#1
Won't even follow the link, don't need to...
Libération = french al guardian = holier-than-you leftist newspaper read by bobos only (and thus on the perpetual verge of bankruptcy, despite having been saved by the Rotschild), founded by maoist thugs turned corporate businessmen, and Jean Paul "I was always wrong" Sartre (IIRC).
Nickname = "Collaboration".
' nuff said.
#2
Other evidence that the American strategists refuse to acknowledge: in spite of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's many denials, Taliban fighters continue to benefit from the support of Pakistan's Secret Services (ISI), who allow them use the territories of Northern Pakistan as they wish; ISI officers, nearly a state unto themselves, never recovered from the "loss" of Taliban Afghanistan, which they had nurtured into power to equip their country with "strategic depth [a buffer zone]," in case of open warfare with India. The ISI has also permitted Pakistani militants to join the ranks of the Taliban; these were Islamic militants, whose terrorist activities in Indian Kashmir were recently halted by Islamabad. These reinforcement into the ranks of the Taliban go hand in hand with the spread of battle tactics reminiscent of the Iraq war; car bombs, ambushes, suicide attacks and the undermining of communication systems are now nearly daily events in Afghanistan.
Another worrying development: an alliance which is as paradoxical as it is tactical, is now being forged between the Islamic fighters and those who were once their enemies, the drug barons. Forgetting that they were once forced out of work by the Taliban regime, the opium traffickers with the help of private militias, are resisting the poppy eradication campaigns launched by the central government at America's behest. They then find themselves in the position of being objective allies of the Taliban, who take advantage of the situation to recruit among poor farmers, the main victims of the poppy eradication plan.
Posted by: john ||
06/07/2006 16:56 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The saddest thing is that there is one key lesson, IMHO, that we should learn from Afghanistan and Iraq:
Islam is the ultimate black hole of humankind. It is the anti-logic, anti-thought, anti-free-will, anti-truth, anti-human. It is the perfect opposite of Freedom. You can liberate others, if there is no vestige of Islam present. Of course, it is always better if they do it themselves. Where Islam exists, the only recourse is to keep it backward, mired in the 7th century. Bomb it back there and repeat as necessary. No cell phones, nothing motorized, no weaponry more advanced than clubs and slings, no modern medicines, no press, nothing beyond the seventh century... and most important, no one over the age of 3 may emigrate. In time, say 4 or 5 generations, it will extinguish itself naturally, possibly as Allan intends, with minimal loss of life and treasure for its warders.
As for the adherents of Islam already in the West who are over the age of 3, deport them to the enclave of their choice. Parents may take their children with them, or entrust them to any fmaily remaining in the West.
There are few things more enjoyable than when a Leftie admits, or pretends to admit, he was wrong. We saw it a year or so ago when Trevor Phillips, commissar-in-chief of the Commission for Racial Equality, said that multiculturalism had not been a huge success, and that those from other cultures who came here were better off learning to be British.
I think he was sincere. I am less sure about Gordon Brown, who bores on about Britishness almost daily. It is the sort of thing that allows a socialist such as Mr Brown to fake some point of contact with conservative-minded patriots. It is also his way of trying to hide the fact that his own party's policies have split up the United Kingdom and made his position, as a Scot sitting for a Scottish seat who wants to be Prime Minister mostly of England, somewhat precarious.
Not all of the Left has, however, twigged that multiculturalism is rather last century. Someone of whom I had hoped we had heard the last, the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, made a predictable intervention in this debate from beyond the grave last weekend. He proclaimed that the coronation of our next monarch must be an "interfaith" event. The ceremony must, he added, have "very significant changes", so that it is "inclusive" of other religions in Britain.
Continued on Page 49
From Epoch News, through Three Gorges Probe. This is an example of what will happen when the True Believers run things without honest peer review, public comment, and transparancy in all stages of the planning, design, and construction process. I hope that the world will learn from this, but I have my doubts.
by Zhou Ren
Germany: After eleven and a half years, the construction of Three Gorges Dam located on the Yangtze River at Sandouping of Yichang City, Hubei Province was officially completed on the morning of May 20, 2006.
