#1
IMO, the 2 Dem's that have been elected president in the past 30 years are also responsible for more damage to this Republic than all of their predecessors combined.
Clinton is obviously a scoundrel and a disgrace, but Carter baffles me, his Presidency was just hideous - you'd think he's have a little shame and keep his senile yap shut.
#2
Clinton is obviously a scoundrel and a disgrace, but Carter baffles me, his Presidency was just hideous - you'd think he's have a little shame and keep his senile yap shut.
To the true believers they are still the "best ex-presidents ever." I was recently visiting with my siblings (a once-in-a-decade thing) and was just floored by their qenuine respect and admiration for those two. Due to the context of the occasion (we were together after our mother's funeral) I just kept quiet. But I had to bite my tongue so hard I almost severed it.
Now these are not barking moonbats. They're all stable professional responsible adults - just woefully misguided and unknowingly drunk on the Dem/MSM Kool-Aid.
I guess there's hope yet since I was essentially looking at myself from about six years ago.
#3
You'd think that if Rosalyn really cared about her husband she'd find a way to get him to STFU and stop making such a fool of himself. She just has to be embarrassed.
#4
I am convinced Carter was a commie.
He started his political career by taking his first loss to the Hague instead of a local Georgia court.
The quantity of damage he did the countries psych, dollar value, interest rates, allowing radical islam to form and find a base in Iran protected from desert hellicopters.... and a Prez rose garden temper tantrum would be hard to duplicate by an idiot. Its just too much damage. And he still inflicts it.
Commie.
#5
Carter is the worst kind of Christian - someone who feels God has given them particular insight to control other lives. Thank God they are in the molecular-minority, and thank God this POS has demonstrated his total lack of judgement. Why don't you die, Jimmy??
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/14/2006 23:09 Comments ||
Top||
The nation's highest honor for combat valor was awarded posthumously to a U.S. Marine from upstate New York on Friday - and The New York Times didn't notice.
It was a shameful act of neglect, though not surprising in the least.
"As long as we have Marines like Cpl. [Jason] Dunham, America will never fear for her liberty," a clearly moved President Bush said at the dedication of the National Museum of the Marine Corps in Quantico, Va.
It was only the second MOH awarded in the Iraq war, and it was major news everywhere - especially in New York.
But . . . not a word in the Times.
In April 2004, Dunham saved the lives of several fellow Marines - at the cost of his own - when he threw first his helmet, and then his body, over a live hand grenade tossed by a terrorist.
Dunham died of his wounds eight days later, at age 22.
This was Dunham's second tour in Iraq. After the first hitch, he could have left the corps and returned to Scio, some 80 miles from Buffalo. Instead, he chose to re-up, saying he wanted to "make sure everyone comes home alive."
The Times wasn't completely unaware of Dunham's self-sacrifice. In August 2005, it ran a brief review of "The Gift of Valor," by Wall Street Journal reporter Michael M. Phillips, which chronicled the heroism of Dunham and his battalion; the article called his sacrifice "extraordinary."
So why not acknowledge that heroism when the entire nation - led by its commander-in-chief - paid tribute to Dunham and the Marine Corps?
The Times wasn't talking yesterday, so let us hazard a guess.
Perhaps, to the Times, Jason Dunham was just another dead Marine - a victim, a statistic, another young life "wasted" in the battle for Iraq.
Or perhaps a heroic Marine doesn't fit in with the paper's notion of U.S. soldiers in Iraq? Selfless sacrifice is ennobling, and taking notice of it might lend nobility to the larger enterprise - and that certainly wouldn't be fit to print.
From the beginning, in fact, virtually nothing positive about the Iraq war has found its way into the Times - but, again, why take it out on the troops?
Ignoring the nation's tribute to Jason Dunham was a profound insult to those gallant men and women who daily risk their lives in America's service.
#1
Teh NYT has becoem so partisan politically, and rabidly and reflexivly anti-military, that it should NEVER be regarded as the Paper of Record anymore.
After all, how can it be the Paper of Record and not put a CMoH winner from NY on its front page (or any other page apparently)?
Bastards. They are letting the public down - they are supposed to provide us with the information an INFORMED populace needs to function as a democracy. Instead they are filtering and only givign half truths - which will lead to the downfall of the republic. Its the same thigns the Mullahs in Teheran do: only print the news they want, and ignore and suppress the rest.
The NYT has become a dictatorial tool, not a NEWS paper anymore.
If we the people end up paying a price for the war on terror, and I'm still functional, the NYT editorial board and its reporters will be going down hard. Like the vermin they are.
