something else.
But the real issue is that those who share your short-sighted views, simply do not understand what Iraq is about. You don't see the strategic view. This war was never, ever just about Iraq.
It's about the fact that on Sept. 11, and many other times before, we were attacked by the MIDDLE EAST. It's about trying to change the dynamics of a region that is about as backward as can be by moving Iraq towards democratic principles and economic advancement. It's about creating an example that peace, prosperity, and freedom are a better way to live that authorian kleptocracies and fascist-rascist mullahs. It's about trying to give people a better life and therefore reduce the reasons people turn to terrorism in the first place. Weren't leftists yelling about "root causes" not so long ago? Iraq is all about root causes, my friend.
Yeah, it's going to cost a lot of money and it's going to take a long time. So what? It's worth every penny and every day that it takes to at least try.
Because if we don't try, or worse, if we run away like the leftists want, the situation in that part of the world will ONLY get worse until the inevitable happens: we get nuked by some terrorist group. If that happened, what do you think our response would be? I think we all know: we'd vaporize the whole region.
See, you leftists just don't get it at all: the war and reconstruction in Iraq are the MOST humanitarian thing we can do. It is the most bloodless option. Look at the whole picture for a change. Look deep down inside yourself. Do you actually believe that if we did nothing that the Middle East would be LESS dangerous?
Posted by: R. McLeod ||
09/05/2003 3:39 Comments ||
Top||
#4
NMM - LOL! Rumsfeld sure gets you (and your ilk) in a tizzy! Panties bunched up everywhere you twinks congregate. Waay cool! I find that so sweet and endearing that I won't even spank you!
You're on a par with the Phrench, now. Your wild-eyed comical spittle about Rummy is tantamount to a ringing endorsement! Anyone who makes you lose your little marbles is definitely doing something vewy vewy wight! Thanx - tool phools like you have made him my favorite Bushie!
#5
.com Rumsfeld is the idiot strategist that decided to use as few troops as possible against advice from many generals---now our boys are paying for it--I don't find that funny at all--however my liberal boxers get twisted
McLeod--everytime you conservatives invoke 9/11 I have to shudder knowing exactly how much contempt and irrational hatred you have for New York City--the most liberal city in the US and its 80% voting record for Gore. Don't even get me started about the cynical selection of NYC for the Repooplican convention to coincide with 9/11--New Yorkers hate the GOP and for good reason--seen the lies Christine Todd Liar told about the air quality at Ground Zero? I know quite a few NY Wall St Republicans who are coughing mad about that shit
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/05/2003 4:01 Comments ||
Top||
#6
ps .com I'm over 40 so longer twink material for you pedophiles
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/05/2003 4:29 Comments ||
Top||
#7
NMM - I'll assume, though it's probably stupid of me, you actually now care about "our boys" and believe your point addresses it. You're not consistent, therefore not automatically believable, since you thought the SF demonstration signs about shooting officers was pretty funny. I thought then that you deserved to be shot in response. Not a question of your free speech rights, but of whether or not you were a human or a blinded rabid dog asshat. In this response I offer you the benefit of the doubt - until / unless you waste it.
It's not that simple, of course, but you're partially right - credit where due - but read on. Rumsfeld is concerned about troop levels - all over the world - it's his job. As SecDef, he was handed a task and he's doing what he thinks is best - blame Dubya if you don't like what he's done, he could've been overruled at any point.
The main reason I haven't made the same point you did is that there are several reasons, not the least of which is that the security situation which requires so many troops was drastically made worse when we did not get to implement a Northern front due to Turkey's duplicity and betrayal. Not only did we lose more people in the one-front push, but it has exacerbated everything since and, thus, cost us some of "our boys" afterwards, too. Think it through and ask yourself where much of the early trouble and where much of the ongoing active sabotage comes from and the answer will be the Sunni Triangle. Recall the story last week of the Sheikh who made it clear he expected to be bribed to keep "his section" of the pipleine free from sabotage? Classic Sunni protection racket - straight from the Triangle. That area got a pass, relatively speaking, because of the one-front situation. It SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEVELED, Sheikh and all. Sorry, but it's a very sore point for several reasons I've written about before - but it's definitely part of what is seen to be a shortage of boots on the ground. During active operations, while 4ID was still transiting all the way back around to Kuwait to enter the theater of ops, it should've been wiping Tikrit and similar off the face of the Earth.
As for NYC going Donk, those Puerto Ricans you hold in disfavor are your biggest dole-loving allies, or hadn't you thought about that? They're your Donk cannon fodder, pal.
As for Christine Todd and the twiddle-twaddle regards air quality - sheesh, c'mon man - is that really grounds for some liberal jihadi BS against the Pubs? Get real. There are better reasons, you just need to go back to IndyMedia and rearm. Go ahead. We'll call a hudna til you return.
#8
.com--don't remember the reference to shooting officers in SF--but I'm non-violent type and DOUBT that! I agree Turkey stabbed us in the back but I don't blame the French for that! As for PR-you're forgetting all the tax breaks for American corps doing biz there -- now ya got me scared--we actually agree on things--does this make me your bitch like Murat?
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/05/2003 4:54 Comments ||
Top||
#9
LOL. Classic Rantburg, now I know why I love this place so much.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 5:01 Comments ||
Top||
#10
NMM - "I'm non-violent type and DOUBT that"
Okay, my memory tells me you did an 'LOL' over a banner pic shown on LGF (discussed here) which said that the soldiers should shoot their officers - but I've been wrong before, so the benefit of the doubt is yours.
"we actually agree on things"
Well some things - I don't think you'll start blinking and be called to renewal ala Logan's Run over it!
"does this make me your bitch like Murat?"
Nope. I'm a one-bitch Sandman and, besides, he's almost behaving himself today - arguing coherently and contributing. It's a marvel - and welcome.
It may disappoint you to hear it, but you could be valuable in Rantburg - if you would lay off the IndyMedia gag-lines and contribute your intellect. It doesn't hurt us at all to hear bona-fide liberal arguments. Now if you just love to get dirty and this is where you choose to do it, then you've devalued yourself - trolls are a dime a dozen. BUT, no sweat, some of us love to get dirty once in awhile, too. You'll be fully employed, either way, but only be appreciated for contributing. Ahhhhh, free speech, doncha love it?
#11
Steve White: Don't forget Pilsen and Englewood.
Posted by: michael ||
09/05/2003 12:10 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I'm having trouble buying the "Turkish Betrayal" scenario that folks keep trying to float. I don't have a problem with a soveriegn nation refusing to engage in an action that is against their self-interest. I would hope that our government looked carefully at why the turkih governemtn didn't want to railroad our troops through their country and factored Turkish concerns into what has been a sucessful campaign in Northern Iraq.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/05/2003 12:26 Comments ||
Top||
#13
actually new yorkers have historically been okay with moderate to liberal Republicans. Note Fiorello LaGuardia, perhaps NYCs greatest Mayor, John Lindsay, perhaps its most liberal, Rudy Giulianni, certainly its most popular recent mayor, and even Michael Bloomberg who was elected as a Republican, though essentially as a party label of convenience. Also strong support in the past for Jacob Javits and others statewide.
France and Germany dug in for another diplomatic battle yesterday when they rejected American proposals for a new UN resolution on Iraq. "We are very, very far removed from having a resolution in front of us which we can agree to," said President Jacques Chirac after talks in Dresden with Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. "Non again!"
"The proposals seem quite far from what appears to us the primary objective, namely the reinstatement of our oil contracts transfer of political responsibility to an Iraqi government as soon as possible."
Mr Schroder was less harsh but stuck by M Chirac. He said America was showing signs of new thinking but its latest move was still "not dynamic enough and not far-reaching enough". Sorry, TGA, donât think Schroder will make to the ranch after all.
Facing daily casualties in Iraq and large-scale bombings that killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the United Nations envoy, and the Shiâite leader Ayatollah Muhammad Baqer al-Hakim, Washington is to seek a new UN resolution to encourage other countries to send troops and funds. The move is a climb-down by the Bush administration, which made no secret of its contempt for the UN after the failed attempt to secure a Security Council resolution authorising war. You folks at the Telegraph might not be able to see it, but this resolution continues that fine tradition of contempt.
Immediately after the downfall of Saddam Hussein, the Security Council unanimously agreed to a US call for all sanctions against Iraq to be lifted and granted America and Britain unfettered powers to run the country. But as the security situation has deteriorated but modestly, France and Germany may feel they now have enough strength to take on America in a new round of diplomatic arm-wrestling.
The US-drafted resolution, which has not been formally published, offers the UN an "expanded" role. It sets a timetable for a new constitution and a return to Iraqi rule. It also offers greater diplomatic cover for other countries - such as Turkey, India and Pakistan - to send troops to Iraq. Still a mistake to let those three in.
Despite the U-turn, there is no sign that Washington will give up its absolute political and military authority in Iraq. France says political control should be transferred from the Coalition Provisional Authority to the UN. Dream on, Jacques!
Britain will resume its familiar role of trying to bridge the gap at the UN but Whitehall sources said the French position was unacceptable. "Changing the political structure of the authority is too high a price to pay for a resolution," said one. "The French will play hardball for some time but in the end will have to compromise."
The bargaining may eventually be decided by Russia. Moscow at first lined up with Paris and Berlin in opposing the war but in recent days has sent supportive signals to America. As President Vladimir Putin prepares to visit Washington later this month, Sergei Ivanov, his defence minister, said Russia may send peacekeepers to Iraq as part of an international force. "Outright, I do not reject it or rule it out," said Mr Ivanov. "Everything depends on the unity of opinion in the Security Council" and the degree to which the UN will have influence on Iraqâs future. "Nice playing with you, Jaques, but we need to think of ourselves, and you French boys donât seem capable of any heavy lifting."
In Washington, Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, seemed to take a sanguine view of the French and German opposition. "I think the resolution is drafted in a way that deals with the concerns that leaders such as President Chirac and Chancellor Schroder have raised in the past. If they have suggestions, we would be more than happy to listen." Colin just raised his bet. That was a big blue chip tossed into the pile.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/05/2003 12:51:07 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We don't need no stinkin' chocolate. Putin's got the Stoli!
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
09/05/2003 1:24 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Chiraq will throw in another big blue chip in the coming days, if not sooner, and then we'll tell them to show they're hand. Germany will crap it's pants and beg for mercy abandon France once it sees our hand. Russia has already abandonned France ( They were just trying to save face anyway). As for the fate of France?
We'll end up half of it from Chirac, then turning our half into one of the richest regions in the world. Like what we did for Alaska when we bought it from Russia.
Posted by: Charles ||
09/05/2003 2:39 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The more I think about this, the more I'm beginning to sit on the fence on this issue. Letting the chocolate makers have their way in Iraq has some advantages to it, mainly releasing the US forces to focus on other areas (Iran & what remains of OBL, for instance). We know that we can't count on Old European help in other matters anyway. The only thing is, this wouldn't be such a hard choice at all if we knew that Chiraq et al wouldn't betray the US after setting up an Iraqi admin. I wouldn't trust them to walk my dog on a leash...
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 3:00 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Let's see--we diss the French--freedom fries etc call the Germans Old Europe, go to the UN hat in hand and expect them to jump on the Bush bandwagon for a multinational force while the Bush campaign contributors like Haliburton feed like hogs at the trough and their companies get the leftovers--NOPE ain't gonna happen
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/05/2003 3:14 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Let's see.. they reject every American resolution out of hand just because they got called a few names? (which are all funny btw, not like their use of the term 'cowboys') Pathetic if you ask me, but typical on their part.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 3:32 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Hey Rafael--the Repooplican Murdochian name calling got started after the French and Germans didn't kowtow to the Bushies and act like vassals to the Haliburton Bush administration
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/05/2003 3:41 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Ah, so now I get it. We changed the name of a fast food to "freedom fries" and it destroyed the "relationship" with France! The horror.
Tell you what, we'll change the name back to French fries when France stops stabbing us in the back and starts acting like an ally.
Fair enough?
Posted by: R. McLeod ||
09/05/2003 3:52 Comments ||
Top||
#8
France was an ally of 200 hundred years till the Bushies started their crap and their media allies piled on--allies can disagree--but when it becomes something out of Der Sturmer--then people react
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/05/2003 4:08 Comments ||
Top||
#9
name calling got started after the French and Germans didn't kowtow to the Bushies
Ah no. The way I remember it, the name calling started after a German minister or whoever, compared Bush to Hitler (which you probably thought hilarious). It all went up hill from there.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 4:19 Comments ||
Top||
#10
And the bitch who said that justifiably lost her job
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/05/2003 4:31 Comments ||
Top||
#11
France hasn't been ANYONE's ally in over a hundred years. France isn't even its own ally.
#12
France was an ally of 200 hundred years till the Bushies
Posted by: Not Mike Moore 2003-9-5 4:08:17 AM
-----
I am sorry, I just cant let that one slip by:
Our first interaction with france after the american revolution was a blackmail attempt by the french - the XYZ affair.
Don't distort facts. The dissing of the French, the Old Europe name began WELL AFTER Chirak and Schroeder began acting like if they were Saddam's allies, WELL AFTER the French press (at least the Parisian one but in France this is the one who matters) began a campaign of Antiamericanism of an unprecedented violence and about the German minister bitch who got fired it seems your memory is flakey: she was fired MONTHS after the incident and AFTER the elections so Schroeder used her antiamericanism for gaining votes on the far left and dumped her when no longer needed her and needed to make a gesture to loook friendly to America (for economic reasons).
Rafael:
About the "freedom fries" it is the kind of silly name who will not stick. During WWI the French changed the name of the "Chocolat Viennois" (Vienese chocolate) to "Chocolat Liegeois" (from the Belgian city of Liege). After the war the name didn't change. Nert time change the name to something like Spanish fries or Milanese fries. You get the idea.
Rafael, R Mcleod, and Dishman are absolutely correct - on all counts. The Phrogs have been brewing their jealousy for a long time. Their decline and America's growth are what caused the various escalations and outbursts - over the decades. You say you're over 40 - so look back a bit - this has been a long time coming. Hell, DeGaulle alone was enuff for the US to put Phrawnce in the idiot list.
Remember, the current episode began as a political ploy in which Chirac has deftly used the US to deflect Phrench public attention away from the fact that he should be wearing pin-stripes (or the Phoggie equiv) for being a crook. Germany's Shroeder was less subtle in his political gambit, and enthusiasm for the get-relected-at-any-cost game infected the late Minister.