Despite intense debate in China and abroad over whether to launch the Three Gorges Project, the deputies at the National People's Congress voted to proceed with construction of the dam in 1992. Damn the comments and concerns, full speed ahead!!
Prior to the completion of the project, The Epoch Times interviewed Dr. Wang Weiluo, an expert in national land use and planning. Dr. Wang graduated from Nanjing University with a major in urban and rural development planning and later earned his master's and doctorate in engineering in Germany. Afterwards, he taught open planning and engineering evaluation at University of Dortmund in Germany. For several years, Dr. Wang also participated in the planning phase of the Three Gorges Project.
Dr. Wang Weiluo has expressed great concern over the Three Gorges Project and wrote articles on the issue for international media. After the Chinese communist officials decided to go forward with the Three Gorges Project, he released a book to re-evaluate the project, entitled Fortune and Misfortune.
From an engineering perspective, there are irresolvable conflicts in the Three Gorges Project. Dr. Wang believes the final decision to launch the construction of the Three Gorges Project was purely a political move by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The decision to proceed with the project was based on an undemocratic and unscientific evaluation of evidence. Dr. Wang cautioned that the construction of the Three Gorges Dam would cause havoc on the ecosystem and create a series of social problems, and the project would have to be abandoned at the end.
The following report is based on a recording of the interview.
'Be Prepared to Deal with the Consequences to Chongqing City'
The greatest problem with the Three Gorges Project is the issue of flooding. The water surface of the reservoir is not flat as imagined, but sloped -- meaning there is a water surface or hydraulic gradient for water to flow from upstream to the downstream. If there were no slope of the surface of water flowing in an open channel, the water would not be flowing. In general, variation in water surface levels is invisible to the naked eye. In 1992, when Li Rui, Mao Zedong's former secretary, was informed that the Chinese communist regime decided to construct the Three Gorges Dam, he wrote a letter to the CCP leaders, suggesting that the Chinese government "be prepared to deal with the consequences and damage to Chongqing City."
With the smaller hydraulic gradient, the sediment would be deposited around some areas within the reservoir, and years later, the reservoir would be filled with the sedimentation. Therefore, the Three Gorges Project sediment team argued that there would be a hydraulic gradient in the area of the reservoir. Through calculation, it was determined that the gradient should be 0.7/10,000, so there is a seven-meter height difference per 100 kilometers. Since the length of the Three Gorges Reservoir totals over 600 kilometers, the height difference in water level from one end of the water storage to the other would be over 40 meters.
The final step of the Chaotianmen Dock in Chongqing City is at an altitude above that of the railways for the Chongqing train station. In addition, the altitude for certain parts of Chongqing is even at a lower sea level. If the Three Gorges Project were used for flood control, the water level of the Three Gorges Reservoir would reach 175 meters, but the water level at Chongqing would surpass 217 meters above sea level (175 meters + 0.7/10,000 x 600 km = 217 meters). This means that the Chongqing train station and all the railways and highways leading into and out of Chongqing, as well as the Chaotianmen Dock would be flooded. Many cities and towns near the Three Gorges Reservoir, including the roads, bridges and newly-constructed towns for migrants would also be flooded. If such a flooding occurred, who would take responsibility? This is what Li Rui meant by "be prepared to deal with the consequences and damage to Chongqing City."
Red Line of The Flood level
In a proof debate over the Three Gorges Project, the migration team proposed a red line of the flood level as a guide to relocate local residents. Since the normal water level of the Three Gorges would reach 175 meters above sea level, a contour line was drawn on a map, indicating that the areas below 175 meters would be flooded. Most people with limited knowledge about the project assume that areas 175 meters above sea level would be safe, while residents below the contour would have to be relocated. All of these assumptions are based on the premise that the surface of water flowing in the future reservoir is flat. A flat earth is OK with a pond, but with 600 KILOMETERS, hydraulic gradient becomes big time serious.
Water can flow from an upstream region to a downstream region because of a hydraulic gradient. Without the difference of the water elevation, no flow would occur, and the Three Gorges Dam would be unable to generate electricity since there would be not enough potential generating capacity from pressure exerted by the water.