#2
Normally when the NYT's uses the military for political gain or slanders us I can wash the bile taste down with some J&K. Nothing will wash this one away. God bless this Marine and his family. I hope his family understands America respects and cherishes them for their sacrifice.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
11/14/2006 9:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The book of the story, written by a friend of a friend. The Gift of Valor: a war story (ISBN 0-7679-2037-6), written by Michael Phillips, who was a Wall Street Journal reported embedded with the unit when they invaded Iraq. I found a bit too detail-choked to make for easy reading, but it was a cri de cour, the outcry of a man who'd learnt to love the Marines with whom he went in under fire. Mr. Phillips returned to the WSJ after finishing the book, continuing to do local reports from spots of interest around the world. If you can access the WSJ archive, his reports from the front were very, very good.
#4
Scio is a small town about 30 miles north of the Pennsylvania border. It is very much "heartland". The people are proud of their school, their churches and the fire department.
It's the kind of place where, when there's a fire, they call the big Dresser-Rand plant in Wellsville and the bosses get on the PA to announce that firefighters are released to go fight the fire. And dozens of folks will go.
I've been writing about Jason Dunham since May of 2004. The thing is, is that he's not much different than a bunch of young men and women from that area. They get raised to run to the sound of the guns, to steal a phrase. You're expected to do your part, to risk yourself if necessary for the safety of a neighbor or a stranger.
I've followed Scio firefighters into infernos, and they've done the same with me. Jason knew, it's just what you do in real America.
#5
It should be considered the paper of record for the other side.
NYT is not the only one. We were driving across country and heard on the radio that there was a big home town parade for returning soldiers. We wanted to obtain a photograph so we contacted the newspaper about a week later. He said he didn't have a photograph - they didn't have any pictures of the parade.
You really have to bite the ol' tounge not to ask, "What type of loser editor doesn't get a photograph of a big hometown parade?" "Are you the editor of the local paper?" "Are you like a Penny Saver?" "How is it that you don't have a photograph of this parade?" "Are you like, a total LOOOSER?"
If we don't get a handle on this information war, it's going to get much worse before it gets better.
This is what's called "thinking outside the box." Would be nice if someone actually did it.
Whether Hoyer or Murtha becomes Majority Leader, the Democrats will begin their reign with very hard feelings and a divided Caucus.
In the spirit of engendering bipartisanship, I have an idea. Actually, this is someone else's idea, but I promised I wouldn't tell who it was.
Assume the GOP ends up with 203-or so-seats when all the recounts are over. And say all 203 of those Republican Members of the House were to tell Steny Hoyer that they feel his pain over the Pelosi/Murtha thing and they have decided to vote for him for Speaker.
If Hoyer went into the election for Speaker with 203 GOP votes, he would only need to find 15 Democrats who don't like or trust Pelosi (not exactly a stretch) to get to the magic number of 218 - an absolute majority of the 435 Members - and Mrs. Pelosi would be a very important member of the House Appropriations Committee. Period.
Republicans could look the Popular Press squarely in the eye and say: "What higher level of bipartisanship can there be than crossing over the aisle to vote for the other party?"
Quick! Call Time Magazine and tell them to hold off on that "Person of the Year" cover for Nancy Pelosi.
Please please please please please do this!
Posted by: Mike ||
11/14/2006 06:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Really? Do the Trunks getta vote?
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/14/2006 6:48 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Yes, they do. Not for Majority Leader, but for Speaker of the House, they will. (Recall the "nail biter" between Newt Gingrich and that guy from Missouri whose name escapes me... the guy with all the imaginary friends who "tell" him things...)
#6
By all means elect Pelosi Speaker. After two years of the idiocy the Donks wont see power again until 2050 or later. They have a Clintonista advising them to raise taxes, Murtha as majority Leader, and dont get me started on the chairmanships. Not only will Saturday Night Live have tons of material but I suspect that some Donk members might just face a recall election after their constituents see how they are acting. A lot of the freshman got elected by leaving the term Democrat and Liberal far from any commercial or sound bite.
#7
Why would the GOP do something like that? They were told by their one-time supporters, "you screwed up so we'd rather suffer the donks than keep you around". So the GOP will say, if you wanna suffer, make it so. Madam of the House Nancy, Mad Dog as Whip, Rangel as Ways & Means and Hastings guarding your secrets.... be careful what you wish for.....
#8
PRAVDA.RU various articles > AL QAEDA planning to blow up 30 airliners over XMAS = EOM December 2007; Amer-based [Lefty?]pundit whom subscribes to PRAVDA anticipates LITTLE TO NO CHANGE FROM DEMS; RUMMY RESIGNS, RUSSIA PREPARES TO FIGHT [WHat?Whom? WHere? Terrorists?].
I do believe Col. Bay may be on to something here . . .
The Baker-Hamilton study group will not produce any new thinking. The U.S. military has analyzed and gamed every course of action, including cut and run. For that matter, it gamed non-intervention in Iraq as well.