You need to visit the Dissident Frogman and Merde in France and Pave France - they are far more virulently anti-US than we are anti-Phrawnce.
As it stands now, this moment in time, the Phrench are insignificant and terrified of their self-made self-chosen self-inflicted destiny. Their geographical location will make their fall into 3rd world ruin and immigrant chaos inconvenient for some, but the cost to the suckers who fall for the EU will be enormous. Yet, the world will stumble forward, somehow, minus the cheese and wine and with Phrawnce under Sharia control.
On another note, one honest broker to another (at least today), you should really be concerned about the UN. They can, indeed, manipulate and abuse it to the point where America (and others) will view it as DEAD and USELESS. Let's pretend, for a moment:
I am an influential liberal (i.e. wearing your professed shoes). My greatest fear, by far, is that the Phrench will destroy the UN. I would be doing everything in my power to bring them back to reality regards how they behave there. That is my greatest tool and ally to control the US, since the voters don't agree with me at the moment. I would beat sense into them - before they kill it DEAD.
Okay, enuff phantasy. Phuck Phrawnce and the UN! Have a nice day - Australian wine is tres bien!
#15
The funny thing is people don't usually say "french fries" when ordering at the local McDonald's, they just refer to them as "fries". So there's nothing to really get upset about here. UN resolutions shouldn't have to suffer for it.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 5:58 Comments ||
Top||
#16
JFM - I will happily donate $1000 to the Bring JFM Home to America Fund! I can recommend several places for tax reasons, but not knowing your tastes hesitate to do so. You, sir, are infintely welcome in America. I only wish YOU were in Chirac's place. You could bring Sabine Herold into your admin and not only turn things around, but have some fun!
#17
Bush makes every good left-winger like Not Mike Moore foam at the mouth and lose touch with reality because, as they all know, Bush is an evil-Nazi-dunce who steals elections, starves 'the children,' puts minorities in concentration camps, and kills Grandma (kinda like the French, huh?). Of course, the right-wing media conspiracy is the only reason 'the people' haven't seen the light and tossed him out yet -- but just wait until 2004! -- so if France lead the charge to oppose Bush then they must be the cat's meow.
For all you non-Left Wingers out there, try to imagine the last two years with Algore at the helm and Madeleine 'Watch me Giggle like a Schoolgirl as I Dance the Two Step with Dear Leader' Albright running the post-9-11 response. There wouldn't be an aspirin factory in the Third World standing but at least the masturbators at the UN would tolerate our existence for the time being!
Posted by: Ned ||
09/05/2003 7:55 Comments ||
Top||
#18
NMM, France has never been a true ally. Not even during WW II and certainly never afterwards. It wants to sit on the fence, playing the US against another super power. Since there is no such second super power at this moment (China still being too absorbed in its own affairs and those of its immediate neighbors), France has taken up that role itself.
Of course Chirac knows that France lacks the military or economical power to do so, hence his pandering to any violent islamofascist government or movement that he can find. They have the manpower and France can provide them with technology.
There are a lot of more or less valid arguments to be made against Bush's policies, but whining about the loss of France's friendship isn't one of them. France has made a conscious political choice to become America's enemy. And judging from the reaction of the French public, this choice is shared by at least 95 % of the French.
They have every right to do so, but they shouldn't hide behind weasel words like "as your ally...". Nor should any American - liberal or conservative - fool himself into believing that France is still an ally. They're not, so act (and argue) accordingly.
Posted by: Peter ||
09/05/2003 8:09 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Peter:
As I said yesterday in my post about anti-Americanism the French elites have carefully
distorted the info and manipulated the people (read the examples I give, PLEASE). They made all their possible to make you look like monsters and dangerous fanatics. I don't know what the approval rates would be if the French people had access to a really pluralistic information. I am also quite familiar with the methods used in French opinion polls and I take them with a BIG grain of salt: the quota method does not allow confidence intervals, there is a good dose of hand-made correction for interviewees not daring to tell their opinion to interviewer (because it is not politically correct) and finally the ruling elites needed, both for internal and external reasons to portray the French people as united behind his Fuhr., err, united behind his President.
But now that I have pleaded the cause of the French people let's talk about France. France has politicians, the politicians in position to reach important positions (because they are more or less at the center) are Europeists. Europeists (be it in France, Germany or everywhere else) want and need Europe on a collision course with America for at least two reasons.
1) Because the first law of politics is that the number one and the number two will fight for supremacy when there isn't an outside danger (like in Soviet Union times). The Europeists have added GNPs, populations and have concluded that they are the potentially the number one. If Bush I and Hillary's husband had had an ounce of common sense they would have never allowed the EEC become the EU. The EU is a structural ennemy of the United States.
2) Most people in Europe show little enthousiasm for a super-state who regulates bed lengths (true), where unlected apparatchiks can instantly void national constitutions when it pleases them (Amsterdam treaty) and shoehorn a Union between people who have strictly nothing in common (not even the way to trim the hair of their dogs). How do you unite such people? You give them a common ennemy. Normans and Saxons didn't become a nation together until the Hundred Years war. Same thing for France. It was the Napoleonic invasions who created Germany as a nation and the 1870 war who created it as a state. Thus the Europeist elites need a (cold) war in order to create a real nation.
That means you have to distrust France (the state) and don't think in it as an ally: as long as the Europeists are in power (and specially as long as Chirak is in power) it will not be your ally. But it is not France alone, don't trust any other European country ruled by people who see the EU not as a mere market opportunity and a way to get subsidies but who really buy the Euro-unionism BS.
#20
Here's the money quote (from Fox):
Many council nations are also demanding a much stronger U.N. role, and France would like to see the United Nations replace the United States as Iraq's interim administrator. Syria also wants the United Nations to command the U.N.-authorized multinational force envisioned in the resolution â not the United States.
ha ha hahaha hah har har hoo hooooharhhhieeee eeee
Posted by: An ||
09/05/2003 10:03 Comments ||
Top||
#23
both NMM and the Frog bashers here are wrong.
France, like all great powers, has pursued her own interests.
From 1945 to 1962 when France was weak, and trying desperately to hold on to a colonial empire threatened by communists and third world leftists, France was a loyal ally of the US.
After 1962 France no longer had an empire, and was repairing its relations with the 3rd world. It was also growing in economic strength. The Sino-Soviet split made the USSR appear less threatening. And, in all fairness, there was resentment for the way the US undercut them over Suez and Algeria. So France went to a more independent, almost (but not quite) neutralist.
In the late '70s, with the decline of US power, and the growth of Soviet influence, France under Mitterand moved back into the Atlantic Alliance and closer to the US.
After 1989, with the fall of the Soviet empire, and the emergence of the US as the sole superpower, France moved rapidly away from a close relationship with the US. This was very much happening while Clinton was president - France took a progenocidaire position on Rwanda to avoid seeing it fall in anglophone hands, it was dragged kicking and screaming into Kosovo, it raised and focused on the problem of American hyperpower before Dubya was pres.
This isnt about Dubya personally. And it isnt about perfidious Frenchies. Its about Power Balance and Realpolitik.
#24
And id really like to know what all you frog bashers think about Suez, 1956.
Nasser nationalized the Suez canal - taking French and British property (shares in the canal company)and denying passage to ships bound to or from Israel (against international treaty) France saw Nasser as a threat to their position in Algeria, UK to their position in the Gulf. France, UK and Israel cooperated in a war on Egypt. Which the 3 states won. (you can attribute the victory to the Israelis, if the thought of victorious Frenchies is too much for you - but they were Israelis with French weapons)
So here we have France victorious = and pressed to withdraw - in THE UN!!! by Russia AND the US!!!!! They could have vetoed, but the US threatened dire financial consequences. So they caved and withdrew, giving Nasser a great victory.
Now the US had reasonable geopolitical reasons for doing that - gaining goodwill in the 3rd wordl and all. But we hardly more "loyal" than they have been to us.
#25
No offence, LH, but when it comes to assessing French politics and opinion I'll be placing more credence on the opinions of sceptical insiders such as JFM, Sabine Herold and the dissident frogman, than anyone else.
And you can't just excuse current French political strategy as "about Power Balance and Realpolitic". Napoleon, Hitler and Osama bin Laden were into that game, too. Didn't win them any sympathy from me.
#26
bulldog - have not discussed domestic french politics or opinion. What i think i have demonstrated is that France behavior over the last 50 years is easily explained in power balance terms - anyone dispute that?
Nappy, Hitler and Osama into realpolitik and power balance?
1. Well so were Churchill, FDR, Disraeli, Palmerston, Nixon, etc. Britain virtually invented the concept, and played it masterfully for a couple of hundred years. Essentially any great power that wants to survive must play it, to a greater or lesser degree.
2. Nothing the French have done this century compares to Hitler. Really, that comparison is uncalled for.
3. If Hitler was a practitioner of realpolitik, we was a particularly bad one, since he managed to get Germany into war with 3 powers, each of which alone was at least as strong as Germany.
4. Osama a realpolitik practitioner - debatable - stratfor does suggest that there is some strategic logic to what he does - IE hes not simply loony - but Id hardly call it realpolitik.
5. Nappy - closer here than in the other two cases - at least Nappy was a realpolitiker - but hardly a power balancer - he was going for hegemony - power balancing was used against him.
#27
and might i ask, if realpolitik is wrong, then how do you excuse the US for the Suez betrayal?
And would it be inappropriate to note, that post-Suez, both UK AND France refused to support the US in Viet Nam.
And that both UK AND France were exempted from the 1973 Arab oil embargo?
Now I love the UK, and I am a fan of Tony Blair, and i think we should not treat France with kid gloves - but the idea that France has never been an ally of the US, in contrast to certain other states that have always been so, is just plain absurd.
#28
again, im not interested in disputing french politics with frenchmen, or EU politics with europeans - my issue is more with the immature approach to international relations of many of my fellow Americans.
We tend to either "love" other countries, or "hate" them. Russia is either the perpetual Czarist-Stalinist-Putin darkness, or its a wide open country much like us, with whom we can be true friends not like those pinched europeans. China is either the yellow peril or the our little brother, who we will save from european and japanese imperialists. France is our oldest and dearest ally, or was never our ally. UK was manipulative power balancer, always looking out for an unjust empire, or they are our dear cousins, loyal through thick and thin. Germany is our loyal cold war ally, an orderly people we can always get along with, or they are a bunch of closet ex-Nazis.
It strikes me that we are too powerful a country to go about in the world thinking like this. We have power, more relative power than any state in world history - we MUST take a mature and realistic attitude toward other states, and that means looking at states as states, not as schoolyard friends or enemies.
#29
Another point that I haven't seen being made is that it was the French monarchy which supported the United States in Revolutionary times (they did it partly to tweak the English, of course).
Our alliance with France hasn't been the same since they cut off the heads of the smart people...
#30
JFM> "If Bush I and Hillary's husband had had an ounce of common sense they would have never allowed the EEC become the EU."
JFM, are you really comfortable with the idea of American presidents allowing or disallowing what European nations shall do with themselves?
How would you like it to have stopped it? Send in the bombers? An embargo perhaps?
And your claim that the European nations have nothing in common is pretty absurd. If nothing else all of Europe has passed through the same crucible of being the battlefield where nazism, communism and democracy fought each other. And most of the European demos has reached an almost common understanding of world affairs, and repudiated both nationalism and the application of force as positive elements in society. And what Europeans call "socialism" not necessarily considered a negative one.
Read Robert Kagan's essay, if you want.
There are *some* divisions yes. Slavs and Germans and Latins, oh my. Still. If we had *nothing* in common how in the world could Americans manage to insult us as a whole? :-)
"Most people in Europe show little enthousiasm for a super-state who regulates bed lengths (true), where unlected apparatchiks can instantly void national constitutions when it pleases them (Amsterdam treaty) and shoehorn a Union between people who have strictly nothing in common (not even the way to trim the hair of their dogs). "
Indeed. Who would ever support *such* a superstate?
And yet most people also show great support for the *EU* instead, which means that they really don't see it the way you do.
well i dont think thats quite true. I dont think either UK OR France have done so. The small states have done so largely out of recognition of the illusory nature to their own sovereignty -the Germans out a realistic recognition of the limits on the effectitive expression of their sovereignty given their history. Italy is not a small power, and does not have the limitations Germany has, but arguably always had a relatively weak nationalism.
France and the UK are different though. UK is for that very reason reluctant to see a more integrated EU - and France wants to see it, but I think for its own quite nationalistic purposes.
#32
LH, I wasn't directly comparing France today with Hitler, Napoleon etc., just debating your claim that French attitude is excusable as they're (presumably) merely acting in their own national interest. I say that's baloney. A nation is capable of bad behaviour and bad attitude (as you yourself suggest Americans can act immaturely). France has shown plenty of both, and is responsible for her actions. Realpolitik is supposed to be about cynical manoeuvring, surgical strategy and being no hostage to sentimentality. Sure, there's a bit of that in every nation's business, but there's also plenty of room for emotion and irrationality. If the French really were such masters of the art of realpolitik, wouldn't they have made fewer catastrophic blunders during the last century? It is possible to criticise France without wishing her ill, you know!
Aris: "And yet most people also show great support for the *EU*..." Sorry, I forget, which planet are you communicating with us from, again?
#33
"And most of the European demos has reached an almost common understanding of world affairs, and repudiated both nationalism and the application of force as positive elements in society."
Whoa, now there's a phrase that could blow up in your face sometime in the future, Aris. I'll bet Tito thought he had the Slavs all nice 'n' neighbourly, too. I see you're getting all homogenous, as per D'Estaing's instructions...
#35
France is heavily involved protecting its economic interests in Africa. What troops could they provide anyway? I would dare them to draft theirown resolution in which their troops aer center stage.
As for a continuum of 200 years of friendship with France he Quasi War occurred very soon after the the American Revolution. Also the US relationship with Napoleon was very lukewarm.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/05/2003 13:11 Comments ||
Top||
#36
bulldog - i would agree that France has been behaving less then expertly in the last 6 years, lets say. Largely because I beleive they truely misunderstand the United States, on several levels. But I was opposing the notion that they have "never" been our ally.
Also wonder what you think their main blunders have been this century - many such that i can think of have either been blunders they made jointly with the UK, or, in a few instances, were decisions they made due to lack of UK assurances at critical times (to be fair - in situations where UK was handicapped by lack of US assurances - Im thinking of 1919 and 1938).