Since it was believed that the water storage elevation of the Three Gorges Reservoir is constant, then why was the decision to construct an essentially poor functioning dam accepted and proved?
The only explanation is that proposal for establishing such a huge dam was put forward by one dictator, and others were too scared to point out his mistake. The dictator who proposed the Three Gorges Project is Li Peng, former chairman of National People's Congress. Since Li Peng already made up his mind and drew his conclusion, scientists and other officials at various rankings did not dare to contradict him. See also Stalin's megaprojects, or his minister of agriculture T.D. Lysenko's disasterous agriculture policies in the USSR to see what one high placed idiot can do to generations.
A Self-contradictory Conclusion
If the reasoning and proof reports submitted by 14 individual teams were carefully studied, many self-contradictory facts surface. For example, the migration team claimed that the water storage elevation of the Three Gorges is constant, while the sediment team and the shipping team stated that a hydraulic gradient exists.
The sediment team believed that the dam could "wash away sediment during floods and to retain water during droughts" to solve the problems caused by sediment deposits. They thought that since the dike of Yangtze River under the dam is very sturdy and sediment concentration is very high during flood season, the water pressure could actually wash away the sediment. Meanwhile, the sediment concentration is low during drought season, so the water will be reserved for electric power and shipping.
The flood prevention team, however, held the opposite opinion. They suggested that the dam be used to collect sediment during flood season. The team claimed that the Three Gorges reservoir has a storage capacity of 22.1 billion cubic meters and is well able to contain a flood. It could reduce flooding in the lower areas of the Yangtze from once every 10 years to once every 100 years. They argued that flood prevention was the greatest benefit of the Three Gorges Project.
According to these two different conclusions, which function will the Three Gorges Dam perform when a flood occursretain water for reducing flood peak or drain out sediment?
The premises of the migration team and sediment team contradict. The migration team drew the conclusion thinking that the water storage elevation of the Three Gorges is constant, while the sediment team drew their conclusion on the basis a hydraulic gradient exists to wash out the sediment. The Central Committee of the CCP only paid attention to the conclusions of the reports and ignored the premises. Therefore, the final conclusion was that "Draining off sediment during a flood and retaining water during drought season could solve the problems caused by sediment deposition. The Three Gorges Dam could help to upgrade flood prevention strategies in the lower reaches of the Yangtze River. The population requiring relocation would be only about 1.13 million."
The incorrect strategic decision lies in these contradicting premises. Most serving officials of the Chinese communist regime are in favor of the project, while most retired officials are against it. For example, Hu Yaobang, the General Secretary of the CCP in 1984, agreed with the project in principle, while Li Rui, Hu's fellow villager and colleague, was punished by the CCP because he published books against the Three Gorges Project. Hu Yaobang even gave Li Rui his disciplinary punishment in person. Yet, after Hu Yaobang left office, he apologized to Li Rui and wrote a poem revealing his disapproval of the Three Gorges Project.
A Political Project in Essence
The Three Gorges Project is actually a political project. The decision-making was under a special situation shortly after the June 4 Massacre in 1989.
In 1989, the first inspection Jiang Zemin carried out after he came to power was the Three Gorges Project. It was a declaration of his stanceexpressing that he was in the same league as Li Peng, the helmsman of the June 4 Massacre. In Li Peng's diary, he expressed heartfelt thanks to Jiang.
After the June 4 Massacre, the Chinese people felt very alienated. The Three Gorges Project was chosen as the one attempt to fill people with enthusiasm. The Three Gorges Project was constructed as a patriotic propaganda exercise. In the Three Gorges Park, a monument engraved with one of Li Peng's poems was put up by China Three Gorges Project Corporation in his honor. Li Peng was very satisfied with it when he made a special trip to the Three Gorges to see the monument. The Three Gorges Project may be considered as an attempt to build up the images of some of the CCP's leaders.