What Baker and Hamilton provide is political cover for Democrats. Our plan has been a sound one build Iraqi security and political institutions to the point US and coalition forces move to strategic overwatch. John Murtha suggested we move our troops to Okinawa thats a little bit far, but hey, hes going to be the new House majority leader so we will be entertained with similar Murtha quips for the next two years. Be prepared. 2009 is the earliest date I see strategic overwatch beginning and that assumes Pelosi and her clan dont go with Murtha and Cindy Sheehan.
Which is where Baker-Hamilton comes in. Baker-Hamilton is an academic committee. I guarantee the John Kerry-level strategic geniuses who participated in the study have radcially differing views of the issues, different definitions of problems, and a spectrum of mutually-incoherent policy prescriptions. (Like I said, its an academic committee.) My bet is the Baker-Hamilton consensus will ultimately reflect Jim Bakers and Lee Hamiltons two-man consensus (in other words, truth in packaging unusual in government and academia).
If we are lucky, the Baker-Hamilton magic show will drop a scarf over the top hat and with a the poof of a New York Times headline produce a unifying policy of words that will let the Democrats join the war, despite the howls of their blogosphere nutsroots.
Then the military will continue to do what its been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and the new Iraqi government will continue to learn by doing and in the ordeal of war that will mean learn by bleeding, suffering, and sweating.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/14/2006 09:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I hope Col Bay's right - because it means that the Dems will finally climb on board by having a set of objectives for leaving Iraq they can use as a fig leaf, and a timetable that's broad enough to ensure that US objectives (not neccesarily Iraqi ones) are met.
Personally, thier "we need to be OUT NOW" drum beaters are going to make it hard for them to have any room to manuever sensibly on this.
One thing's for sure: the war and world look a lot different when you must deal with them instead of just talk about how bad the other guy is doing.
#2
He's wrong. George McGovern is advising the 'Democratic wing' of the Democratic party. Also known as the modern Copperheads, their goal is to get out troops out ASAP and screw the consequences. Baker-Hamilton might have worked if the Trunks had held the Senate, thus confronting Pelosi, et al., with no chance to force an end-the-war-now resolution through. But Pelosi and Reid together can get such a resolution, and they'll need it to keep the Copperheads in their party from revolting.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/14/2006 9:52 Comments ||
Top||
#3
When did Baker ever produce a plan or strategy that was NOT a weak compromise with tyranny?
#4
You know Doc, when I heard that McGovern was giving advice to the Dems I about choked. Why go to him? Because he's a loser and they want to lose in Iraq. It's always Vietnam to these idiots. Losing is a badge of honor to them. If only they could take all the consequences themselves.
#5
I figure that whatever Baker comes up with is just cover for W to start making some changes. If there is no agreement on policy, then after a lot of howling and wrangling the Dummocrats will flash their ace and refuse to back funding for operations. They'll say they don't want to , but are forced to. Same song, different verse.
#6
Iff the Dems begin any pullout and new 9-11's/Amer Hiroshimas take place, whether preplanned =random, they won't escape any blame, espec for 2008. Unfortunately for America, its politically "safer" for them to let US milfors "stay put" so that Dubya will get the blame for keeping our milfors in Iraq > you know, SECULAR ETHICS. GIVEN THAT THE LEFT KNOWS MAINSTREAM AMERICA SUPPOR DUBYA'S POLICY OF PRE-EMPTION + TENOUS = LANDLSIDE/MANDATE 2006 "VICTORY", I DOUBT THE BLAMELESS DEMOLEFT WILL WILLINGLY PULLOUT UNLESS THE MSM CAN DE FACTO CONTROL THE DIRECTION OF BLAME. IRONY > to do the latter for the sake of POLITIX conversely invites AMer Hirsohimas.
#2
This story disturbed me for quite some time after I read it. Apart from Adelman's breathtaking treachery, the question is what he knows that we don't. He insists that we were losing, I assume militarily. Rummy insisted that we were only losing in public opinion. Are we taking far greater losses than I am aware of? Is the ratio of friendly to enemy casualties getting worse? I want to understand.
Posted by: Jonathan ||
11/14/2006 11:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
When Rumsfeld said, in reaction to all the looting, Stuff happens, and Thats what free people do, I was just so disappointed, Adelman recalled last week. This wasnt what free people did; its what barbarians did.
Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.
This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.
I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.
Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.
#1
Crichton is among the brightest - and bravest. When he analyzes a problem or situation, his resulting output is always about as good as it gets - or can get in this timeframe - and usually the best of the lot, hands down. It is always sound, solid, rational, defensible and, most amazingly of all, prescient.