#37
The Frogs aren't our allies! We lost MORE American Servicemen due to the bullets of the Vichy during Operation Torch, than we have lost in Iraq! Remember what Patton said! I would rather have a German Division in front of me, rather than a French one behind me!
Most people in Greece are showing strong support for the EU? Let's see, try telling them that the subsidies Greece is getting from the EU (for being one of the poor countries) will be stoppped tomorrow at noon. Count then how many STILL favor the EU.
Next day tell them some nutso has slammed a jet on Helsinki, that he is hiding somewhere in Murmansk and that THEY are supposed to go defend Finland. Dont forget to tell them about the "brutal Finnish winter". You see that is the difference in a REAL nation: the guy of San Diego is willing to face the "brutal Afghan winter" and give his life for New-York. Are you ready to give your life for Helsinki? After Turkey is accepted in the EU, to give your life for Ankara?
#39
Bulldog: Aris: "And yet most people also show great support for the *EU*..." Sorry, I forget, which planet are you communicating with us from, again?
The ones where all the polls show that everywhere with the exception of Britain, EU has an very large majority supporting it, which becomes an *overwhelming* majority in the new member nations.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/ archives/eb/eb58/eb58_en.pdf (warning: this is about 2 MB download)
Some stats for support of EU membership among the nations. First number is the pro- percentage, Second number the anti-.
Luxembourg 83% / 3%
Ireland 74% / 7%
Netherlands 69% / 7%
Spain 68% / 7%
Italy 62% / 7%
Greece 62% / 8%
Danemark 61% / 14%
Belgium 60% / 8%
Germany 59% / 6%
Portugal 56% / 12%
France 52% / 13%
Austria 46% / 13%
Sweden 43% / 23%
Finland 41% / 19%
UK 31% / 19%
-----
And for the new countries in the referendums:
Slovakia 92.7% YES
Lithuania 91.07% YES
Slovenia 89.64% YES
Hungary 83,76% YES
Poland 77.45% YES
Czech republic 77,33% YES
Malta 53.6% YES
Now, Bulldog, I'm sure that the reality JFM would have you believe sounds much more appealing to you so you can feel free to close your ears and hum real loud when you hear these numbers instead... :-)
#40
JFM> I'm about as ready to give my life for Elsinki as I'm ready to give my life for Salonica or other cities of Greece. Which means not ready at all really, but I'll definitely make a try at it for honour's sake.
And if Turkey one day became a democratic nation which would deserve to join the EU, then yeah, I'd try to give my life for Ankara as well.
Why would that surprise you? Greek people gave their lives for Korea after all.
#41
And as a sidenote, Bulldog, I expect to hear from you the numbers you've heard that indicate the majority of European citizens *don't* have an overwhelming support for the European Union.
#42
I think George W. Bush likes the UN but realizes that its disfunctional. A major reason for that disfunctionality is the French veto.
The French veto becoming a European veto would be good for the US, and good for Europe (except perhaps France).
How to get the veto shifted? Well the runup to the Iraq war put the UN on the line and exposed France duplicity. Now with another motion before the security council this will probably happen again.
The rest of Europe could put a lot of heat on the French to give up the veto to the group. If worked correctly to the rest of the world a lot of heat could be brought on the French as well. Then a UN Resolution suggesting that Japan, India, Brazil, and possibly South Africa (regional powers), become permanant members of the security council at the same time the French veto moves to become a European veto and you will see enormous pressure on France.
The Veto is all France has so I expect a fight if my guesses are correct. I also see a massive swing in World Opinion towards the US if the US is the one pushing for Japanese/Brazillian/Indian and South African seats on the Security Council and France is fighting them.
#43
"Normans and Saxons didn't become a nation together until the Hundred Years war."
Methinks you've been watching too many Robin Hood movies and reading too much Ivanhoe because Sir Walter Scott mostly created the Norman Saxon split. You have to speak the language to rule the people and the Normans learned the language. After a generation it wasn't Norman vs Saxon but Noble vs peasant.
Sorry to nit-pick because the rest of your point is pretty well founded, just a bad example in my humble opinion.
#44
yank - istr the nobles kept speaking Norman French till well into the 1200's - why weve got so many Norman French words in english, especially legal terms etc.
#45
aris - cant imagine any substantial number of Europeans wanting their own country to withdraw from the EU - when all your neighbors and main trading partners are in an economic bloc, you dont really have much choice, do you? doesnt mean you might not prefer that it not exist at all.
#46
Heh, Aris, now why am I not surprised that you rely on the EU's own official stats for your assessment of its popularity...
Even so, they hardly support your claim that the EU "has a very large majority supporting it" (from its "Highlights") section:
55% regard membership of the EU as a "good thing"
52% trust the EC (there's a whole lotta mistrust of the Commission out there)
only 50% feel their country has benefitted from membership of the EU
only 50% have a positive image of the EU
ONLY 47% desire a more important role for the EU.
In addition, support for the Euro had fallen 5%, to 58% between Spring and winter, 2002.
This is as good news as the EU can find to publish? Ambivalent support for it, an apparent reluctance to see it increase its influence?
Surely you can find better EU propaganda than this...
#47
The ones where all the polls show that everywhere with the exception of Britain, EU has an very large majority supporting it
Keep dreaming Aris:
It [Poland] may well be in for a rocky start. One foreign diplomat in Warsaw fears that Poland will fail to master all the EU's labyrinthine farming and food-safety laws by the time it joins, allowing the other EU countries to block its farm exports, using what the EU calls "safeguard clauses". It might also fail to muster enough well-planned and well-managed projects to claim its full share of EU development funds, leaving it a net payer into the EU budget. The result would be anger among Poland's millions of farm workers and Eurosceptics, playing into the hands of populist politicians..." The Economist, Aug. 30th-Sept. 5th
I see trouble on the horizon because people in the new member countries, specifically Poland, have been sold a lot of wild tales about EU membership. Hence the polls showing huge support. But these countries joined up not only for the long term benefits, but also because they wanted to see some immediate effects. This Economist article casts doubt if they'll be seeing any benefit at all from the EU, since if they don't get any help at the beginning when they are poor, they certainly aren't going to get anything once they become prosperous like their western counterparts.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 16:15 Comments ||
Top||
#48
Yank
Don't get angry for the following joke: you have been reading too many books about the class struggle.
I haven't been seeing too many Robin Hood movies. In addition to history classes (remember that French kids have to learn about it) I have read issues in historical magazines and two history books about the War: a British and a French one. All sources tell the same thing; at the beginnning of the war while a Norman noble could have to speak Saxon to peasants, once he was at home he spoke French to his wife and kids, French to his soldiers, French with the other Nobles. And that Norman nobility defined itself as distinct of its Saxon subjects not only on the matter of Nobles versus peasants but on ethnic terms. It was during the war that the Norman nobility looking for Saxon support began to integrate with them, to intermarry with them (probably) and to speak English instead of French at Court and even to their families.
#49
"aris - cant imagine any substantial number of Europeans wanting their own country to withdraw from the EU - when all your neighbors and main trading partners are in an economic bloc, you dont really have much choice, do you? "
Nonsense. Countries like Switzerland and Norway have survived just fine outside the EU. *Obviously* people have a choice.
Bulldog> Deceiving by omission is still deceitful you know.
<<55% regard membership of the EU as a "good thing" >>
Versus only 10% that consider it a bad thing. That's a "very large majority" for all intends and purposes.
"53% trust the EC [Commission]"
Versus only 24% that mistrust it. Better than many national governments.
"only 50% feel their country has benefitted from membership of the EU "
versus only 28% that says it has *not* benefitted.
"only 50% have a positive image of the EU"
Versus only 13% that have a negative image of it.
"ONLY 47% desire a more important role for the EU."
Versus ONLY 11% that want a *less* important role for the EU!!!!
You are a liar, Bulldog, a liar by ommission but a liar nonetheless. If you want to talk about "only" this and "only" that, then please state the numbers for the other side also, don't deceive people into thinking they can calculate by themselves with a simple subtraction from a 100!
I urge the people to take a glance at the numbers by themselves. Bulldog has disappointingly proven untrustworthy, but since most people here don't like me I doubt you'd trust *my* words either.
Rafael> We'll see, won't we? I do also expect some of those numbers of support among the new countries to decline somewhat, but only because it'd be difficult for them to get any higher! *rolls eyes*
#50
And as a further sidenote it's bitterly predictable but still disappointing how you stoop to discounting these numbers as "propaganda" without yet having any better source to counter them with.
And at the same time you scorn them claiming they don't paint a rosy picture, but instead of thinking the numbers perhaps *are* trustworthy after all, you just say they are not very *good* propaganda.
Does hypocricy really go so far, that you don't know yourself when you are being self-deceitful?As I said, feel free to stick your fingers in your ears and hum real loudly when confronted with reality. But insulting the intelligence of the rest of us with this self-deluded and offensive babble...
#51
Aris, you are deliberately keeping your head in the sand.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 17:34 Comments ||
Top||
#52
LOL Aris, you are so full of it. I was quoting the numbers directly from the Eurobarometer highlights statements which themselves contain none of the additional data you state. The EU itself is a "liar by omission too" is it? That is what you are implying.
Are you a "liar by omission" too, for not quoting from the most recent EU Europbarometer, which, where the data is generally even less positive than the outdated one you chose to take your figures from?
I am sorry that you think Rantburgers don't have a clue as regards statistics, and I'm sorry also that you think they'd regard an EU publication as definitive proof of EU popularity. I'm sorry that you do, it betrays a certain naivety. Also, you claim often that the UK is, across the board, the most anti-EU nation in the union. Why do you do that, when your EU data proves that on most issues (such as support for the proposed constitution, enthusiasm for enlargement), the UK is not. Why do you lie? Why?!
Could you also tell me why the "Eurobarometer 59: Public Opinion in the European Union (First Results)"'s second revelation is that:
"People are increasingly sceptical about the role polayed by the United States in the world"
WTF is that about? Why on earth is that considered to be the second most important finding of the Eurobarometer survey? If the EU wants to dispel theories such as JFM's, that its raison d'etre is to challenge another state, i.e. the US, then why is it apparently so obsessed with how much anti-(other state) sentiment there is within its own population, regarding that as more important to the reader than such apparent trivialities as the facts that "people have slightly less confidence in the Commission and the Parliament", and "people are a little less positive regarding EU enlargement"?
#53
Perhaps I'm wrong but the way I understood it the Norman nobles living in England basically spoke English and added many words to the language.
Rollo was granted Normandy in 911, his grandson William took over England in 1066. Nobody questions the Normans spoke French and were pretty assimilated within that 150 year period. This matches the Norman experience in Sicily and Southern Italy as well where they controlled a kingdom and eventually blended into the population. The suggestion that the Normans did not assimilate in England during the nearly 300 years between 1066 and 1331 seems unlikely to me.
Since the Normans rulers of England had connections back to Normandy and Normandy produced a surpluss of soldiers there was naturally a lot of hiring going on and a flow of French speaking soldiers long after the conquest. Since The Plantagents ended up owning half of France through marriage to the Aquatainne families there was a lot of French speaking nobles in the mix as well. They weren't Normans they were French living in English territories in France. This muddles the issue and possibly explains the source you're speaking of.
Like I said, I could be wrong but I did some pretty thorough research on the Normans a decade ago and the fact that Ivanhoe reinvented the Norman/Saxon rift for dramtic purposes appeared more than once in the research so I stand by the statement.
#54
"I was quoting the numbers directly from the Eurobarometer highlights statements which themselves contain none of the additional data you state"
Whatever. As I said people can see for themselves that even in the "highlights" file, all the info, percentages about both pro and against, are readily available. That's the file I also used to answer you.
And I didn't choose to take an outdated eurobarometer, I simply hadn't known a more recent one had become available, and I used the one that had been stored in my computer for several months now.
But yes, *if* I had done it on purpose, I would have been a liar for not using the most recent data. If this answers your question. Now I'm downloading the recent data, so I won't make the same mistake again.
"Why do you do that, when your EU data proves that on most issues (such as support for the proposed constitution, enthusiasm for enlargement), the UK is not."
Enthusiasm for enlargement means little by itself. The UK government certainly wants an enlarged and powerless union and thinks the enlargement (while resisting all attempts to reduce the power of the national veto) is a tool towards that direction of making the EU powerless.
And "my data" showed that the UK population were in favour of a constitution in general. That question shows again little by itself, since it says little about what they believe this constitution should *contain*.
For all other matters UK remains far behind the rest of the countries in its support of the EU.
"Why on earth is that considered to be the second most important finding of the Eurobarometer survey? "
Why the hell shouldn't it be? It certainly seems to me more emphatical than your suggested "slightlies".
But hold on for a 10 further mins until the download finishes, and I may respond some more on this or other matters when I read the new essay by myself.
#56
Only thing to note after reading the updated highlights is that the data aren't actually more negative "generally" -- each small fall in support for some element of the EU (e.g. fall in the trust in the European commission by 3%) is counterbalanced by some similar small increases in some other part (e.g. 5% more people are in favour of a "european defense" policy than before, 3% more people think the single currency is a good thing, etc, etc)
Given such small percentage differences in these matters, yes it's obviously a very obvious highlight to mention that there's a large difference in how the USA is perceived. Sometimes the difference in percentages *there* between this report and the previous one goes up to 20% when considering the difference between negative and positive opinions.
And you've *still* not shown me the more reliable data which *you* have, and are obviously using in your superior understanding of the world around us, so superior indeed that you thought that mocking my facts would be enough and disputing them a waste of time.
#57
Back to the subject. A lot could be said there. But this is nothing but good old haggling. If you accept the first offer from the dealer in the bazaar, you are a bloody fool. The dealer don't expect you to do that either. Les jeux ne sont pas faits encore.
The latest from France and Germany already sounds less negative.
Well, Schröder at the ranch or not, I don't care. He doesn't even get invited by the campaining Munich SPD. I think his popularity is somewhere in the 20s. He'll soon know his supporters by names.
