#2
Speaking of ZimBOBwe: I just got some spam the other day with a .zw code. I'm amazed anyone there even has internet - unless it was someone in the govt. moonlighting.
#3
the NYer staff doesn't know any French who like him much - that's a positive character ref in my book
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/08/2007 19:35 Comments ||
Top||
#4
A psychotic took over a nursery school. He strapped explosives to his body, and he held the children hostage. He called himself H.B., the human bomb. He had an incoherent set of demandsa true lunaticand the police surrounded the place. Sarkozy went into the school, completely alone, and began to talk to the human bomb. He engaged him in conversation: what did he want, what were his problems, could he solve them? But first he had to let the children go. Well, half an hour later, out comes Nicolas with children in his arms and all around him. Later, of course, the police went in and shot the human bomb dead. He shrugged. The French police are not known for their gentle touch with psychos.
It's pretty hard not to summon up a little respect for someone with the courage to do that. Still, I'm not reading four solid pages of drivel to learn more.
The full range of the loyal opposition's thought process is on display:
I'm going to say this once, the bin Laden tape is a fake.....
Read the content, look at the words and study the syntax. This appears to be the comments of someone who reads the NY Times and other western literature, not a radical fundamentalist. You mean there's a difference in their worldviews?
I basically agree with whomever is speaking on the tape
Capital does control events throughout the world and Democrats are powerless to change that.. Like I said, . . . It doesn't take long for the paranoia to come out:
Yup, I think that's it
Just associate OBL with the exact messages that the progressive community uses.
Fits right in with the RW "liberals are with the terrorists" theme.
Same here. I thought so the other times too.
Hey, everbody, the 'mericans are scared. Let's dig out an old tape of Osama, dress it up a bit, blame the Democrats for the fix we're in and by golly it's the anniversary of 9-11.
If that's OBL, I'll kiss your ass in front of the White House
Starting with the 04 tape and now this one, OBL never talked about current events in his tapes, nor did he address American political parties. This tape is a RNC/WH production.
I would venture a guess...that this is an early step in a larger 'thug plan that's just ramping up.
Bushies pretending to be Bin Laden pretending to be a Liberal Democrat
I am surprised it doesn't sound weirder and MORE disjointed considering what it is.
Hell yes, the tape is a fake, but what percentage of Imperial Subjects of Amerika will even bother to notice Bin Laden's suddenly messed up eye, and his dyed beard?
1%? 5%? 10%? Anybody gullible enough to think more than 10% sure hasn't done a lot of talking to random Imperial Subjects of Amerika, as I have these past seven years.
And Bushler's Propaganda wins again.
Like a Jew in 1937 Germany (which all of us DUers are, metaphorically-speaking) it is quite demoralizing the way these lying murdering Bushies suceed again and again and AGAIN. But, just as a blind squirrel finds a nut or two now and then, the DU nuts occasionally stumble across the truth, even though they're often coming at it from the wrong direction:
We know that brown people can't be deucated and literate don't we? Despite that fact that he is college educated and a savvy leaser, we know he is completely unable to understand his enemy and tailor a message for them.
I have no idea if the video is real or not but your theory disturbing for a progressive board.
Not a fake.
It's simply our bad luck that Osama is clearly more intelligent and more articulate than the knuckledragger that cuts farts in the Oval Office these days.
Why would the Nazis take the huge risk of getting caught at producing such a video? Especially when every time Osama shows his face the American public is potentially reminded of Bush's utter failure to avenge 9/11. As in any other ideologically rigid, conformist subcultures, the rebels, the ones who dare to be different and march to the beat of their own drum, must be smacked back into line:
the tape didn't help Kerry....even though by this logic, it should have
Every time been forgotten is trotted out on tape, it brings back the security issue into people's focus. it reminds people of 9/11. when people fear, they tend to support their leaders. it is psychologically difficult to be fearful and believe their leaders are incompetent boobs.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/08/2007 09:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
too funny! I have to agree with them that the tape seem to be a fake. But if, it is as they believe that the Republicans and White House produced it, then they will have to deal with the fact that it is just too funny to see Bin Laden (fake or no) spewing their own incoherent stupidity.