If you find yourself on the opposite side of an issue, it's time to abandon your conclusions wholesale, drop any pretenses and emotional attachments, and rethink from scratch, for you have fucked up. Stephen den Beste is of this remarkable lot, as well, this small group who can logically and clinically work a problem without the crippling burden of dogma or emotion or custom or tradition or sentimentality or superstition or politics or greed. The output is always sterling, always worthy.
May the scam artists and whores of pseudoscience be exposed, damned, and burned at the fucking stake, er, I mean perp-walked to a hellhole to become Bubba's Newest LoveToy.
#2
I disagree with Crichton on his examples, although not his argument.
Lysenko was so influential because Marxism requires that nuture is far more important that nature. A much better example would have been the pervasive belief still widely prevalent that environment is a far more important determinant of human outcomes than genetics (examples about society A versus society B notwithstanding. This is an argument about individuals).
Which brings me to Eugenics. It was certainly widely abused and the extension into racial purity is complete nonsense. Nonetheless there is a very hard truth behind it. That is, people are similar to their parents in the characteristics we think important and this is primarily a consequence of genes. Birthrates fall first and fastest with those who do the best in societies (until recently the reverse was true, at least in the West). Eugenics may be out of fashion, but it will prove necessary in the future.
It's wise to seperate the disgenic effect of the "welfare" state from eugenics.
One is incentivising bad gene combos by punishing successful people (likely to have better genes), the other is the state actively deciding that one group of genes is better than others, a gene corporatism (picking business winners).
McGovern wants the new Democratic majority in Congress to force a U.S. withdrawal by June 2007. Such a precipitous cut and run policy has obviously given the aging activist a flashback to his July 14, 1972, speech accepting the Democratic nomination. In it, he called for an immediate and complete withdrawal from Vietnam, making that the central issue of the campaign. He then suffered a humiliating drubbing by a 61-38 percent margin, losing 49 states. As McGovern himself once put it, I opened the doors of the Democratic Party, and 20 million people walked out.
On one point, however, he is correct. There are similarities on the left-wing of the Democratic Party from Vietnam, through the Central American wars of the 1980s, to Iraq today. McGovern is not the only reminder of this disgraceful history. Daniel Ortega, the former Sandinista dictator, was elected president of Nicaragua on November 5. In his victory speech, Ortega thanked his leftist brothers Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Fidel Castro in Cuba. Castro praised Ortega, whose armed movement was one of several Castro (with Soviet backing) had supported in the 1980s, saying his election fills our people with joy, at the same time filling the terrorist and genocidal government of the United States with opprobrium. For his part, Ortega talked of the Iraq War and how the new Democratic majority in the U.S. Congress should force America to pull its troops out of that country.
Ortega knows the power of Congress to help foreign thugs like himself by constraining American actions. Starting in 1982, Democratic Rep. Edward Boland sponsored measures adopted by Congress to prohibit the Reagan administration from providing military support for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Nicaragua, then a Marxist junta led by Ortega. There were loopholes in the law, which the National Security Council exploited to continue aiding the anti-Communist Contra rebels. President Ronald Reagan called Ortega's regime one of the world's principal refuges for international terrorists and a partner of Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Cuba.
Continued on Page 49
In the general election, the McGovern/Shriver ticket suffered a 60%38% defeat to Nixon at the time, the second biggest landslide in American history, with Electoral College totals of 520 to 17. McGovern's two electoral vote victories came in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia; McGovern failed to win his home state of South Dakota.
So the Dems are raising the dead to further their cause. Great strategy. Our only saving grace is that the Dems are more stupid than the Republicans. This country has at least a fighting chance. I feel better now.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/14/2006 20:19 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Stuck in the 60's. It's gettin' purdy crowded, heh.
#10
.com---I remember the election. The Left pushed McGovern with all they got. Like they lit off a Saturn V booster and all they got was a fizzling bottle rocket. It was pathetic. And now this is all they have in the bag?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/14/2006 20:31 Comments ||
Top||
#11
And now this is all they have in the bag?
I'm tired of these snide references to Pelosi...not
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/14/2006 20:34 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Yep - me too.
I dunno if McGoofy was invited or foisted himself into the smugfest, lol. Never been on the winning side, before, has he? Prolly some old burnout thought it would be a really good idea. One acid trip too many, mebbe, lol.
#21
MUDVILLE GAZETTE logo > "Good people can sleep soundly at night becuz ROUGH/BAD MEN ARE READY TO PROTECT THEM + DO BATTLE ON THEIR BEHALF". In Guam + Asia, everyone knew that Rough/Bad Guy was "POWER-THAT-ISN'T-USED-ISN'T-POWER" POTUS NIXON. Despite the chaos over Vietnam, Nixon kept the stagflating, over-subsidized, "Democrat" US economy from imploding/collapsing + propagated US power-influence everywhere around the world. WHen Nixon left due to WATERGATE, even the Commies knew SOUTH VIETNAM = SE ASIA was just so much WALKING DEAD-MEAT. America didn't learn until after the fall of Saigon that America was actually winning/won the war.