Randall Royer, David Hicks, Jack Roche, Christian Ganczarski. These arenât the names one expects to see when reviewing a list of those charged with participation in international Islamic terrorism. However, a disturbing number of converts have turned to militancy in a quest to add direction to their lives. Disillusioned with mainstream society, these disaffected men are attracted by the sense of community that Islam offers. While those who adopt mainstream Islam find solace in its teachings, the result can be quite different when converts turn to fundamentalism. What often happens is that these men find in militant Islam an alternative to more well-known antisocial outlets such as neo-Nazi or anarchist groups. Radical fundamentalist Islam allows them to channel their anger into a structured movement that is, in their view, fulfilling Godâs will. Militant Islam, in turn, has been actively exploiting these advantages in an all-out recruitment drive.
America has witnessed the cases of the "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh and Randall Royer, a convert recently charged for his involvement with the Pakistani terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba. But an examination of arrests in the past few years reveals that the problem touches almost every corner of the Western world. Jack Roche, former alcoholic, noted, "I was looking for something to motivate my life. I couldnât find that in English or Australian culture. . . . I needed some focus . . . Islam gave me that." Roche began attending lectures by Abu Bakar Bashir, the spiritual leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated Jemaah Islamiyah that operates in Southeast Asia. Bashirâs close associate, Hambali, JIâs recently captured operations chief, recruited Roche and brought him to Malaysia in 1999. Hambali hoped to use Roche to organize a cell of white converts that would target Western interests in Australia. To prepare for future missions, Roche traveled to Afghanistan, where he learned to use explosives. Months after his return, Australian authorities accused Roche of plotting with al Qaeda heavyweight Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to bomb Israeli diplomatic facilities in Australia.
The story of the Courtailler brothers provides further insight into how recruiters manipulate young men struggling to find direction in their lives. Raised in a small town in the French Alps, David and Jerome Courtailler spent their teens helping in their fatherâs butcher shop. When the shop failed and their parents divorced, the Courtaillers began using drugs and drinking heavily. They moved to London, where, living in a poor neighborhood, the brothers converted to radical Islam and attended the same mosques as a number of notorious terrorists, including would-be 9/11 hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui. After months of indoctrination by radical preachers, the brothers accepted the offer of a local al Qaeda recruiter to attend training camps in Afghanistan; they also received $2,000 and a visa to Pakistan. Once in Afghanistan, David found the training "tiresome" and cut his ties to al Qaeda. Jerome, however, remained affiliated with al Qaeda and became involved in a plan to bomb the U.S. Embassy in Paris. There was also Richard "Shoebomber" Reid, a German convert caught by the Israelis planning a bombing on behalf of Hezbollah, and dozens of converts who have been through Jihadi training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Even more challenging than attempting to explain why converts turn to jihad is the dilemma they present to the worldâs security services. The cases of Pierre Robert, the mastermind of this Mayâs Casablanca bombings, and Christian Ganczarski, a German charged for his role in the 2002 Djerba synagogue attack, highlight al Qaedaâs willingness to place white converts in leadership positions. Realizing that Westerners, particularly if they are white, are less likely to be scrutinized by authorities, al Qaeda has placed particular value on recruiting them.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
09/05/2003 3:27:34 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I thought Reid was English mother Jamaican father?
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/05/2003 4:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"...these men find in militant Islam an alternative to more well-known antisocial outlets such as neo-Nazi or anarchist groups."
Classic losers, one and all.
Richard Reid was a British loser btw, Paul, not a German one. A mugger who had converted to Islam whilst in the slammer, Reid was under suspicion from the Israelis but it wasn't till he was caught trying to light the fuse of a shoe bomb on an American Airlines transatlantic flight that he was apprehended. Totally inept, absolutely pathetic but still dangerous.
#3
Bulldog--not to diss the UK but it seems like there's more Islamonutz there than in France the popluar target on here. Remember the Islamic bombings in the St Michel metro, etc? How did the French stop that stuff real fast? I've heard their internal security is top notch compared to the rest of the EU--I'd appreciate your insight
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/05/2003 4:37 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I meant to put a semi-colon instead of a comma there, the German I was talking about was a different person from Richard Reid, and I couldn't remember his name.
Sorry if there was any confusion.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
09/05/2003 4:47 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The British police have largely been reduced to 'searching under the streetlight' when it comes to criminal activity. Samizdata.net has a lot of relevant information and thought. Some of the top cops think speeding is the most serious crime they're facing. If someone's home is broken into on a regular basis, "There's nothing we can do." If that same homeowner finally drops one of the intruders, though, that's something they can prosecute.
#6
About five years ago, Stephan Smyrek traveled to Israel as a spy for Hezbollah after training in a camp in southern Lebanon. German intelligence, however, was already shadowing Smyrek. It notified the Israelis, who arrested him upon his arrival in their country. Like Gonczarski, Smyrek became interested in Islam at his work place, a pizzeria, which was a hangout for Muslim youths. Before that, he had been a German army truck driver for four years. But unlike Gonczarski, Smyrek's turning point may have occurred in Germany after the father of his Egyptian girlfriend refused to let his daughter marry a non-Egyptian. Hezbollah's European unit subsequently recruited him. And while this unit usually looks for Arabs with Western language skills and passports, Smyrek's blond hair and blue eyes must have made him a good find.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
09/05/2003 4:57 Comments ||
Top||
#7
NMM, Dishman, It's true that as regards common crime the police are nowadays often working with two hands tied beind their backs, however as regards terrorism, although some slip under the net (Reid, the Tel Aviv bombers), the UK police and secret services are generally on the ball. A number of attempted terror attacks planned for execution British soil have been thwarted (including a sarin project and more than one SAM threat). No doubt many individuals and threats are currently under investigation.
Although different in many respects, the UK's security services have been in continual training and testing for many decades owing to the unceasing threat posed by the IRA. The French have been far more willing to flex in the face of subversive element (vis Basque separatism, their general approach to militant Islam) and discourage terrorism through political compromise. That said, I believe that when they choose to use them, their anti-terror methods are effective.
There are more overt Islamo-nutz in the UK for a umber of reasons. We have a more diverse and socailly tolerant society than most of the EU, with a great number of intra-religious communities. London particularly is a global hub of dissidents, some of whom are political agitators and extremists, and exiles for the best of reasons. We have (had) relatively lax immigration laws, and are a popular destination for immigrants. Add to that Britain's recent Imperial past, and the personal legacy that has left, and you have a very cosmopolitan society, with plenty of room for extreme elements. Britain's muslim community is not insignificant, but is more diverse in origin than those of, say, France or Germany.
When France suffered a continuous set of islamist bombings in 1995 (one of them at Saint Michel station who made many victims and one of them who on the High speed train rail who would have killed hundreds of people, one of them my then two years old daughter, had it detonated), the British government rejected the demands of extradition made by the French judges and continued to allow the GIA press and supporting network to operate freely in the UK.
I also inform you that for now we don't have in France anything close to that one-eyed vitriolic Sheikh you have or at least they don't get the soapbox you give to him.
#9
JFM, that was unfortunate indeed, and not tsomething I can defend nor explain. I'm glad your daughter was unharmed. Fair play to the French for their actions then, a tough line which has been undermined completely since with Paris's pandering to Palestinian terror organisations. And I think we both know which nation's the preferred target of Islamic terror now.
Abu Hamza got his own soap box, we didn't give it to him. Free speech, once again. It's a double-edged sword.
#10
We probably have our share of nutsos but we don't have Antenne 2 (the Beeb in British terms) airing their words urbi et orbe everytime they call for murder.
BTW: Do you know of a good British TV network who
1) Is not the BBC
2) Is aired on satellite
3) Gives a reasonable cover to international news.
I have tried SkyNews but it is a bit too British-centric.
#11
I don't have satellite or cable, so I'm not going to be much help, JFM. On terrestrial TV, for news I watch ITN (on the ITV channels). BBC is out for obvious reasons, and the remaining alternative, Channel 4, out-cuckoos even the BBC. Channel 5 I don't often see, but it's my next choice after ITN. I don't know whether you can get ITN or Channel 5 on satellite though... And I suspect both will be just as Brit-centric in their coverage as Sky, if not more so. If I had satellite, I'd be watching Sky. It's what the Navy watches :)
President Bush will address the nation on Sunday night about the war on terrorism with a focus on Iraq, the White House announced. White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters on Friday Bushâs speech came as the United States was in a "critical moment in the war on terrorism." Hmmm... WMD show-and-tell?
#1
you think maybe he has a "trophey" to show after all the fighting in Afghanistan?
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
09/05/2003 18:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Nah... he's just gonna talk about the progress we're making and how things are getting better over there... that we must stay the course. It's basically to counteract the negative press that's been all over the place. We're not gonna learn anything new in a prearranged presidential address... would have leaked a long time ago.
#4
Don't get excited, no one in the government could keep a secret like that for long. It's probably prepping the debate for the UN speech.
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
09/05/2003 18:49 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Maybe he has Omar's head on a stick......
No I think it is just to counterbalance the American Medias (and Democratic Party's) assertion that all Iraqi's absolutely hate us (US) and everything is going wrong and Iraq and the WOT are a Humiliation(1) complete disaster and we should all just hide under our beds and let the terrorists win.....
(1) Humiliation (sp?) is a trademark of 'Gepheart for President'.
Mah Fella Uhmerkins, ahd like yall to see my newest coffee mug, its bin ladens skull coated in plated silver! Aint it nice how we managed to keep the stunned look on his face even though its been transformed into a lowly infidels kitchen implement! if you finish your drink it says "dont mess with texas" on the bottom. , dontcha just love it!
..... ( on another note - its a sign of the times that when the big man speaks, its always met with anticipation. Im lowering my expectations, but I'd love to be pleasantly surprised by really good news just a couple of days before the September 11th anniversary.
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
09/05/2003 19:10 Comments ||
Top||
#7
You're obviously not in touch with the democrats philosophy... the terrorists have ALREADY won because we fought back and that's exactly what they wanted us to do! Those sneaky terrorists are way smarter than us and know our moves before we even make them! If we were smart like the democracts we would have sent them money, food and nuclear tech so they would leave us alone... then they'd love us and leave us alone, just like the north koreans ;)
#10
Every once in awhile he goes past the media directly to the people. He has a good sense for the mood of the people coiming into Sept 11th.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/05/2003 20:06 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I think there is some sort of anniversary next week?
Posted by: john ||
09/05/2003 20:19 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Sheeezzz -- don't any of these guys (ex pres.... media..) ever watch The History Channel? To see the results of decisions?
I still have to just shake my head, with this current group of such vocal folks, that our WWII guys were gone for years, that it took years to get our Air Force to take care of the Germans... that some generals just didn't make it and was replaced by someone else... and that general maybe wastn't the one..... so he got replaved with someone else...
And all of this took from 1941 till 1945..... in my book, that's like 4 years...... we now been in this up close, personal stuff since 2001.
We thought we had the "political right" in Vietnam... well, I will go back to watching The History Channel --- and just have to wonder, oh.. the year is 2061... and what stories The History Channel will be running about these years from 2001 till 2004 ---- Probably will be showing the kind of a "stories"... we thought... but then, we changed to do so and so... and as a result of that, our enemy then,,,, so we changed to......
Ah....... the history of war..... I just have to wonder, are we up for it? One day I think "yes" --- the next day...... reading of just hatred generated from all sources... NO...
But then, today, I read of planes maybe coming from Canada...and I read of folks who travel, willing to do what has to be done.....
And I know in my heart... that all of my feelings are shared by lots of folks....
I would just like to get more confirmation, that yes, we are winning, that yes, we got tons of folks in the right places to make the changes we need, and if that change doesn't work, we will make another one.... and for those folks, who can't handle change.... will, I can't even tell you leave and go someone else, cause there ain't no other place to go....
And besides, all those Hollywood folks, of the big money, have already declared, with Bush in office....... they would leave, they didn't;..... we got 9-11... they sang, they played, they even prayed..... then, attack full force.
So ---- I'm here to stay.... These folks that want to tear us down.... well, they really have no other place to go.... I'm here.
And Sunday nite, I'll listen to my President.... I'll stand and salute hime... and have some misted eyes... cause, I want him to succeed. Yes... Doesn't matter whether I'm a Dem or a Rep.... I want my President to succeed. Cause if he doesn't .... well...... I might as well find the Mosque closest to my home.
United we stand... divided we fall..... and our enemy knows this.... and they are reading their play books, memorizing our ever weakness...
And it isn't our President that is the only contributor to that playbook --- it's each of us in this USA..... each negative word or thought that is directed from anywhere, from anyside, to anyone, that is a part of this nation... is a part of that playbook....
Sorry -=---- Now, I'm back to "The History Channel".... when folks at war, folks in war, didn't have this 24/7 news stuff.... folks of an instant gratifcation society....
Through the study of our history... I've become a complete believer in our military of today! These guys and gals are incredible! Remove the PC (politically correct) stuff from them.....
I'm gone....
Shouldn't post this -- but I'm fed up!
Posted by: Sara ||
09/05/2003 23:07 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Well said, Sara. God bless, and keep the faith!
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/05/2003 23:17 Comments ||
Top||
#14
18 minutes - means its been written and practiced and crafted with some amount of exactitude. I would have expected it to be more, and for it to be delivered on September 11th itself perhaps in front of congress for example, sort of a "state of the war on terrorism" address. The fact that its scheduled for a Sunday, is also interesting in view of The Presidents reverence of things religious. The fact that its the Sunday prior to the anniversary of the "day of infamy", is also interesting.
My head says its a commemorative reminder speech( look how far we've come, look how far we have to go, please remember to keep the faith, that sort of thing) , but my gut wonders if its going to be more than that.( and frankly, it hopes....)
Posted by: frank martin ||
09/06/2003 0:24 Comments ||
Top||
Lebanese security forces patrolled a Beirut suburb Friday after an overnight firefight between rival Muslim Shiite parties left two men dead and six people injured on both sides, security officials said. Only two? Well, more will follow when they get their Cycles of Dire Revenge started.
The clash in the southern district of Kafaat was caused after a scuffle over the hanging of party flags and posters of the leaders of Hizbullah and Amal. Beruit version of "Changing Rooms".
Lebanese soldiers intervened and brought the situation under control, the officials said. "Drop the flags and nobody will get.....oops,too late."
Police identified the fatalities as Hisham Bayrak of Amal and Hussein Aaladdin of Hizbullah. They wonât be missed.
The clash was described as "a local incident" and was not expected to spread to other suburbs of Shiite-populated south Beirut. "It is not going to expand into a serious confrontation," one official said. I wouldnât count on it, hell hath no fury like a interior designer scorned.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/05/2003 2:24:47 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Anxiously awaiting the "Ground Force" landscaping team and mechanized division.