A person in charge of the International Rivers Network, a non-profit organization that works to protect rivers and the rights of those who depend on them, called the Three Gorges Project "a product of Stalinism." Most people and governments around the world oppose the projectbut this is the opposite in China. Before 1989, articles opposing the project could be found in popular newspapers and journals, but after 1989, only articles favoring the project could be found in Chinese publications. Since all opposing articles could not be published in China, many Chinese people are not familiar with the history of debate surrounding the dam project. Professor Huang Wanli, a well-known water conservation expert at Tsinghua University, was labeled "right wing" by Mao Zedong for opposing the construction of Sanmen Gorge Dam on the Yellow River. The failure of the dam several years later proved that Huang's view was correct. No one was willing to publish Huang Wanli's articles at that time, so he and his family used their money to publish them independently.
Huang is now a vocal opponent of the Three Gorges Dam, and his views are still being censored. The Chinese communist regime professes that the debate around the building of the dam has been fair and democratic, but there is evidence to the contrary. It has been decreed democratic, so therefore it is democratic.
As one example, Professor Zhang Guangdou, who favors the project, was made an important part of the decision process and awarded a prestigious post, but Huang was excluded from the entire process. Professor Huang wrote three letters to Central Committee officials detailing his reasons for opposing the dam, asking for a 30-minute audience to explain his point of view. He was never granted that opportunity. The future generations of Chinese who have to bear the consequences of the dam's construction may come to regret that Huang was not allowed that 30-minute speech.
Among the 412 experts on the dam construction committee, nine formally documented their opposition to the dam being built. One of these is Mr. Lu Qinkai, the former director for the division of long-term planning of the Ministry of Water Resources. He authored a joint letter of opposition with a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultation Conference. From 1998 to 2000, Mr. Lu wrote joint-letters with many other well-known scholars to the Chinese communist regime and presented their opinions for saving the project. For example, they proposed not to block the flood-discharge holes located downstream of the Yangtze River. Their advice went unheeded.
If Terrorists Blow Up the Dam
In 1958, when the central committee of the CCP decided to construct the Three Gorges Dam, the Chinese State Council asked General Zhang Aiping to lead a group to investigate any security risks the dam might pose. After several years of research, the group concluded that they were, "unable to guarantee the safety of the Three Gorges Dam."
During the debate about the project in 1986, the military reversed their conclusion and supported the construction of the dam, but General Zhang always held to his original stance. The committee based its decision to build the dam despite the submitted safety concerns on two, somewhat questionable, premises.
The first is that war has its omens. Modern warfare does not consist of sudden attacksthere is some warning beforehand. In the instance of a pending attack, the dam water could be drained in two weeks, eliminating its capacity to cause widespread damage.
The second premise reasons for the use of nuclear weapons in any counterattack to a United States invasion. They figure that even though the U.S. has a more powerful military, all China needs is to posses sufficient nuclear might to destroy the United States to offer a sufficient deterrent to attack. During the debate, it was pointed out that the biggest safety concern posed by the dam is its possibility of becoming a terrorist target.
What the logic of the first premise overlooks is that if the water were suddenly drained from the reservoir, whether intentionally over the course of a week or two, or suddenly by a bomb blast, the surrounding area would suffer intense flooding that could effect as many as 30 million people. Since Yangtze River is China's golden waterway, it must be guaranteed that the passage of ships is unimpeded. Therefore the Three Gorge Dam was constructed with a two-way five-level lock. A lift was also included in the original plan, but it has not been completed yet. The security of the lift is worse than that of lock. The lock with two gates restrains 22.1 billions cubic meters of water. If terrorists destroy the two gates, a catastrophic flood would ensue. All the sins would be washed away, at the expense of those downstream. Blast the lock gates and there is no backup system, other than to lower the whole reservoir below the level of the top lock.
One suggestion to counter the threat posed by hijacked ships that could ram the lock, is to place gun boats upstream of the dam. The boats would presumably be able to identify and destroy any threatening ships.
Where is the Three Gorges Project Going?
There appears to be no way around the flood threat posed by the Three Gorges Dam. Mr. Lu Qinkai claimed that to save the Three Gorges Project, the water level of the Three Gorges Reservoir must be lowered, and planners should realize that it is not possible to have the dam produce large amounts of electricity and protect the surrounding area from floods. He reminds these people in charge that it will be the common people who pay with their lives should a disaster occur.