#23
"Had to lose to validate the leftist cause" > post 9-11, only the most successful of MULTIPLE PLANNED ATTACKS AGZ THE WTC, SOUTH VIETNAM = HYPER-POWER AMERICA. AMERICA MUST RETREAT WORLDWIDE, NOT JUST FROM THE ME. The lives, families, way-of-life, + communities of ALL AMERICANS REGARDLESS OF BELIEFS is now at risk just becuz the Failed-Angry Left needs to "save face" + doesn't wanna admit to making any mistakes/probs > you know, HUMANISM.
LOS ANGELES - Drawing a direct analogy between Iran and Nazi Germany, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu asserted Monday that the Iranian nuclear program posed a threat not only to Israel, but to the entire western world. There was "still time," however, to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, he said.
"It's 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs," Netanyahu told delegates to the annual United Jewish Communities General Assembly, repeating the line several times, like a chorus, during his address. "Believe him and stop him," the opposition leader said of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "This is what we must do. Everything else pales before this."
While the Iranian president "denies the Holocaust," Netanyahu said, "he is preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state."
Speaking on Army Radio on Tuesday, Netanyahu hinted that Israel possesses the military capabilities necessary for curbing by itself the Iranian nuclear threat, declining to specify what these entail.
The Likud chairman said "I don't want to analyze the capability required to eliminate [the Iranian] threat, but this capability exists," when told by host Razi Barkai that Israel lacks the ability to eliminate Tehran's nuclear program by military means.
"This capability is eroded over time, and if we wait years then obviously this capability would not exist anymore ... but right now I disagree with the claim that nothing can be done against Iran," he added.
When asked if Bush could afford embarking on another "military adventure" after Iraq, Netanyahu said acting on the Iranian nuclear program would not be adventurous but necessary.
"... Israel would certainly be the first stop on Iran's tour of destruction, but at the planned production rate of 25 nuclear bombs a year ... [the arsenal] will be directed against 'the big Satan,' the U.S., and the 'moderate Satan,' Europe," Netanyahu said.
"Iran is developing ballistic missiles that would reach America, and now they prepare missiles with an adequate range to cover the whole of Europe," he added.
"No one cared"
Criticizing the international community in his GA speech for not acting more forcefully in trying to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power - "No one cared then and no one seems to care now," he said, again drawing on the Nazi parallel - Netanyahu warned that Tehran's nuclear and missile program "goes way beyond the destruction of Israel - it is directed to achieve world-wide range. It's a global program in the service of a mad ideology."
Large sections of the international community, he said, also misunderstood the nature of radical Islam and its role in the Mideast conflict. "What happens in Iran affects what happens in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not the other way round," he said.
Netanyahu said he believed that Iran could still be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons. "There is still time. All ways must be considered. We can't let this thing happen," he said, but did not outline specific measures he thought should be taken.
Referring to Israel's preemptive strike in the 1967 War, he did say that stopping Iran required "preemptive leadership. Preemption requires will and vision."
"Noone will defend the Jews if the Jews don't defend themselves," he said to loud applause. "Iran's nuclear ambitions have to be stopped."
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
11/14/2006 12:55 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"Believe him and stop him"
This must be the new mantra for dealing with Islam. No matter how outrageous the claims and declarations of these clerics or politicians are. Believe them and stop those who utter them with a bullet, a Hellfire missile or whatever is at hand.
Such genocidal ambitions must carry with them an extreme price tag. History must not be allowed to repeat itself. If Islam wants another holocaust, it must be their own.
#4
We are the fools. These simpletons say exactly what they mean. It's just so outrageous we laugh it off. We'll soon stop laughing, just like the Poles in 1939. Then the Belgians, the French, etc.
Would any American, European or Israeli man call for his wife, mother, sister or daughter to come into a fire-fight and stand as a human shield to protect him? The Arab Muslim Palestinians, on the other hand, think nothing of using women, children and the elderly as "human shields." Brave Lions of Islam!
These are the great macho Muslim worms, no scum, no shitpiles men who take such pride in their self-perceived masculinity. They not only called up their women as shields, but called for women's dresses to disguise themselves and escape within the crowd. Worse yet, after they became "females," some of the escaping terrorists fired their weapons from the crowd of women, drawing fire from the Israelis who were after the terrorists using the mosque as a hiding place. The Israelis' return fire struck the crowd of women who were shielding the escaping male terrorists, killing two women and injuring some 10 others. Wotta bunch of woosies.
What heroic figures, what role models for their children. Would you hide behind the skirts of your mother, wife, sisters or daughters so you could escape?