The speaker of the Palestinian parliament said Friday that lawmakers would hold a confidence vote on Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and that it would likely be during the coming week. Ahmed Qureia told The Associated Press the date for the vote would be set when parliament meets Sunday. "This is an issue on the agenda because more than 15 members of parliament have asked for the vote to be held," Qureia said. "I think the vote will be held in the coming week because there is no reason to delay it." Qureia's statement represents a reversal in his position. On Wednesday, he said there was no reason for the confidence vote as Abbas had received the confidence of the parliament when he was elected in May.
What're the current odds Abbas is on his way out?
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/05/2003 14:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Hat tip to LGF, which has the mugshots posted - thx Charles
The FBI is "on the lookout" for four people, including two Saudi nationals, a Moroccan and a Tunisian-born man carrying a Canadian passport, suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. "These individuals should be considered armed and dangerous," an FBI official told AFP Friday, without specifying whether the men were still in the United States. One of the four men, Adnan El Shukrijumah â who holds passports from Saudi Arabia, Canada, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago â s already known in US intelligence circles, where he is viewed as a threat to US national security. He is being sought on a material witness warrant in the US state of Virginia. All those passports, and heâs NOT Pakistani?
Also being sought are Karim El Mejjati, a Moroccan-born man holding a French passport; Abderraouf Jdey, also considered a threat to US national security, who was born in Tunisia and holds a Canadian passport issued in Montreal; and Saudi national Zubayr Al-Rimi. According to an advisory issued by the Department of Homeland Security, al-Qaeda operatives are still developing plans to hijack airplanes for "aerial suicide attacks" against the United States. Boxcutters wonât do it this time a**holes...if you get torn apart by soccer momâs in midflight, do you still get your raisins?
But September 11th is coming up...
"We remain concerned about al-Qaedaâs continued efforts to plan multiple attacks against the US and US interests overseas," the department said. "A growing body of credible intelligence indicates al-Qaeda continues to develop plans for multiple attacks against targets in the US involving commercial aircraft, with some plans calling for hijacking airliners transiting near or flying over the continental United States â but not destined to land at US airports." It added that "operatives have been studying countries to determine which have the least stringent requirements for entry."
Y'mean like Canada? Or Mexico?
CNN television, citing an unnamed US intelligence official, indicated that terrorists could board planes in Canada for an attack on US soil.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/05/2003 1:58:30 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Has anyone noticed that none of these alerts have ever amounted to anything? In fact, no arrests have apparently ever resulted from these alerts. Is this a serious warning, or more FBI blather?
JPost - Reg Reqâd
Naval commando Sgt. Maj. Raanan Kumemi, 23, of Moshav Aminadav was killed, and four soldiers were wounded, one seriously, during an IDF operation to nab Hamas fugitives in Nablus early Thursday. Kumemi was be buried at the military cemetery at mount Herzl Friday afternoon at 3PM. The wounded soldiers were taken to Meir Hospital in Kfar Saba, where one is reported to be in serious condition.
Judea and Samaria Divisional commander Brig.Gen Gadi Eizencot, in a briefing with reporters, said that IDF forces, acting on intelligence information received regarding his whereabouts, were operating in the Raffidyia neighborhood in Nablus to arrest a Hamas fugitive. The troops reached a seven-story building and called on residents to go outside before they went in to search the building for the fugitive. As in such cases tracker dogs were sent in first to scour the area before the special forces went in. Soldiers making their way through the building to search for the fugitives saw that the lift between the 2nd and 3rd floors was stuck. As they approached the third floor, the Hamas fugitive, who was standing on the top of lift, opened fire at the soldiers from close range. Kumemi was killed and four others injured in the burst of fire. Soldiers returned fire at the terrorist, killing him. A senior IDF official told The Jerusalem Post that Sgt.-Maj. Kumemi wore a ceramic bulletproof vest and that the bullet struck the space between the upper chest and neck which is unprotected. lucky shot?
Three Palestinians were arrested after the gunbattle, the army said. Soldiers laid explosive charges and blew up the building. The fugitive that the forces had wanted to arrest is believed to be Muhammad Hambali, the senior Hamas commander in the West Bank. Hambali was responsible for numerous attacks and the deaths of at least 20 Israelis and was in the midst of planning a suicide bombing attack to be carried out in the near future. Eizencot said that security forces have arrested 150 Palestinians involved in terrorist activity in the past week alone, among them senior terrorist commanders. Guess they didnât get this Hambali - better luck next time, and our condolences to Sgt. Maj. Kumemiâs family
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/05/2003 12:44:07 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and her Massachusetts colleague Ted Kennedy have defeated the Bush administration in its 28-month-long fight to install Miguel Estrada on the federal appellate court. (Not once did the REPUBLICANS take the Democrats to task on the filibuster.)
In a letter obtained by the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, Estrada tells the White House that he is withdrawing his nomination to return to private practice and "to regain the ability to make long-term plans for my family." (Fed up withe this BS he threw in the towel)
The Journal credited Clinton and Kennedy for playing hardball politics against a GOP that remains all too willing to accept their outrageous tactics. (Two shining examples of âcooperationâ in the Senate)
"[Estradaâs] withdrawal should embarrass Republicans who have been outwitted on judgeships by Ted Kennedy and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who are orchestrating the first filibusters of appellate-court nominations in American history," the paper said. "Democrats have paid no political price for raising the âadvice and consentâ standard for Senate confirmation to 60 votes from a simple majority." (Outwitted by a boozer and a loser? Hang your heads in shame.)
Instead of forcing Democrats to stage the far more arduous traditional Senate filibuster that would have forced their members to participate in a round-the-clock ordeal, Republicans allowed the Senate to continue with its regular business. My point exactly! If the Demoncrats play hardball and the Republicans play slow-pitch softball. Come on people! Stand up to these bozos and show them who is in charge! If they donât grow a set (and fast) I am changing parties.
#1
RTFO Cyber Sarge. Sad fact is the spineless Reps didn't even force the Socialists into a real filibuster. Next go around this has got to be the strategy....I predict 36 hours and the Socialists will fold. This is tyrrany of the minority, and it has to be stopped now!
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
09/05/2003 12:56 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Don't forget Schumer, MALDEF, and like-minded organizations. Estrada just wasn't "Hispanic" enough. The Repubs gave in to the diversity-by-pigmentaton crowd. No guts. This event is another reason I'm not feeling good about WOT and 2004 election. If Repubs. start to treat our opponents domestically and internationally as victims of the Angry White Male, God help us. We need diversity in thinking to tackle problems, friends. BTW, Cyber, which party are you thinking of joining?
Posted by: michael ||
09/05/2003 12:59 Comments ||
Top||
#3
To do the round the clock thing, the republicans would have had to keep a quorum round the clock. The dems only needed to keep one anti Estrada person around.
The Senate committee rules are stacked in favor of the kind of device used by the dems this time.
#4
mhw: I find it real difficult to swallow that the party in control of the Senate was powerless against the minority. They either wouldn't or didn't want to make this a battle. They have been outfoxed by the Dems too many times. It's time for them to draw a line in the sand and dare the Dems to cross it.
#6
I've heard the excuse that the GOP had to keep 51 senators there vs 1 democrat. If true they should still have found a way to get these nominations through.
The one bright side is that if the GOP is smart it will a winning issue for them in the 04 elections (i.e. Dems blocking hispanics, women, minorities). However, unless the GOP gets a filibuster proof 60 seats the Dems can keep doing this.
#8
I am a registered independent, and see the dems for the self-destructive units that they are. But here are the republicans, with a majority of the public wanting safety, freedom, and some assurance that their values of decency and family are preserved. The Republicans could run with this and make some things happen, but they are afraid that the dems and the liberal left will yell at them. So they try to smooth things over and keep getting run over. Where do the majority of responsible and concerned Americans go? The republicans are (wussy pussies)^2, and they deserve our contempt. Bloody invertibrates.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/05/2003 17:26 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Has the WHite House ever heard of recess appointments? Granted the senate republicans are gutless wonders, but Bush doesn't seem to have the fire in his belly for domestic politics, unless it is signing liberal legislation.
Posted by: Douglas De Bono ||
09/05/2003 18:05 Comments ||
Top||
#10
As much as I applaud the President's performance in many areas, he let this good man and all the rest of us down. He needed to back up his words with action and instead left him hanging. That worries me about the future.
Bush did appoint Pipes during the recess. I don't think he can do the same with judges, though.
Saw Hatch on Fox with Tony Snow tonight. He left me with the impression that the Seante will pass a budget and possibly the supplemental for Iraq. They will then use the nuclear option to change the requirement to 51 votes at which point things will get really ugly in the Senate -- like it was in the House a month ago when they were calling each other "fruitcakes" and buzzing for the cops.
This will be done just in time for the campaign season during which the GOP goal will be to end up with a super-majority in the Senate.
I may be wildly off base. If I am right this will be quite entertaining. EMS will need to be standing by to provide assistance to Kennedy. He doesn't look like he lives a healthy life.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/05/2003 19:42 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Cowardly of Bush not to recess him. Unless he means to appoint Estrada directly to the Supremes anyway -- which would be a hell of a payback. Otherwise, Bush screwed it.
by Deroy Murdock, National Review Online. Deeply moving; you should go read the whole thing.
Just three days before the second anniversary of 9/11, the FDNY will conduct its last memorial service for a firefighter killed at the World Trade Center. That it will have taken 727 days to reach this milestone barely describes the boundless pain that this atrocityâs survivors endure daily. Firefighter Michael Ragusa was 29 years old when al Qaeda attacked America. He and four members of Brooklynâs Engine Company 279 rushed into the conflagration, but never escaped.
So why has his family waited so long for a memorial? They simply had nothing to bury. His body never was found at Ground Zero. Michael Ragusa gave blood as a prospective bone marrow donor. The National Marrow Donor Program gave the Ragusas a vial of their eldest sonâs blood. And that is what they will bury on September 8.
Meanwhile, others have grieved over even fewer remains. Captain Brian Hickey led seven of Rescue Company 3âs men into Tower Two. None survived. After awaiting his bodyâs recovery for eight months, Hickeyâs family instead buried a coffin bearing his helmet. Only perspiration residue on its sweatband and a few hairs tied the headgear to the 47-year-old father of four. Later, the medical examiner classified a one-inch square bone fragment as Hickeyâs. His family interred it in lieu of his helmet.
DNA analysis thus has connected minuscule remains to individual casualties. Incredibly, pathologists linked one atomized, male, South Tower employee to more than 200 body parts. Ghastly though this is, at least these bereaved have something to honor. Each family can visit a grave and commune with a hint of the person they still love and sorely miss. But homicide pilots Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi denied many relatives even this. Of the 2,792 people they butchered at the World Trade Center, only 1,521 have been identified. The 1,271 other men and women essentially were vaporized. There is no discernible speck over which prayers can be said nor tears shed nor tender moments recalled. Of the 19,893 remains recovered, most of the 12,374 bits of tissue and bone that endure are too badly damaged to distinguish, due to exposure to the elements and the fires that raged at Ground Zero until December 19, 2001.
Still, experts hope eventually to attach names to the mere particles that once were people. "We have made a commitment to the families that we are not going to stop the identifications until we can go no further based on the technology that is available today," says Ellen Borakove, spokeswoman for New Yorkâs Medical Examiner. "That is the reason we are preserving and drying the remains that have not been identified so that in the future, when the technology improves or evolves, we can extract DNA from those samples."
Amid the latest adventures of Ben & Jen, Kobe Bryant, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, Americans might overlook what all this means: This war aims to avoid further scenes such as those that Gothamâs coroners have faced since 9/11. "Iâm still driven by the families," Robert Shaler, New Yorkâs chief forensic biologist, recently told the Associated Press. "When I see these people, they look at me with eyes that say, âDid you find her yet?â" Never forget. Never "get over it."
Posted by: Mike ||
09/05/2003 12:28:05 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
ahahah screw them men, who cares ,get over it. If the guatemalans and Nicaraguans got over the American backed contra terrorist killing their kids so should those Newyorkers. Shit happens. How many people disappeared in Guatemala and Nicaragua alone. Never to be seen again , just vaporised: kind of like Newyork 9-11. I remember Newyorkers with placards looking for relatives in the Newyork rubble, just like those Guatemalans who to this day hold placards and march in their cities looking for their dissapeared relatives and children. What goes around comes around. Americans just got a taste of their own medicine in 9-11.
#2
Steve, you have just established, irrefutably and for all time, that you have absolutely no class.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/05/2003 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
#3
With the broadcast media virtually ignoring the anniversary, project such as Michele's VOICES become even more important. I have made it the title banner on my blog. I have also set up a web page just for my September 11 anniversary blog entries, which I am calling NO ORDINARY DAY. I'm sure that many other bloggers will have commorative posts, and collections on their blogs as well.
If you have connections in the news media, it wouldn't hurt to point out to them that September 11 still means something. I have.
#4
I'm surprised as many victims were identified as there were, considering what 100+ floors of skyscraper must weigh. Those ME's did a remarkable job.
Posted by: Dar ||
09/05/2003 16:24 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I leave Wed for NY...to pay my respects. Went last year too..the 11th is my birthday...but not anymore...its a day to remember, not for me to celebrate. The vibe in NY on that day is impossible to describe...and standing at ground zero is like being in a cathedral....a holy place. I wont forget...and I will say a prayer for all of us every year at that scene of indescribable horror. Thats my birthday present to myself...
Keep up the pressure to keep this in the mind of people....dont let it just pass by....they declared war on us...we cant forget that or forgive. May their souls rot in Hell....
Posted by: Bob in Texas ||
09/05/2003 16:48 Comments ||
Top||
#7
There's nothing wrong with steverosa that a little rope and a lampost couldn't cure. You stink right through the screen.
#8
I have never been to the WTC, though I have flown by the towers in approaches to JFK. I do not know any people who perished there. But that event is branded in my brain. Looking back, I can see how I was physically affected for 2 weeks afterward. I have lost friends who were burned to death. I have literally picked up what was left of them. Those events, from time to time, come back in memory and emotion. That is how I feel from time to time about the victims of the WTC. We must never forget. We must honor their memories. And we must do everything in our power to prevent this from happening again to ourselves and our allies.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/05/2003 21:00 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Stevey, you are one poor, sad waste of human skin.