Aside from the potential flood dangers, the dam project has other negative ramifications. It stands to wreck havoc upon the transportation system that operates on the Yangtze. The common people have always used the river as a means of transportation, via boat, for themselves and whatever goods they may need to transport. Also, there is a high volume of commercial shipping on the river. When Vice Prime Minister Zeng Peiyan went to the ribbon-cutting ceremony, it took his boat less than three hours to pass the ship lock, which he felt wasn't bad at all. For the common people, however, it actually takes seven hours to pass the lock.
In ancient China, it took only a day to travel from Fengjie City to Jiangling City by wooden boat. Today, it takes a modern steam liner over seven hours just to pass the lock, and well over a day to reach Jiangling.
Some cargo ships have to go through a complicated cargo transfer process as they pass through the dam locks, causing further delays.
Then there is the problem of the ever worsening water quality in the Yangtze. It is becoming increasingly polluted. According to Professor Zhang Guangdou, an expert on water resources and hydroelectric engineering from Tsinghua University, it would cost 300 billion yuan (US$37.39 billion) to clean-up the Yangtze. In the face of such a necessary and costly clean-up effort, does it make sense to spend 200 billion yuan ($24.93 billion) on the Three Gorges Dam?
Moreover, financial experts say the dam project has plunged the Chinese economy into debtby about 500 billion yuan ($62.32 billion). The water from the Three Gorges Reservoir has become nearly undrinkable, and the tens of millions of people who depend on it are being forced to look for new water sources. What a loss! So the costs are exceeding the benefits? But the momentum to build it is too much to stop. Hu ya gonna call?
The dam project has also negatively impacted the lives of the common Chinese living in the vicinity. Except for a handful of people who have managed to benefit from the project, the majority has lost their land and been forced to migrate in search of work. One estimate is that a million Chinese citizens have been disenfranchised as a result of the dam's construction. The project has also resulted in the loss of some 200,000 local jobs.
Some say that reservoir construction is responsible for causing as much as half of China's poorest population. These giant building projects forcibly displace the people in the surrounding areas, turning them into jobless migrants. What's worse is that these people have no way to protest the unfair treatment that they suffer. They are not allowed to complain to the government in Beijing, Wuhan Province or even Chongqing City. If they mention any unfavorable information to overseas media, they would be charged with "divulging national secrets."
The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) conducted a study of the dam titled "Human Rights Research on Three Gorges Re-settlers," but the study has not been completed despite its 2005 deadline. From the partial content disclosed in this report, it claims that the construction of the Three Gorges Project itself is a human right and as long as the migrants have food to eat, their basic human rights have not been violated.
The CCP refuses to take responsibility for any of the problems caused by the dam project. It makes token attempts at fixing some small problems, but denies the larger issues.
There have been many planning and design errors in the building process. Landslides and collapsing cliffs have been a constant problem during construction. But, the officials have covered up the extent of the problem by lying about the number of incidents. According to the Three Gorges Project Proof Report, there were 150 landslides and cliff collapses caused by the Three Gorges Project. In fact, there were more than 1500. These types of planning errors cost the Chinese people billions of yuan.
In my opinion, there is no way to fix or salvage the Three Gorges Dam Projectit is simply a losing proposition. The CCP made a similar mistake when it decided to build the Sanmen Gorge Dam on the Yellow River.
The main mistake of the Sanmen Gorge Dam had to do with not knowing how much sediment would collect in the reservoir. The problems with the Three Gorges Dam stem from somehow not realizing that water flows from high to low. Don't both of these mistakes defy common sense?
The Chinese Communist Party claims that the Three Gorges Project is the result of good science and democratic decision makingciting the approval of 412 appointed experts. The truth is that it is not scientifically sound and was never subject to any process worthy of the name "democratic." The Three Gorges Dam Project is another huge mistake on the part of the CCP, and is yet one more hopeless product of a hapless totalitarian regime.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/07/2006 16:45 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A great propaganda exercise:
After the June 4 Massacre, the Chinese people felt very alienated. The Three Gorges Project was chosen as the one attempt to fill people with enthusiasm. The Three Gorges Project was constructed as a patriotic propaganda exercise. In the Three Gorges Park, a monument engraved with one of Li Peng's poems was put up by China Three Gorges Project Corporation in his honor. Li Peng was very satisfied with it when he made a special trip to the Three Gorges to see the monument. The Three Gorges Project may be considered as an attempt to build up the images of some of the CCP's leaders.