I recall how Ayatollah Khomeini, in his war with Iraq, sent children to run across Iraqi minefields so that Iranian soldiers might cross safely. But, not to worry, Khomeini gave them slips of paper that told the children that they would soon be in Muslim warriors' heaven. Of course, many did not die, but merely had their limbs blown off, so they could live the rest of their lives as maimed cripples.
There were many other instances where the heroic Muslims used their civilians as "human shields." In their several wars with Israel, many of the Arab adversaries - such as Egypt, Syria, the Arab Muslim Palestinians under Yasser Arafat in Lebanon - used to place their anti-aircraft guns on the roofs of schools, hospitals and civilian apartment buildings. If the ground-to-air missile batteries were too heavy and hard to re-load, some missile batteries were actually placed in school yards at ground level.
When they were hit by Israeli aircraft, the Muslims would bleat and howl about how the "inhuman Israelis were killing their children and blowing up their hospitals."
In the recent attacks by the Hizbullah from Lebanon, they indiscriminately launched their Katyusha rockets against any Israeli city their missiles could reach. Many of the launchers were pre-positioned in Arab civilian houses, apartment buildings, schools and hospitals. The launchers kept in the living rooms of apartments were on wheels: when the Hizbullah fighters were ready to fire, they rolled the Katyusha launcher out onto the balcony, fired and then withdrew back into the apartment. This, of course, made both the apartment and the whole building, inhabited by civilians, a must-hit target. As for the so-called civilians, they either cheered their guests, who were family to them, or had little choice in hosting the Hizbullah shooters.
In southern Lebanon, the Hizbullah were funded, supplied and trained by Iran and Syria. Iran and Syria are still smuggling weapons across the border from Iran through Syria, under the eyes of the MNF (Multi-National Force). In southern Lebanon, the Hizbullah dug tunnels, built bunkers, loaded those bunkers with Katyusha missiles, often within a few hundred feet of the soldiers of UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Forces In Lebanon).
Sadly, UNIFIL, and now the MNF, act as silent partners to Hizbullah while pretending to be impartial peacekeepers. The presence of UN troops often keeps Israel from shooting back at Hizbullah near UNIFIL or MNF outposts. Sometimes, not. When Israel was forced to shell an area from where the Katyusha rockets were being launched and hit a UNIFIL post, Kofi Annan and the pro-Arab UN threw a fit and voted condemnation. They never voted condemnation of the Lebanese government, which was supposed to put their army at the Lebanese-Israeli border, disarm and disband Hizbullah - preventing them from attacking Israel - but which never did.
Terrorists would slip past UNIFIL positions to cross into Israel, but were never stopped or challenged by UNIFIL. If the terrorists were successful in a terrorist attack, they merely slipped back past the UNIFIL soldiers with a wink and a nod. Of course, the UNIFIL soldiers could not resist a cash bribe, always denied by Kofi Annan.
"History spin" is already being written by the Left and the liberal media, as they cast terrorists as some sort of heroes for escaping a mosque in which they hid behind a shield of women. The media then demonizes Israel for chasing these "poor, innocent Muslims." Meanwhile, the firing of Kassam rockets on Israeli towns is reported as a matter of fact, but not a very important event. The "spin" for the reader is to accept Arab terrorism and missile fire at Israeli civilians as a kind of naturally expected custom of Arabs. So, don't think too much about it.
But according to the media, and some in the Washington administration, for Israel to attack in retribution is both unnecessary and constitutes excessive force.
#1
It is still true that, despite the PC rhetoric of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", the predomin majority of world terrorists are merely CRIMINALS + PAID MERCENARIES/PROXIES. "GOD/FAITH" IS JUST A COVER.
If the media are on the other side then you should target them as well.
We know the left responds to violence, so the left-wing media will respond in their normal irrational way and try to "understand" why Israel targets them.
#6
Since there appears to be no shortage of human shields among the muzzies, I say yes, shoot through the shields, they can be replaced.
The result should be that muzzie bystanders get away before they are used as sand bags.
#8
These f**king walking tents are outstanding targets. No one can miss a target like that. I could hit one shooting left handed under my leg bent over backward twisted sideways with one eye closed. What's the problem? Cut them down.
#10
Yep, because typical muzzy apologizing idiots in the western world believe the arab bedouin tribe puts as much stock in the sanctity of life as we do. Life is cheap there. Fortunately so is ammo, anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice I always say.
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/14/2006 11:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I doubt that either the Shiite or the Sunni will let either the Christians or UNIFIL sit it out. Though both may use UNIFIL as human shields, on the plus side, both of them have no problem with killing UNIFIL.
The smart thing would be for the Christians to join forces with the Sunni to push the Shiite out of the country and into Syria.