This reminds me of a gentle tut-tutting I got from some guy on a webpage I stumbled across post 9/11 - he was just so . . . bemused at how Iâd lost my grasp on reality. I had been describing my reaction to the men whoâd kill my daughter for the glory of Allah: give me the gun, show me the cave. The author of the piece suggested I would be perfect for the role of the WW2 black-out warden who scolds people for half-closed windowshades.
Why, itâs almost as if I thought we were at war, or something.
Obviously the guy had no kids. Iâm not saying childless people canât have a visceral reaction to terrorists, or that parenthood has imbued me with a special glowing Field of Righteousness - but until you have children you canât quite realize what youâd do to defend them, because the emotion comes from a place you didnât know too much about. The weeks after 9/11 we all thought that we were in for more of this - more planes, more bombs, and come the winter, Smallpox. I would jerk awake from nightmares where Gnat had the pox. You do everything you can to keep them safe - then this.
I was nowhere near New York when it happened, of course. But youâd have to be unusually thick not to see that this was the start of something that would affect more than the lower portion of the island of Manhattan. I donât know what compelled me to grab the videocam off the shelf and start shooting, but Iâm glad I did, because what I caught captured something I needed to remember: the TV has the picture of the twin towers engulfed in smoke: my little 14 month old child is grinning with unbearable delight, holding out her Elmo phone. Hi! Hi! Hi! Jasperâs in the corner of the picture, on his back, paws up, whimpering; whatever I was giving off, he got. But Gnat was in Elmo-world, a happy little place in which sheâd always be safe, and Iâm wondering if her future will be all downhill from here.
At that point I thought the fires might go out. I thought the towers might be saved. Then they fell. And you knew that the future had just taken the wrong exit.
Read the whole thing.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/05/2003 11:07:05 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Angry White Male is the theme in the search for explaining the root cause of for Columbine, as well. Saw the film last weekend at the behest of the kids. Scary.
My left-of-left brother was in town at the same time and hypothesized that Wellstone's crash could have been intentional. Nothing specific, of course, and sure GWB wouldn't have had a direct hand in it, but neocons serving him would have somehow understood that, to implement the Plan, Wellstone would have to go.
Folks, such an echo chamber of negativism has been created re Iraq the last few months that I'm really worried that the WOT is going to go badly for us. Not due to terrorist action, but to our own navel-contemplation and short memories. Deep down I know we're doing the right thing. Is this country tough enough to see it through?
Posted by: michael ||
09/05/2003 11:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Best. Daily Bleat. Ever.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/05/2003 12:06 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Angry White Male? Carve it on my tombstone, Michael Moore, if you're man enough....but I think it's perfectly obvious that the MM's, the Al Frankens, the MeCHA/Bustamante pussies don't have it in em.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/05/2003 12:09 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I'm not an "angry white male"--someone who's angry because he has Y-chromosomes and a low melanin content.
I'm angry because civilization is under attack, and I want the attackers hunted to extinction before they do any more damage. To anyone. Race and gender got nothin' to do with it.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/05/2003 12:36 Comments ||
Top||
#5
More in the same vein, from another great online writer:
I've read in several places about how our therapeutic society is trying to make all of us victims of the attacks on 9/11. Well, we -- the United States and each individual citizen -- were victimized, but that doesn't make us -- the United States and each individual citizen -- victims, unless we let it. Did we consider ourselves victims after the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941? Hell no! Victimized? Sure. Victims? Sorry, no self pity to wallow in here. We've got work to do.
. . .
As the second anniversary of 9/11 comes around in a week, its time once again to remember and to rededicate ourselves to the tasks ahead. We are a good people who have every right to defend what we have. We are a noble people with an obligation to help others shed the yoke of oppression where we can. I am proud of what I know we have done in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am also thankful for the many things that have been done on our behalf, that I know nothing about, by people whose only connection to me is that they too believe that this country is worth defending and the ideals for which it stands are worth giving to others.
We are at war. The alarm went off and woke us all from our pleasant slumber on 9/11/2001. Everyone heard the alarm and responded at first, but as time goes by and folks settle back into their usual routines, it's as though a lot of people now just want to reach over and hit the snooze button until another alarm goes off. I am disgusted that, with the general exception of Senator Lieberman, all those who have a vested interest in hurting the President politically are encouraging this behavior. Let's just hope it doesn't take the loss of Houston to a nuclear weapon or 1/3 of the population to a biological attack to get everyone to finally wake up.
Unlike some in the blogosphere, I won't be taking 9/11/2003 off to read and remember. I'm not criticizing those who are, I just have a different approach. I'm going to work. In fact, I'm going to Washington, D.C., on business, and I'll be flying home on 9/11/2003. I'm not afraid, and I'm not going to wallow or weep. I'm angry and ready to fight. I'm too old to put on a uniform, but I am going to fight back in the best way I know how, by going on with my life, earning a living, paying my taxes, spreading good ideas as best I can, and helping my customers become more proficient in finding and killing those who would kill my family, my friends and my country.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/05/2003 12:42 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I have good reasons for my anger too. People trying to blame it on Angry White Males DONT WANT to listen to me and my reasons, because it doesn't fit in with their ideas and power agendas.
#7
As the second anniversary of September 11 approaches, my anger and my determination remain. We, America and all Americans, our life style and our way of life, were attacked that day. It was not the opening shot of a war; the war had been going on for more than a decade. It was, however, our wakeup call.
Our enemy delights in dying for his cause, because he has a promise of eternal bliss as a reward for committing suicide and murder. Our enemy sees us as all that is evil and wrong in his world. We must die, be killed, or be converted to his peculiar beliefs. There is no coexistence for our enemy, only outright destruction and conquest. We must be destroyed and conquered.
We will meet this enemy on our terms, on ground of our choosing. We will fight with all the full force and fury of the United States to defend ourselves and to end this terrible war.
And end it we will. Our enemy will be totally destroyed or be disabused fully and completely of their evil beliefs. This is the way that America makes war, reluctantly and with trepidation, but to the end, to the defeat of our enemy.
To our enemy who says "Surrender or die", we say "Bring it on!"
"These terrorists kill not merely to end lives but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us because we stand in their way. We're not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. "
George W. Bush in a speech to a joint session of congress sept 21, 2001
#9
I've "gotten over" the anger. Now I'm just determined. I WILL see these creeps with their throats slashed, their bodies desecrated, their will to attack the United States beaten out of them. I also include in that group not just Al Qieda, or Wahabist Islam, but also the basketfuls of useless bits of fecal matter that hate the United States - those that live here, and those that don't.
If you don't love freedom, go somewhere else. If you don't love our Constitution and the guarantees it protects for free men, find another place to live. Get in my way, however, and I'll leave tire marks over your dead, bleeding body.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/05/2003 21:24 Comments ||
Top||
EFL/FU:
An accused international arms dealer charged with trying to sell shoulder-fired missiles to terrorists has confessed to the FBI, prosecutors revealed Thursday. Dammit, how are we supposed to defend you on these false charges if you people keep confessing? Hemant Lakhani, an India-born British citizen, made damaging statements shortly after he was arrested last month at a hotel near Newark Airport, according to Newark U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie. "He confessed to his involvement in the conduct laid out in the complaint," Christie told reporters outside court after a bail hearing for Lakhani. Lakhani, 68, is charged with trying to broker a deal to sell more than 50 mobile missile launchers to a buyer who claimed to be a terrorist. The buyer was really an informant working in an FBI sting. I hate it when that happens.
Two accused confederates, Queens, N.Y., gem dealer Yehuda Abraham and Moinuddeen Ahmed Hameed, were charged with arranging illegal money transfers for the missile buy. Christie said Lakhani confessed after waiving his right to remain silent. During the bail hearing, he also revealed for the first time that Lakhani had personally handled the missile - a fake rigged up by U.S. and Russian officials. Oops
Lakhaniâs new lawyer, Alan Zegas, declined to comment. Most likely wondering why he took this case.
Zegas had asked Magistrate Ronald Hedges to release his client on $1 million bail to his sonâs home in New York City. How does "no" strike you?
Prosecutors opposed any release, calling Lakhani a danger to the community who would flee the United States if released. The bail question was tabled until Thursday - the second anniversary of the attacks. Oh, good timing.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/05/2003 10:27:12 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Your honor, in application for bail, my client is a pillar of the community. He's never been in trouble before, his son lives in the city, he loves puppy dogs and baby ducks, and wants to bring down the infidel West, kill lots of unbelievers and fire that missile just once himself"
"Sorry counseler, missed that last part. Want to repeat it for the record? Oh and bail application denied."
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/05/2003 10:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Do you think international arms dealer is a job or a vocation? I never heard of anyone ever getting told by a guidance counselor that they have both the talents and iterests to suceed as an international arms dealer. Maybe you have to start from the bottom. You know, Amway or selling refrigerators at Sears.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/05/2003 11:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
SH, like any business, you start at the bottom -- Peoria!
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/05/2003 13:45 Comments ||
Top||
Hat tip to Drudge
U.S. export-control officials are investigating a French company suspected of illegally supplying Iran with four specialty pumps made in the United States that can be used in both commercial and military equipment, The Washington Times has learned. Treasury and Commerce department officials fear the pumps, described as cryogenic fluid transfer pumps, are being used as part of the cooling system for Iranâs nuclear reactors, which can be used to produce weapons-grade material. "Thatâs the immediate concern," a Commerce Department official said. Export of the pumps is controlled because of their military capabilities. The Treasury and Commerce departments are probing whether the French firm Technip-Coflexip in January diverted the pumps it purchased for a project in Iran to Iranâs nuclear program. The electric pumps are submersible and used to transfer extremely cold fluids. The officials said another likely use for the pumps is for the commercial transfer of liquid natural gas to ship containers for transport.
The officials said their departments also are investigating whether Technip violated licensing rules on sales of oil and gas equipment to Iran. Both areas of investigation could result in criminal penalties. Technip spokesman Chris Welton had no immediate comment. If the pumps were used by Iranâs nuclear program, it would violate export controls on equipment with the potential for use in nuclear weapons development. It also would violate the 1996 Iran Foreign Oil Sanctions Act, which bars U.S. companies from developing Iranâs petroleum resources. Under the 1996 law, any foreign company that invests more than $40 million annually in the Iranian and Libyan oil and gas industry can be sanctioned. Additionally, the transfer pumps would require an export license if they were sold to Iran, which is under a U.S. embargo because of Tehranâs support for international terrorism.
Yesterday, a United Nations diplomat said concern about Iranâs nuclear facilities has prompted the Bush administration to pursue a U.N. resolution to ensure inspection of the facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency. According to officials, Technip contacted at least two U.S. transfer pump manufacturers, including the U.S. subsidiary of the Japanese-owned company Ebara International Corp. for two ethylene and two ethane transfer pumps. The pumps were intended for the petrochemical complex being built by Technip called the 9th Olefins Complex at Assaluyeh, located on the northwestern coast of the Persian Gulf. The diversion effort was outlined in documents sent to the Treasury Departmentâs Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in March by an informant close to Ebara. The office is in charge of monitoring adherence to export controls on Iran. Copies of the documents were obtained by The Times. Ebara "has knowingly engineered, manufactured, tested and shipped the above-referenced pumps to Technip of France for delivery to Iran," the informant stated in a document sent to Treasuryâs chief of enforcement, Hal Harmon. According to the informant, EICâs corporate lawyer in 1998 warned Ebara "not to engage in the sale of goods or engineering services to countries that are on the restricted list per OFAC regulations." The informant also stated that an inspector working on behalf of Technip refused to authorize the shipment of the pumps because of concerns that the pumps would be sent to Iran. The pumps also were exported without nameplates, the informant stated.
Richard Mitchell, the Ebara corporate counsel, said in an interview that the company has not sent any pumps to Technip in January. The company also scrupulously abides by laws and regulations related to sales to Iran, Mr. Mitchell said. "I have asked everyone in the organization in a position to know and they have manifestly and devoutly stated that nothing was done" in violation of export rules, Mr. Mitchell said. Ebara in January shipped several pumps to a Middle Eastern petrochemical complex but the sale did not involve Technip, Mr. Mitchell said. The company is currently engaged in a deal with Technip to sell transfer pumps to a facility in Nigeria, but the pumps have not yet been exported, Mr. Mitchell said. As for sending pumps without nameplates, Mr. Mitchell said: "Itâs not uncommon to ship pumps without nameplates. We do not nameplate pumps for other manufacturers."
Mr. Mitchell said he did not know where the information about the suspected diversion came from. But he said it may have been part of an effort at "dirty tricks" by a disgruntled former employee now working for a competitor. Technip concluded a deal two years ago with the National Petrochemical Co. of Iran to build the 9th Olefins Complex and last year agreed to build a second facility. The value of the construction of the petrochemical complexes at Assaluyeh is estimated to be worth about $1.2 billion. Technip-Coflexip announced in September 2002 that it is also building Iranâs 10th Olefins plant near the 9th Olefins at Assaluyeh that will produce 1.3 million tons of ethylene a year. The deal is worth $358 million. A company press release said Technip-Coflexip would provided "in-house ethylene technology and proprietary furnaces and will carry out engineering, supply of equipment and materials." The company also will supervise construction of what it calls the largest ethylene plant in the world.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/05/2003 8:42:43 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
For once, I wouldn't leap to conclusions about this being a suspicious deal: the price of Natural gas is skyrocketing due to tight supplies. There's been talk of shipping liquified Natural Gas via tanker from Russia. Why shouldn't Iran jump into this new sweet market: There's so much of it in those fields, Saudi Arabia used to let the stuff burn at the wellhead!
I can confidently say that there isn't a nuclear reactor in the world that uses "cryogenic" liquids for cooling: Liquid Sodium, yes. Good ole Water, yes. Helium gas, yes. (Don't laugh. That reactor design uses fuels and produces wastes that cannot be used in a nuclear device) But liquid Nitrogen? Too expensive.
This is the treasury and Commerce departments: How much do they know about Nuclear equipment, other than being able to recognize the word on a page? If they have a memo from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's engineering staff (I'm told they have a very good one), or can point to a nuclear plant using them, then I'll be convinced.
To me, the licensing and paperwork issues are more important: If this got through, what else did?