In 1958, when the central committee of the CCP decided to construct the Three Gorges Dam, the Chinese State Council asked General Zhang Aiping to lead a group to investigate any security risks the dam might pose. After several years of research, the group concluded that they were, "unable to guarantee the safety of the Three Gorges Dam."
"we will make it 'stronger' by putting way too much flyash in so the concrete may fail spectacularly!"
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/07/2006 20:33 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I don't know exactly how much fly ash they put in it frank, but fly ash is a common additive to mass poured concrete. It reduces the heat of hydration and actually increases the strenth of the concrete if it is high quality ash. Of course they probably used shit for ash and it will collapse.
#4
3 times the amount allowed by Caltrans specs/ACI code.... I've got my license and BSCE in civil/structures. I wouldn't put someone else's license stamp on this humongous POS
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/07/2006 22:42 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Alaska Paul and I have been all over this since they started, but he's obsessed, I tell ya
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/07/2006 22:43 Comments ||
Top||
#6
For example, Hu Yaobang, the General Secretary of the CCP in 1984, agreed with the project in principle, while Li Rui, Hu's fellow villager and colleague, was punished by the CCP because he published books against the Three Gorges Project. Hu Yaobang even gave Li Rui his disciplinary punishment in person. Yet, after Hu Yaobang left office, he apologized to Li Rui and wrote a poem revealing his disapproval of the Three Gorges Project.
As always, and especially so with Chinese politics, it's not who you know but Hu Yaobang.
#8
IOW, as said time before Commie [Permanent] War for Socialism = War for Communism = War for the defense of Communism = War for China = War for the defense of China > now comes very much WAR FOR WATER! Only thing missing is WAR FOR FOOD, WOMEN, and BABIES vv China's probs wid desertification and demographics. * Chinese bloggers > "AMERICA/WORLD/FUTURE BELONGS TO CHINA", and the like!?
In spring 2004 French President Jacques Chirac appeared to be on top of the world. He had vocally and vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq, aligning himself with the vast majority of French citizens.
Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar backed the war and found himself ousted from office and the two heads of state who led the war, American President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, both faced difficult re-election campaigns. Around the globe, a growing, angry anti-Americanism dominated public debates and Chirac was the face and the hero of that movement.
There was even talk of the European Union becoming a global economic and political superpower to rival the United States; the continent's elites eagerly envisioned a superstate to "counterbalance" reckless American power, with a consummate sophisticated diplomat like Chirac at the controls.
Continued on Page 49
By Michelle Malkin
Canadian law enforcement officials should be proud of busting a reputed Islamic terrorist network that may span seven nations. Instead, our northern neighbors are trying their damnedest to whitewash the jihadi ties that bind the accused plotters and their murder-minded peers around the world.
We live on a doomed continent of ostriches.
A Royal Canadian Mounted Police official coined the baneful phrase "broad strata" to describe the segment of Canadian society from whence Qayyum Abdul Jamal and his fellow adult suspects Fahim Ahmad, Zakaria Amara, Asad Ansari, Shareef Abdelhaleen, Mohammed Dirie, Yasim Abdi Mohamed, Jahmaal James, Amin Mohamed Durrani, Abdul Shakur, Ahmad Mustafa Ghany and Saad Khalid came.
"Broad"? I suppose it is so if one defines "broad" to mean more than one spelling variation of Mohammed or Jamal. Or perhaps, as Internet humorist Jim Treacher (jimtreacher.com) suggests, "broad" refers to the "strata" of the suspects' beard lengths.
Undeterred by the obvious, Toronto police chief Bill Blair assured the public that the Muslim suspects "were motivated by an ideology based on politics, hatred and terrorism, and not on faith....I am not aware of any mosques that these individuals were influenced by."