In a public gathering held on October 28/06, with mayors and dignitaries from the Lebanese regions of Keserwan and Jbeil, General Michel Aoun said: "There is another important matter, for every time someone slaps someone else, Syria is accused. Fourteen crimes took place in 2005, and Syria was accused, the truth remains similar to Rajeh's Story, (A Lebanese folk tale in which all wrongdoings, bad behavior and acts are attributed to an imaginary person named Rajeh)
The frame of mind and tunnel vision in which General Michel Aoun has imprisoned himself during the last 10 months are sad and extremely shocking. He has assumed the role of a staunch advocate and guardian angel for the Syrian regime and its Lebanese agents. He brags loudly about this mission wherever he goes and whenever he delivers a speech, gives a statement or even engages in private conversations. He has not only allied himself with Hezbollah and adopted its Iranian- Syrian schemes for Lebanon, but he has become an umbrella that gathers under its shade the rest of the pro-Syrian Lebanese officials, parties and politicians from all categories of Arabists and fundamentalists.
Among those new allies and comrades are his previous worst enemies, President General Lahoud, Dr. Salim Al Hoss, the three Syrian notorious mouthpieces in Lebanon, Ex MP Nasser Kandiel, Ex MP Elie Ferzli, and ex Minister Weam Wahab, and the list goes on and on.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
11/14/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
SHEBAA FARMS - a similar isue may be brewing, or about to brew, btwn CHINA-INDIA, as various sources > China has informed India that part of its NE area actually is part of TIBET > ergo PART OF CHINA PROPER, that China will never give up its claims on same, and that its return to China will greatly improve China-India relations. The DELHI gummermint, already under presure from MAOIST insurgents in many of the northern provinces, is unwilling to surrender/turn over any more lands as a matters of national pride, i.e. CHINA BECOMES LARGER,INDIA SMALLER. Iff turned over to China, either voluntarily or by warfare, China will find itself in a much stronger regional geostrategic position via other nations of SOUTH-SE ASIA.
#1
Steyn emphasizes that, with birth rates among native Europeans well below replacement level (2.1 children per woman), the Western populations in these countries will shrink with each new generation. At the same time, millions of Muslims are moving into Europe (naively welcomed by the existing governments as a source of labor to maintain their lavish welfare states), and are having many more children than their neighbors. Steyn reports that Western women in Europe have an average of 1.4 children, whereas Muslim women have an average of 3.5 children. The result is a baby boom among Muslims that, within our lifetimes, will completely change the European countries in which they live. Steyns analysis (though not original) strikes me as right on the mark (no pun intended).
Yet after spending page after page highlighting the demographic disaster that awaits Europe (and to a much lesser extent the United States), Steyn fails to state the logical conclusion, which is that Muslim immigration must be stopped. Period.
If one believes, as Steyn clearly does (with strong support from the evidence), that Muslims as a group not only are not assimilating into Western culture but are actively hostile toward the very principles upon which our societies are built, then it is suicidal (a term frequently used by Steyn) to permit millions of Muslims to take up residence within our countries.
Of course, such a blanket policy would be unfair towards the many individual Muslims who do not share the militant worldview of their co-religionists. Nevertheless, if 80 percent of Muslims cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the Western nations in which they live (to use the British poll numbers cited above), then the only rational policy is to exclude Muslims altogether. However, nowhere in America Alone does Steyn dare utter this obvious, if uncomfortable, truth.
The other principal focus of Steyns book is on the inability of contemporary multiculturalism to provide a meaningful, vigorous base on which to sustain and defend Western civilization. On the contrary, as Steyn sharply remarks,
multiculturalism was conceived by the Western elites not to celebrate all cultures but to deny their own.
Hence, the governing principle of multicultural society is that Western man demonstrates his cultural sensitivity by pre-emptively surrendering. This already is happening in Europe, which Steyn thoroughly documents. But it even is happening in the United States see the craven response by our political and media establishment to last years Cartoon Intifada, and the continued refusal by our law enforcement agencies to engage in racial profiling as part of a sensible anti-terrorism strategy. Steyn surely is correct that multiculturalism, and its philosophical twin internationalism, cannot provide the ideological meat needed to maintain a healthy body politic.
by Josh Manchester, TCS Daily (reprinted at Wall Street Journal)
James Carroll, recently writing in the Boston Globe, wondered if America could finally accept defeat in Iraq, and be the better for it, comparing it to Vietnam:
But what about the moral question? For all of the anguish felt over the loss of American lives, can we acknowledge that there is something proper in the way that hubristic American power has been thwarted? Can we admit that the loss of honor will not come with how the war ends, because we lost our honor when we began it? This time, can we accept defeat?