United Nations officials in Zimbabwe say they have been forced to close several offices monitoring the distribution of food aid. They say the government in Harare asked the United Nations Development Agency (UNDP) to shut three newly-established field offices in rural areas. But UN workers say the delivery of relief supplies is unaffected and monitoring has continued. "How, we just canât say."
Zimbabweâs Government had earlier issued a directive for international food aid to be handed over to local authorities for distribution. Until now, the major foreign food donors have been distributing foreign food aid themselves — there have been concerns that President Robert Mugabeâs government has politicised the food assistance that it controls. There have been allegations by many Zimbabweans that the food assistance controlled by the state has been manipulated so that supporters of President Mugabe are given easier access to the food than his political opponents. The "Votes for Food" program.
Zimbabweâs Government has strongly denied the allegations. "Steal food from the mouths of children? What do you think this is, Liberia?"
Posted by: Steve ||
09/05/2003 8:30:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
so where is the UN denunciation of Bob?...
Bueller?.... Bueller?
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/05/2003 9:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Looks like Saddam's model of controlling the people through direct food distribution.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/05/2003 11:41 Comments ||
Top||
WASHINGTON (AP) - Showing new flexibility, the United States is prepared to make concessions to North Korea in advance of that countryâs elimination of nuclear weapons programs, a senior State Department official said Thursday. North Korea ``would not have to do everythingââ before getting something in return, said the official, who briefed reporters on last weekâs six-nation meeting in China on the Northâs nuclear activities. Theyâd only have to shut down their nuclear program and dismantle any weapons. Hanging Kimmie from a lamppost could wait til after the first rickshaw of rice was delivered.
The officialâs comments suggested a softening of the previous U.S. position that North Korea would have had to dismantle its nuclear programs before the United States would be willing to offer concessions. That stand was based on the U.S. perception that offering concessions in advance would reward North Korea for violating international commitments not to produce nuclear weapons.
Last weekâs meeting, in addition to North Korea and the United States, brought together China, Japan, South Korea and Russia. The official, who asked not to be identified, described the three days of talks as a good beginning that set the stage for progress when the discussions resume, probably in Beijing before the end of the year. And thereâs the key: "engaged apathy" remains the policy. Weâll continue to talk. Now Kimmie knows weâve penciled him in for 2004. Unless NK collapses first.
On the other hand, the official said that North Korean statements over the past several days have failed to take into account the flexibility that he said the U.S. delegation in Beijing had demonstrated. The U.S. presentation was intended to persuade the North Koreans that it is in their interest to turn away from nuclear weapons, the official said. "Say Kim, didya ever hear the story about Freddo? See, he was fishing on the lake one day, and ..."
In its first official public comment on the discussions, North Korea said in a statement last Saturday: ``The talks only reinforced our confidence that there is no other option for us but to further increase the nuclear deterrent force.ââ It suggested that disarmament in the absence of reciprocal steps would leave the country at the mercy of the United States. They already are at our mercy.
The Bush administration has said it does not harbor hostile intent toward North Korea and is willing to provide security guarantees and economic benefits as part of a broader settlement.
U.S. officials say North Korean delegate Kim Yong Il seemed intent on exacerbating the situation by warning in Beijing that his country planned a nuclear weapons test and serving notice that it had the means to deliver such weapons to distant targets.
The United States, along with North Koreaâs neighbors, is concerned that a North Korea with a sizable nuclear arsenal could blackmail its neighbors, trigger a regional nuclear arms race or export nuclear materials to terrorist groups or non-nuclear states. Weâre not concerned about the Japanese developing a bomb. "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" has a certain ring to it.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/05/2003 1:02:26 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We'll give Kimmy a 'Cruise missle sundae' if he tests Nuclear weapons. And he won't be able to hit us back either! Well, not me anyway. I don't live on the Western seaboard.
Posted by: Charles ||
09/05/2003 2:50 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Hmmm....I wonder how little Kimmie is going to enjoy his second winter without his US supplied heavy oil...and ya just know China is getting tired of subsidizing his decrepit ass. Sooner or later, the Chinese are gonna want cold hard cash, in advance, for any more oil deliveries.
Blasts shook a building in the West Bank city of Nablus as Israeli troops battled Palestinian militants on Friday. At least one guilty til proven otherwise suspected militant was killed.
"Got a rag over his face?"
"Check."
"Holding an AK?"
"Check."
"Rolling his eyes?"
"Ummm... Check."
"Moshe, I suspect he was a militant!"
Palestinians opened fire and threw hand grenades as Israeli troops launched an arrest raid, military sources said. The ensuing gunbattle lasted more than two hours. Witnesses said amid the shooting they heard four large blasts that tore into the five-story building. It was unclear whether grenades caused all the blasts. Bomb factory in the basement?
People in the area said soldiers removed the body of one man from the building. Four residents took the manâs body and laid him nearby. Soldiers ordered all residents out of the building during the siege, and the ones with a grain of sense some left, said Dr. Ziyad Atebeh, who lives nearby. No name, so just another dead jihadi. Tusk, tusk.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/05/2003 12:55:21 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Faster, please.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
09/05/2003 1:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Faster, please.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
09/05/2003 1:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Give Isreal time to find the pieces to the jihadi's face.
Posted by: Charles ||
09/05/2003 2:52 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Steve White OMFG!!! "the ones with a grain of sense" ROFLMAO the funniest comment!!!
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/05/2003 3:26 Comments ||
Top||
#5
It was a Hamas biggy: Israeli commandos killed a West Bank commander of the militant group Hamas in a raid on Friday that could deal a blow to reformist Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas's battle for political survival. An Israeli soldier was also killed and four wounded in the operation in the city of Nablus, which ended when soldiers blew up an apartment building where Mohammad al-Hanbali had been holed up, making 28 families homeless. The army said naval commandos, who also participate in ground-launched attacks, raided the building to detain Hanbali, 27, who opened fire at them from an elevator shaft where he had been hiding.
Israeli security sources said he was chief commander of Hamas militants in the northern West Bank and responsible for the deaths of dozens of Israelis in suicide bombings in a three-year-old Palestinian uprising for statehood.
Let the ululating begin!
Posted by: Steve ||
09/05/2003 9:23 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Mo al-H got bagged? Allrighty! Some more good news today.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/05/2003 10:31 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Hanbali, 27, who opened fire at them from an elevator shaft where he had been hiding
He was last heard saying, "There is no spoon..OWWW!"
Denying any anti-American sentiment on his part, actor Johnny Depp said on Thursday that quotes attributed to him as likening the United States to a "dumb puppy" were inaccurate and taken out of context. "I am an American. " Not so loud!
"I love my country and have great hopes for it," Depp said in a statement released by his Los Angeles-based publicist. "It is for this reason that I speak candidly and sometimes critically about it. I have benefited greatly from the freedom that exists in my country and for this I am eternally grateful." "I mean, where else could I act like such an idiot?"
Depp, currently starring in the swashbuckling film "Pirates of the Caribbean," issued the statement a day after the German news magazine Stern published an interview in which he ridiculed Washingtonâs confrontation with France, where he lives, over the U.S. war in Iraq. The magazine quoted the actor as saying "America is ... like a dumb puppy that has big teeth that can bite and hurt you, aggressive." He was further quoted as saying he wanted his children to "see America as ... a broken toy" that they should explore, get the feel of, then "get out." Explaining his comments a day later as if he could, Depp he had been using a metaphor that was taken "radically out of context," adding, "There was no anti-American sentiment." "Please donât stop seeing my movies! I might have to get a job tending bar, and you know how hard it is to get a job in France?"
"What I was saying was that, compared to Europe, America is a very young country and we are still growing as a nation," he said. "My deepest apologies to those who were offended, affected, or hurt by this insanely twisted deformation of my words and intent." His spokeswoman added that the Kentucky-born Depp, 40, lives in the south of France with his family because his wife, actress-singer Vanessa Paradis, is French. Ah well, his publicist certainly sounds contrite. Do we let him off the hook?
I'd say not, not that it's up to me. He sounds like a contemptible creature — though maybe he's just stoopid.
I take issue with the repetition of the duck (that's American for "canard") that the U.S.A. is a "young" country. Papua-New Guineau is a young nation. Kenya's a young nation. Pakistan is a young nation. America's underlying culture is English — we used to be English, y'know. As a nation, we've been around since 1776, when we declared independence, or since 1787, when the Constitution was drafted, take your pick. That's longer than Germany and Italy have been unified countries, longer than Greece has been a nation in its latest iteration. Our government's certainly been around longer than the latest French or Russian experiments. Admittedly, we haven't been in existence as long as the Holy Roman Empire was around, but the Holy Roman Empire is dead. So if emerging nations like France would like advice on how to conduct their affairs of their government, all they have to do is ask. We'll be happy to give them advice.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/05/2003 12:44:24 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Let him off the hook? No way. He may live in France, but has he renounced US citizenship? But even that doesn't matter. And then he tries to cover his tracks with the pathetic screed about how we should learn from the much wiser EUrope. I think WWI and WWII were lessons enough. What an @$$h@t.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
09/05/2003 1:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
WW1 and WW2 were just the biggest ones. Europe has been in a state of war at one spot or another since.....
Damn, they've been fighting eachother since they first got there. It's just now they've decided to commit negligent ethnic purgings take the fight underground.
Posted by: Charles ||
09/05/2003 2:13 Comments ||
Top||
#3
have great hopes for it... WTF does that mean???
a dumb puppy that has big teeth...and I think you just found out how big those teeth are: even when you're hiding in Europe, they can still reach out and bite yo' ass!
Speaking of dumb puppies... couldn't he have atleast waited until after Sept. 11th to express his thoughts. What a dumb f&ck.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 2:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
...and I mean long after Sept. 11th, like maybe December.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 2:25 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Dumber still: He has a new movie coming out this month called " Once upon a time in Mexico. "
Who wants to go throw garbage at the red-carpet opening?
Posted by: Charles ||
09/05/2003 2:31 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Love that good old American tolerance as witnessed by the previous comments--if you are a successful American actor ya better not sass the Bushies
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/05/2003 2:38 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Sassing the Bushies and calling America a dumb puppy are two different things.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 2:41 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Tolerance for critisizing our leaders is one thing. Tolerance for dis-crediting our nation is another. He should have his citizenship revoked.
Let's see how much he loves France when he's on their welfare system.
Posted by: Charles ||
09/05/2003 2:42 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Just because he is a successful actor does NOT take away his right to free speech
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/05/2003 2:43 Comments ||
Top||
#10
No, he will always have his right too free speech. He just won't have his right to be called a citizen of this country.
Hint: America isn't the only country with free speech.
Posted by: Charles ||
09/05/2003 2:46 Comments ||
Top||
#11
What does free speech have to do with anything?? Everyone is free to say whatever they want, but try yelling fire in a crowded theatre, or calling for the extermination of a certain race. Yup, it's the big C word: consequences.
Dipp opened his mouth, now he's harvesting the consequences: nothing free about free speech, sucker.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 3:05 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Absolutely, Mike, he can say whatever the hell he wants. And I can say whatever the hell I want about him and his opinions. What is it about criticism of dumb-ass leftist actors? Why is it that anyone giving it back to them is somehow denying some actor of HIS rights?
Remember the Dixie Chicks and the terrible censorship against them? They made $60 MILLION on that tour, most of it in the US. Remember how Sarandon and Robbins said they were afraid of McCarthyism? Yeah, been terrible for them. They've been in a combined total of four movies in the last six months. Horrible, horrible!
What if the actor was a rightwing looney? What if I said he was a stupid fool for his opinions? Would that be denying the actor his rights?
Mike: if you want to defend Depp's point of view, go right ahead. But he doesn't need you to defend his right to say what he wants. That's a given, my man. And it's a given that I'm going to say something right back. Only a pussy backs off just because he's challenged...
Posted by: R. McLeod ||
09/05/2003 3:07 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Hey R McLeod--we have a right wing loon--Arnold running for governor. Revoke his citizenship--that's a fascist view Charles--if you're an American citizen you are able to express your views in any country NOT involved in a war with the US--which unfortunately for you Rantbourgeois does include France Rafael--kiss my ass sucker
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/05/2003 3:38 Comments ||
Top||
#14
LOL! Congrats, "Rantbourgeois" - you've overpowered NMM's meds! This is some very phunny shit! Keep it up guys!
#15
My "sucker" was directed at Dipp, but anyway... glad you took offense. Arnold hasn't insulted anyone yet, has he? If he starts calling America a bunch of {insert your fav insult} then I'll poop on him and his movies too, don't worry.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 4:02 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Bring it .com but a little more rationally s'il vous plait
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/05/2003 4:03 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Mr Moore
It seems you have a peculiar view of freedom of expression as a right restricted to actors and dumb singers provided they have deep pockets.
I, for one, strongly dispute the right for such people or journalists to use their celebrity or access to media in order to propel their causes. It strikes me as fundamentally anti-democratic that the opinion of a truck driver only reaches the few persons around him while the opinion of Johnny Dep or the Dixie chicks reaches millions of people. What they have done to deserve a such privilege? It has nothing to do with being elected and having a pretty body, being able to simulate feelings (or have a a nice voice) and, possibly, having slept with the right persons does not make Johnny Dep or the Dixie Chicks more intelligent and qualified in foreign politics than your average truck driver. And they are probably far less intelligent than your average engineer whose voice also reaches far less people than the Dixie Chicks voice. That is one of the reasons I admire Tom Cruise: because AFAIK he has remembered of the tens of million voiceless people in America and has ever given his opinions in private without using his celebrity to propel them.
Another point: Johnny Depp has a right of expression but so have the ordinary citizens and that means the right to deride what he says and call to boycott his movies.
#19
JFM--pas du tout! If an American actor living in France wants to make anti-American comments--I don't approve--but that is his right as an American citizen. I won't boycott his movies because of his comments--I go to the movies for entertainment. I loved John Wayne--and Charleton Heston movies--but I don't have to agree with their politics to appreciate their art as actors! The Green Berets was one of the most moving films I've ever seen!
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/05/2003 4:18 Comments ||
Top||
#20
I won't boycott his movies because of his comments - that's probably because you agree with them
I don't have to agree with their politics to appreciate their art as actors - that's probably because they never called you a dumb puppy.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 4:23 Comments ||
Top||
#21
I do NOT agree with his comments and don't like what he said OK? Big newsflash Rafael--liberals love their country and don't like to hear people say bad things about it--at least this one doesn't! I don't agree with the NRA--Mr Heston's organization--but don't bash him for that either.