#2
Paranoia strikes deep,
Into your heart it will creep.
It starts when you're always afraid:
Step outta line, the Man comes
And takes you awayexposes your stupidity.
You've got to stop, Kos Kids,
What's that sound?
Everybody look what's goin' down ...
Not sure what to make of this, here's a snippet: So based on the previous biased towards certain candidates, I now call on Fox News to end their blatant favoritism towards Rudy Giuliani.
I hadn't noticed a bias toward Giuliani. Is this one of things that's obvious only to trained observers?
It is clear that the American people are not interested in an individual with poor family values, strange personal dressing habits, dead-beat dad attitude and poor leadership qualities in a leadership position at our Nations top Office.
Sorry, bub. I found Giuliani's poor leadership qualities in the immediate wake of 9-11 pretty inspiring. And truth to tell, I liked him as mayor of New York. Anybody remember when Times Square was a national disgrace?
I also call on Fox News to live up to their claim of Fair and Balanced and provide an equal amount of air time towards Dr. Paul and the other non main stream media candidates. Its not up to Fox News to decide the Presidential candidates; its up to the American people.
That's what they're doing, and will continue to do over the course of the next year and a couple months. I actually don't know anything about Ron Paul. He could be an exemplary fellow, for all I know. But when political parties don't nominate candidates who're palatable to most of their own party base and a part of the other party's base, they lose elections.
Finally, I call on Fox News to end their relationship with Sean Hannity. This individual is a horrible example of unbiased reporting and it is very obvious that he is unable to control his own emotional opinion when he sits before a guest with whom he may not agree.
Brit Hume and Shepherd Smith are the news guys at Fox. They do the fair and balanced thing. Hannity is an opinion guy. He's "balanced" by Colmes, which is supposed to give a two-way opinion.
There is absolutely no excuse for a host of a show to disrespect an instant text poll, or disrespect a Presidential hopeful as was done during the New Hampshire debate.
Damn - the Paulites are off the reservation again. Somebody up their dosages please ... they've been crappingspamming DDOSing every bloody venue, online and off, they can get their keyboards near.
#3
The more you know Giuliani the easier it is to see his arrogance. His leadership qualities and drive are obvious, but does he have the flexibility necessary for a good President?
Unfortunately, the marriage to his cousin issue, won't play well in Iowa.
In the last debate, your guy said that we had no legitimate security interest in sending troops to Afghanistan.
May I remind you that Afghanistan was the operating base of al-Qaida on 9/11/01. You might remember that date--you know, worst terror attack on American soil? Remember the WTC?
Your guy apparently would have left the place alone, even after that.
That is not merely worng, not merely unwise, but sand-poundingly stupid. The kind of sand-pounding stupidity that only a pot-smokinganti-semitic nutcase is capable of.
As a matter of historical fact, pot-smoking anti-semitic nutcases tend not to do well in Republican primaries. In fact, even drug-free anti-semitic nutcases tend to do poorly. There is another major political party that is more favorably disposed to drug use and anti-semitism and certain other things your guy seems to be partial to. He might do better with that bunch, but even they have their limits.
Bottom line: your guy will never be president. He will never be vice-president. He will never be a cabinet secretary. He will never be a deputy assistant undersecretary. He will never be so much as a GS-7 worker bee in a cubicle in the administration of anyone that does get elected president.
Deal with it.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/08/2007 8:54 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The Paulite concern is understandable. The next few months are crucial and will determine whether Lyndon Larouche is Ron Paul's VP or vice versa.
#7
I like Giuli too... but remember when he told the police to start ticketing jaywalkers? That was a laugh-riot: with the police laughing louder than anybody.
#8
Ron Paul is an isolationist, we tried that before WW1 and found it to be extremely ineffective. The things that come out of that guys mouth worry me. I thank my lucky stars that he isn't a serious contender.