Well, Chief Blindspot, try the Al-Rahman Islamic Center for Islamic Education. That's the Canadian storefront mosque where eldest jihadi suspect Qayyum Abdul Jamal is, according to his own lawyer, a prayer leader and active member-along with many of the other Muslim males arrested in the sweep.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve ||
06/07/2006 09:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"We live on a doomed continent of ostriches."
That's the feeling I've been getting, too; and that our entire culture is "Stuck on Stupid."
Buy ammo. Lots of it.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
06/07/2006 10:39 Comments ||
Top||
by Robert Spencer
The lead paragraph of the Toronto Star story on this weeks terror arrests in Canada was: In investigators offices, an intricate graph plotting the links between the 17 men and teens charged with being members of a homegrown terrorist cell covers at least one wall. And still, says a source, it is difficult to find a common denominator. But illustrating the story was a photo of two women, relatives of the accused, in full Islamic dress, their faces entirely covered except for a slit for their eyes. Difficult to find a common denominator? The investigators could have found it in the Stars photo.
But the Star seemed intent on not noticing this. The initial New York Times story on the arrests likewise identified the suspects as Canadian residents and as mainly of South Asian descent. It assures readers immediately thereafter that none of them had any known affiliation with Al Qaedawhich it had given no one any reason to suspect in the first place.
The Times quoted a Royal Canadian Mounted Police assistant commissioner trafficking in irrelevancies: They represent the broad strata of our society. Some are students, some are employed, some are unemployed. Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair joined in the denial, noting proudly that during the press conference following the arrests, I would remind you that there was not one single reference made by law enforcement to Muslim or Muslim community.
Why not? The Canadian Muslim community is clearly involved in this, and they know it: they have been backtracking furiously from those arrested, but in ways that only raise more questions. The Toronto Star spoke with some of the members of a school Muslim association to which some of those arrested belonged. Once those who are now terror suspects discussed at an association gathering whether suicide bombing was permissible in Islam. Their views were so violent that the other association members threatened to have them banned. But evidently they didnt follow through on the threat or report them to authorities. Why not?
Continued on Page 49
#1
"Will it take a successful jihad attack of this kind for Western officials to wake up and do what they must do in order to guarantee the security of the societies they have been entrusted with protecting?"
B-b-but.........
That would be so,...(ulp)....AMERICAN...
Posted by: no mo uro ||
06/07/2006 5:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Of course, how MultiCulti - don't notice the obvious link. There is no 400 lb gorilla sitting there in front of you. Nope. No way.
Many knew these cretins were going "active". Many knew they were planning something. And some knew what. Cowards or Symps? Does it really matter, in the end? Really? No. Moussaoui went to SuperMax for precisely this.
Until some political leader has the stones to publicly place the blame on Islam, not "radicals" or any other lame euphemism, we cannot take the next step: demand reform of Islam or make it clear they now will receive common blame. Islam is a pestilence on Mankind. It has no saving grace. It is a prime source of misery and violence and hate and misogyny and brutality and intolerance in the world. Payback time. I got your intolerance right here. It should have been killed in the cradle - and nothing has changed in the last 1400 years except it is more widespread.
And, to give full "credit" where due, I despise all public officials who haven't the guts or moral compass to tell the truth, just as I would anyone I met on the street. That they have public responsibilities does not excuse them, it makes their cowardice 10x worse.
#3
You should listen to the Beeb on Beslan - always worth a chortle at the PC brigade: no mention of Muslim/Islamist perpetration - simply 'armed men', 'armed gang', 'Chechen separatists' - total denial.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/07/2006 6:32 Comments ||
Top||
#4
also "hostage takers".
Quite a peculiar term by the BBC.. I would think that men who kidnap and kill children would qualify as "terrorists".
Posted by: john ||
06/07/2006 16:29 Comments ||
Top||
#5
john, let's waylay the BBC Editors, relieve them of their valuables, and tell them we're just innocent money-takers, not robbers. :)
#6
I suspect that the police chief deliberately avoided mentioning islam for legal reasons, not blind ignorance. If he started spouting off about islam, he'd be feeding their defense teams ammo for their widely anticipated "poor oppressed misunderstood victoms of racism" defense.