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/05/2003 4:27 Comments ||
Top||
#22
but don't bash him for that either.
Than you're an outstanding human being, and I'm not. I don't like it when someone pisses on my leg and tells me it's raining (and hell, I'm not even American).
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/05/2003 4:34 Comments ||
Top||
#23
NMM, You don't buy into the actions -> consequences theory then? As has been noted above, a celebrity stands on a higher platform than the rest of us. That's power but with that comes responsibility. If my associates don't like what I have to say, I might lose a few friends and social oportunities. If the public don't like what an actor says, he too loses goodwill and will suffer from the loss of popular support. Would you still be defending Depp if he spoke at the next National Front rally alongside le Pen? I'll boycott celebrities with whom I disagree, and I'm amazed that anyone could be naive enough to suggest that that's somehow 'wrong'. Actions -> consequences. Get it?
#24
I get it Bulldog but maybe we're on different wavelengths--I wouldn't boycott T3 because I don't like Arnold's politics--liked the movie
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/05/2003 4:45 Comments ||
Top||
#25
The "free speech" and censorship comments by Mike Moore have always made me laugh. Speaking up and using YOUR free speech to combat the free speech of others is censorship to them. Having your movie tank because you spout off anti-American horse manure, well, that is freedom in action as well. Freedom cuts both ways.
I would disagree with JFM, in that the actors and singers, being in the media business, have a natural advantage in getting their views out, but that is hardly "un-democratic". Its largely due to market forces, people willing to tune in and listen to them. It does not make Depp or the Dixie Chicks more qualified, if anything, being an actor or singer probably makes them less qualified to speak on politics.
Think about it. An actor has to memorize lines, blocking, stage direction, etc. A singer has concert after concert, rehersals, etc. Both have a very busy life most of the time. There is only so many hours in a day, and the time you are working on that, you are not looking at what is going on in the world around you. Unlike that truck driver who is listening to news on his cross country trips.
Posted by: Ben ||
09/05/2003 6:24 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Nm,Depp has the right to say anything he wants too.Just as I have the right to call him an ass.What is it with these celebs and people like you that think they are"More equal"than the rest of us?
NMM.to qoute a Drill Sargent of mine"Your snit is very weak and runny"
#27
Enough debating free speech principles! It's Johnny Depp!!
Frankly, this stuff is amusing.
He compared America to a puppy dog, albeit a dumb one with with sharp teeth and something or other (graceful metaphor, Johnny!).
Actually, we've heard America compared to things a lot worse than a puppy dog many times of late. At least he didn't say that we piss on the carpet and hump the EU's leg (Italy?).
The comments about his kids were worse but who cares. He's just an actor. He's usually pretty good, even in cheesy movies. I hate Tim Robbins's politics and his acting but I still wont boycott Bull Durham or anything else if it's good. I won't boycott Woody Harrelson or George cLoonny either.
Posted by: Tokyo Taro ||
09/05/2003 7:35 Comments ||
Top||
#28
While I routinely watch movies made by people I disagree with their ideas (and to a lesser degree their actions) there is a point where I just say NO.
I refrained to watch the last Polanski movie despite being good: I don't want my money filling the pockets of a guy who drugs and rapes 13 year old girls. I will watch it once Polanski is dead, not before.
Same thing for Hanoi Fonda (who fortunately didn't make much of a career): it is not so much
about her betrayal of her country but that her action (and the action of people like her) persuaded the North Vietnamese government after the Tet military fiasco that sooner or later the US will to fight would crumble. Fonda and her ilk were the reason the North Vietnamese didn't throw the towel after the Tet. She carries reponsability for the deaths of hundreds of thousands Vietnamese both before and after the fall of Saigon. If you stretch the hands of a murderer your hands will be covered in blood and Hanoi Fonda stretched hands with Ho Chi Minh. She will never see a cent of my money.
#29
That fact that Dipp did the old Hollywood shuffle when the American people heard about his rantings and ravings pretty much says it all about this Einstein. Humble pie anyone?
Posted by: Steve D. ||
09/05/2003 8:30 Comments ||
Top||
#30
The problem isn't with people who criticize Depp or boycott his movies. The problem is with the people (the idiots) who say his citizenship should be revoked because of expressed opinions. People who say that have no idea what free speech or political freedoms mean.
Opinions we disagree with --> No right for you to vote? Oh, yeah, I can see how this democracy thing should work according to some people here.
Okay, why don't we revoke the citizenship from all Republicans? It's indeed very convenient, this logic.
And where the hell does this attitude arise from that it's okay to insult a politician but not okay to insult your nation? It's not as if people had had any problem with people insulting *other* nations. Hypocritical any?
#31
Many Rantburgers are acting as if Stern couldn't possibly have taken his comments out of context. I think he's a tool, but his correction/apology was quick and credible.
#32
Here here Yank! Depp may have said something but I read his apology and I believe it. If he really meant it he would have pulled a Mike Moore (Yuck) and said 'So What?' Side note: He lives in France because his wife is French and not as an ex-pat.
#33
The First Amendment protects a citizen from government infringing upon the citizens right of free speech. It does not protect anyone from being told by other citizens that they are stupid or to shut up. Most certianly it doesn't require me to subsedize an actor's lifestyle that I disagree with.
Here is an example would be I no longer watch the NBA. I watched the NBA and my family bought tickets regularly to see the awful Cleveland Cadavers play in the 80's. I lost interest when the tattoos, rapping, and arrest felonies became a distraction for me. I pay to be entertained not annoyed. If I wanted to be annoyed, I would buy a ticket to see Carrott Top.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/05/2003 12:09 Comments ||
Top||
#34
It would be my *guess* that those who tossed around comments about revoking citizenship were merely speaking in the heat of the moment. Not many of us have any real problem with "free speech", but I always get slightly amused when Muslims (Hello Aris) want to chime in and pretend the merely because the speech itself is "free" that it should also be FREE OF CONSEQUENCES.
Muslims know FIRSTHAND that in their OWN society speech (whether free or otherwise) does INDEED have consequences. Were this not the case, what else could explain why the supposed "moderate majority" are such cowards when it comes to decrying the actions of their radically violent "brethren" who seem to think that blowing up buildings full of unarmed civillians is something that Allah (may bees pee upon him) encourages?
#35
Yank, Cyber Sarge: You guys are always on the money. He indeed maybe sorry...or just sorry he got caught. How many times have we been treated to celebs spewing bile abroad fully believing it would never see the light of day in the US, and then react with absolute dismay at the reaction when it does. We may never know on this one...but his apology still dripped with that Old EUrope snobbery, but you're right - I don't see the kind of loathing in his statements that we saw from Sarandon and others.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
09/05/2003 12:28 Comments ||
Top||
#36
I think Aris hit the mark here: Talk about revokation of Citizenship due to one's speech was way off the mark.
At the same time, the same freedom of speech (to diss on America) and action (moving to France) open to Depp is also open to his critics (to tell him he's full of it and to refuse to attend his movies).
Tolerance is the result of the social contract we've entered into where we agree that our diagreements should not result in the violation of anyone's rights or person. Until Depp, The Dixie Chicks, and NMM, can cite a constitutional right to mouth off and be immune from criticism, THEY are the conmen fabricating imaginary rights for themselves that they hypocritically deny to others to feed and preserve their egos.
#37
Depp can say whatever he wants. I give as much credence to his meanderings as I do to the gobbledy-gook of my year old nephew.
I think what everyone finds so galling, is the belief on the part of these folks that they should be free from criticism because they are a "celebrity" (thank you Reuters for the quotes). No criticism or consequences allowed.
Robbins, Sarandan, Glover, et al, have a job - being in the movies. If they choose to speak out and create a negative public perception. Guess what? It may effect their saleability(?).
Hitler was a hell of a public speaker and communicator. I don't see a mad rush to use him as a spokesperson for cellular phone/internet companies.
If you're public image is going to effect my product, I'll find someone else. Too bad, so sad.
F**K that A**HOLE Johnny Depp. There. Now I feel better.
Posted by: John Docker ||
09/05/2003 14:39 Comments ||
Top||
#40
Christ on a stick, we're talking Johnny Depp here. He's a brain-fried counterculture flake. It's only the luck of the draw that it isn't River Phoenix making stupid comments to a German journalist while Depp rots in a grave somewhere.
Give the twit his out. It isn't as if he showed up naked on the cover of Entertainment Weekly to rub our noses in his opinions.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
09/05/2003 14:43 Comments ||
Top||
#41
In the Entertainment Industry aren't they supposed to kiss my butt to get my dollars? I'm the customer in the transaction. If I'm the customer in the transaction, they have no right to continued dollars from me if they value the patronage of someone else.
Also, since when is Arnold a conservative? He may be a Republican, but that certainly doesn't make him conservative. That goes for John McCain and Blomberg as well.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/05/2003 14:59 Comments ||
Top||
#43
Superhose, Arnold has said he is a socially liberal and fiscally conservative. He's not 100% conservative but few are. As long as he doesn't use the tax money to pay for socially liberal policies I feel comfortable considering him center right.In common usage anything to the right of center is called conservative.
I don't think we know whether Arnold is fiscally conservative yet. It seems odd that NMM would declare him a full-fledged member of the Right-Wing Conspiracy. He's probably politically to the left of JFK and even married into the family. I'm conservative and would probably support McClintock if I lived in California, but Arnold shouldn't really be looked upon as Beelzebub by conservatives or liberals. Arnold is not even really centrist. He defies labeling.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/05/2003 19:56 Comments ||
Top||
#45
The Stern insists that it quoted Depp correctly.
#46
I had it beaten into my head, time and time again, that as a military member assigned outside the Continental United States (CONUS), I was an "unofficial ambassador of the United States", and that people would judge my country by my behavior. The unsaid part of that was heard equally as loud - 'screw up and we'll stomp your bu$$'.
Johnny Depp may live in France, but he's a US citizen. Because he is, he has influence as an 'unofficial ambassador', just as I did. His shooting his mouth off in France is just as equivalent of my badmouthing the US in Vietnam, or Panama, or Germany, or anywhere else in the world I might have been travelling. The same can be said of the Dixie Chumps Chicks, Harrison Ford, or any other "superstar". They shi$ in our own living room, and we don't like it. I can't say they should lose their citizenship, but they should be held accountable for the black eye they've given all of us Americans. If it means they make a few less dollars, so be it.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/05/2003 23:24 Comments ||
Top||
Six activists pleaded guilty Thursday to destroying federal property on Vieques island on the night of the Navyâs departure from its bombing range about four months ago. Prosecutors recommended between four and 21 months of jail time for the six. They each faced up to 10 years in prison for destroying a Humvee, a patrol boat and a concrete structure at the former bombing range after midnight April 30th. Damages were estimated at $250,000. Sentencing was set for Dec. 4. Not only is the island now a wildlife refuge, but six mopes go to jail. Sweet!
I hope they're going to make them pay for the Humvee. Those suckers ain't cheap...
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/05/2003 12:39:28 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The activists screw up again. Maybe we should send them to France, where destroying the Eiffel tower will be considered ' making the skies safer for mother nature's planes.'
That's when we all point and laugh at them.
Posted by: Charles ||
09/05/2003 2:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Why don't we cut Puerto Rico loose once and for all? What the F are we getting outta that deal? Ask any NY'er how much they like having their free-loading asses in the city? Because of their "special" Commonwealth status--they can come to NYC and get on the dole from day one--at least the Mexicans in CA work
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/05/2003 2:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Puerto Rico is trying to become a state, idiot. However, several things have delayed that. This was on the news before 9/11 happened.
It has something to do with Government regulations.
Posted by: Charles ||
09/05/2003 2:45 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Hey MORON Charles--we don't need them as a state--they bring nothing to the table--
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/05/2003 3:42 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The way I remember it the Citezens of PR were ask to put statehood to a vote.They said no.
#6
Puerto Rico has voted at least twice on statehood and turned it down each time.
The advatages and disadvantages of statehood are about equal. At present, the current status is slightly more beneficial to business. The loss of Roosevelt Roads, however, may tip the balance towards statehood.
Puerto Ricans are, and have been, American citizens for decades. They have served in our armed forces, and in our government, just as have people from Alabama or Wyoming. As citizens of the United States, they have as much right to move to New York as Not Mike Moore. And, as a group, they probably work just as hard, if not harder.
#9
PR has a sweet deal that we gave them. It is a sweet one, but that doesn't mean that we can or should back-out on our part.
Being a protectorate means having no real representation in our government. John Adams, Patrick Henry and others decided that we didn't like the same kind of arrangement we had with Britain over two hundred years ago.
I know there are plans to close Roosevelt Roads which will hurt San Juan in the short term but probably help its economy in the long term. From the U.S. standpoint PR makes a good base for the War On Drugs. GITMO is rather small and has its drawbacks.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/05/2003 12:15 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Gitmo (AKA the death camp) has benefits PR doesn't, namely inaccessible to hired mouthpieces for the whiners and defenders of turban-clad asswipes terrorists and unlawful combatants
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/05/2003 14:02 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Frank,
The Navy is pissed about losing the gun range, but I think closing Rosey Roads is a mistake for US interests. With what is happening in Venesuala, backing away from engagement with South America would be a bad mistake. We have already backed out of Panama and would be happy to have nothing to do with Haiti (I agree there.)
Let's not leave SA as Castro's playground. The upheaval in Venesuala is a much bigger danger to national security than the American public understands.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/05/2003 20:02 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Puerto Rico has its plusses and minuses. They've been offered three choices: continue as a commonwealth, independence, or statehood. They've consistently chosen to remain a commonwealth.
There are some good points to Puerto Rico - one specifically is Arecibo. There used to be several military installations on Puerto Rico: Ramey AFB, which is all but closed; Rosey Roads, which is being closed; a Coast Guard base in San Juan. There may be more, I don't know. The people (more specifically, the politicians) have pushed to get the US Military out of Puerto Rico, hoping to build the island into another Hawaii. Unfortunately, there just isn't the draw. More people visit the US Virgin Islands next door than go to Puerto Rico.
Old saying: Be careful what you ask for, you might get it. Probably should become Puerto Rico's new motto.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/05/2003 21:57 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Vaya con dios, muchachos! At least now, they mail you your unemployment checks. Saves you from waiting in line.
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.