To be frank, no. In Mr. Carroll's fantasyland, the United States is deserving of defeat, and through some sort of mental gymnastics, that defeat is honorable, because it smacked of hubris to ever have fought in the first place.
I contend instead that the ultimate dishonor will be to leave hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of Iraqis to violent deaths; and that this is far too large a price to pay for Mr. Carroll to feel better.
In his book "The Culture of Defeat," the German scholar Wolfgang Schivelbusch described the stages of defeat through which nations pass upon losing a large war. He examined the South's loss of the Confederacy, the French loss in the Franco-Prussian War, and the German loss in World War I. He saw similar patterns in how their national cultures dealt with defeat: a "dreamland"-like state; then an awakening to the magnitude of the loss; then a call that the winning side used "unsoldierly" techniques or equipment; and next the stage of seeing the nation as being a loser in battle, but a winner in spirit. Schivelbusch expanded upon this last as such:
To see victory as a curse and defeat as moral purification and salvation is to combine the ancient idea of hubris with the Christian virtue of humility, catharsis with apocalypse. That such a concept should have its greatest resonance among the intelligentsia can be explained in part by the intellectual's classical training but also by his inherently ambivalent stance toward power.
Who knows whether Mr. Carroll has had classical training, but should Schivelbusch meet him today, would he not recognize this idea of defeat as moral purification?
The only problem for those such as Mr. Carroll is that we have not yet lost. It is difficult not to conclude that there is a class of well-intentioned individuals in the United States like him who don't merely feel as they do upon witnessing a defeat, but instead think this way all the time. Like it or not, this mentality of permanent defeat plays a large part in the Democratic Party. It is now up to President Bush and the new Democratic congressional leadership to see that it does not become dominant. . . .
Go read the rest of it.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/14/2006 05:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I really hate to repeat myself, but it has been so long...
#3
It is difficult not to conclude that there is a class of well-intentioned individuals
Well intentioned ? These are snarky anti-military types who have a case of penis envy because Alexander The Great is known worldwide, while Plato is known only by them.
#4
I think Schivelbusch's analysis misses two related points:
First, the reason intellectuals are ambivalent towards power is because they generally don't have any. Put them in power and see how accepting they'll be of defeat. If you don't believe me, just look what happens anyone tries to reform the education system in the US (Europe is much, much worse).
Second, intellectuals often look to military defeat to weaken the system that they are agitating against. I don't have the source handy, but during the Russo-Japanese war, a Russian admiral talked about how the intellectuals wanted their own military to lose because it would hasten the downfall of the czar.
#9
Taken collectively, and within the rationales of both dedicated enemies + neutralists, iff theres a prob wid so-called, alleged Amer IMPERIALISM, ITS THAT OUR ENEMIES ARE ANGRY AT AMERICA BECUZ AMERICA DIDN'T WIPE 'EM OUT/TAKE 'EM OVER SOONER. GOD = AMERICA > excuse and feel-good alibi for the hatred-angsts our enemies feel towards their own Gummermints, Societies, and Belief Systems, failures = defects therefrom. THEY WANT MODERNITY, WEALTH, AND INNOVATION-PROGRESS, ETC. BUT WITHOUT FREEDOM [GOD?]TO ACHIEVE OR EMPOWER SAME??? TO BE ALL THEY CAN BE WHILE SIMUL BEING CONTROLLED = LEGALLY ENSLAVED??? THEY CAN BE FREE, BUT NO ONE ELSE CAN BE??? And now you know the significance of the SACRED HEART of Jesus.
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.
The nation's highest honor for combat valor was awarded posthumously to a U.S. Marine from upstate New York on Friday - and The New York Times didn't notice. 
McGovern wants the new Democratic majority in Congress to force a U.S. withdrawal by June 2007. Such a precipitous cut and run policy has obviously given the aging activist a flashback to his July 14, 1972, speech accepting the Democratic nomination. In it, he called for an immediate and complete withdrawal from Vietnam, making that the central issue of the campaign. He then suffered a humiliating drubbing by a 61-38 percent margin, losing 49 states. As McGovern himself once put it, I opened the doors of the Democratic Party, and 20 million people walked out.
Would any American, European or Israeli man call for his wife, mother, sister or daughter to come into a fire-fight and stand as a human shield to protect him? The Arab Muslim Palestinians, on the other hand, think nothing of using women, children and the elderly as "human shields."
In a public gathering held on October 28/06, with mayors and dignitaries from the Lebanese regions of Keserwan and Jbeil, General Michel Aoun said: "There is another important matter, for every time someone slaps someone else, Syria is accused. Fourteen crimes took place in 2005, and Syria was accused, the truth remains similar to Rajeh's Story, (A Lebanese folk tale in which all wrongdoings, bad behavior and acts are attributed to an imaginary person named Rajeh) 