The administration's domestic opponents play into the enemy's hands.
BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY
The unfolding investigation of last November's events in Haditha reveals much more about the Bush administration's critics than it does about the U.S. armed forces. Although the inquiry is ongoing, it appears that 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians were deliberately murdered, allegedly by American Marines seeking revenge for a fallen comrade. If true, the episode was a war crime, something that must be--and no doubt will be--severely punished. However, the administration's critics are already cynically leveraging the Haditha killings as a means of undercutting the president, heedless of the effect this may have on American national interests.
Continued on Page 49
#2
The 'illegal combatants' who hide in the civilian population does not (and should not *ever*) deserve Geneva Convention protections. Otherwise the GC is useless since nobody has any incentive to follow it.
We *must* *lose* the War on Terror in order for the Democrats to suceed - and lose big. This is why the hacks such as Muthra, Kerry, Kennedy, the media and the like are allies of the enemy. They want (and need) us to lose. And the more dead american soldiers the better for them. I include certain Republcans in this camp as well.
To them the cost [in mere american lives] is worth it as long as the elite (them) can suceed.
Evidence? Just look at their recent actions - from Kennedy saying we have simply replaced on tyrant with another (us) to Muthra calling out troops home *now* - never mind that it would give the enemy a win (to the donks that is a feature not a bug). To how they are all convicting the soldiers before the investigation is completed. The media refusal to associate Terrorism with Islam.
#3
Personally, I'm all for the MSM establishing new legal procedures [i.e. presumed guilty, must prove innocents, unverifiable evidence, hearsay, and opinion]. It will be the legal framework when their time is in the docket arrives, like for treason during time of war.
By Tony Blankley
The Marine incident, and its aftermath, at Haditha tells us much more about the media than it does about the Marines. And what it tells us ought to outrage us to the core.
On every radio and television show I appeared on last week (and all I observed) in which this topic came up, without exception at least one of the media people immediately attempted to implicate not just the still-presumed-innocent Marines, but the American military's leadership and methods in general.
The "Drive By Media" (Rush Limbaugh's scientifically accurate description) has already started to report this story in a manner that is likely to do vast damage that may last for several years to the morale (and possibly recruitment) of our military. It will create a propaganda catastrophe of strategic proportions in our mortal struggle with radical Islam and its terrorist spear point. And all this is being done by journalists who are seemingly oblivious to the consequences of their acts.
President Bush noted the extraordinary damage that reported events at Abu Ghraib caused and continue to cause. One can only imagine what the radical Islamist propagandists and recruiters will do with the Haditha incident -- especially since they will merely have to accurately quote from major United States and European newspapers and television news broadcasts. Is this any way to fight a war?
Continued on Page 49
#1
Not enough journalists have children in the military.
In fact, probably none.
Nothing shapes your perspective like your kid in the battle.
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/07/2006 7:06 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"But in time of war, there is no reason why military censorship should not be enforced to shroud the carrying out of justice from the eager eyes and ears of enemy propagandists -- domestic and foreign."
#1
As told by my late father, John D. Rockefeller was the "Bill Gates" of his time. He had a pretty bad PR image in the MSM of the day, often referred to as a "robber baron." He became a favorite target of the gummit, liberals, have nots, etc. They busted his company up into little Standard Oils, Indiana, Illinois, California, Ohio (SOHIO), etc. Rockefeller kept a small piece of each. The irony is, within a few years the little Stardard Oil companies had grown expedentially and John D. Rockefeller became richer and more powerful than ever. Are we betteer off after the mandated breakup, probably not. But the Rockefellers certainly are.
#2
The government should stick to their mandate as specified in the constitution. If they have a beef with a business, then act to protect the citizens, not the tax code or their own investments. There is much to be done, but only honest men and women should do the doing.
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.
In spring 2004 French President Jacques Chirac appeared to be on top of the world. He had vocally and vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq, aligning himself with the vast majority of French citizens.
The administration's domestic opponents play into the enemy's hands.