#9
May I remind you that Afghanistan was the operating base of al-Qaida on 9/11/01. You might remember that date--you know, worst terror attack on American soil? Remember the WTC?
Mike, he was asked that during the Fox debate that Fred Thompson missed to talk to Jay Leno's audience. Mr. Paul (I seem to recall he's a senator or something, but I can't remember) actually said 9/11 changed nothing. Mr. Guiliani tore him apart, I think completely out of turn. There's a YouTube or two of that out there somewhere.
#11
UM, Yeah, that's what's bugging me about Giuliani, too. It's important enough to me that I am suspending my endorsement of Giuliani in order to consider other candidates.
Gotta be someone who can win. Gotta be someone who can hold his own against starpower-this election, dazzle will factor big in the outcome, I think. Gotta be someone who remembers a concept long enough to finish his persuasive argument. Gotta be someone who can correctly identify the enemy in the WoT. Giuliani is those things. That said, who else is those things?
#12
Ron Paul's philosophy is what allowed the mushrooming and spread of radical Islam throughout the world. Islamic militancy is a menace which must be confronted on all levels and how to do so may constitute the most pivotal issue for our next president.
From my vantage point, only Giuliani and Fred Thompson understand that.
#13
I think McCain understands that. He, though, is unacceptable for a wide variety of other reasons, starting at illegal immigration, another knock against Rudy and for teh Fred
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/08/2007 18:07 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Fred Thompson belongs to the Center for Foreign Relations, you know the North American Union thing ? I think the reason Fred was held back was to assess the progress of their other candidates, Hitlery, Obama, Mitt Romney, and McCain. If Thompson fades, look for Al Gore to make a late splash. The CFR doesn't really want a debate on their project, like NAFTA, they expect a misinformed public to swallow the bait post haste.
Not this time, traitors, in fact lets call NAFTA back for a review.
The recent incidents of soldiers supposedly captured by militants in the tribal areas 208 a few days ago, and another dozen a couple of days later, according to various sources is a matter of concern for all citizens. This seemingly soft surrender becomes even more interesting when we consider that mountain warfare is taught at the Infantry School as well as the Staff College and is also practised during the War Course. Further, veterans of earlier operations in Balochistan or Afghanistan have had chances to apply these concepts in hostile environments.
Any convoy moving through hostile territory, whether vehicular or on foot, routinely occupies all heights along the route to prevent being ambushed. If a vehicular convoy has to meet a time limit then other troops occupy these heights and signal the convoy that the route is safe, thus allowing it to proceed speedily to its destination.
Alternately, if the convoy has to protect itself, then soldiers mounted on the vehicles dismount and clear neighbouring heights, permitting the convoy to proceed with caution till the next possible ambush site is reached, where the same drill is repeated.
Consequently, the explanation for these recent kidnappings offered by DG-ISPR raises more questions than it actually answers.
First, it is intriguing that a convoy of over a hundred regular soldiers and another hundred or so Frontier Corps men with a lieutenant colonel in charge were proceeding on leave. If the regulars were proceeding on leave with the FC personnel along for protection, which makes better sense, then why did the FC men remain mounted on their vehicles while passing through possible ambush sites? The latest suggestion that these soldiers had chosen to spend their leave as guests of the Mehsud tribe is absurd.
In all environments where it is not possible to differentiate between a hostile and a peaceful citizen, clear and unambiguous rules of engagement are issued by the highest authority. In such a situation, any individual bearing arms would be assumed hostile and, though the rules of engagement should clearly state that such an individual or group is not to be fired upon unless they initiate hostilities, they would be apprehended and questioned.
In the unlikely event that a force in excess of 200 armed soldiers commanded by a lieutenant colonel were successfully ambushed by a smaller hostile force (of a dozen or so!), especially if routine SOPs (standard operating procedures) were not being followed, a battle would be expected where a large number of soldiers would be killed and wounded. But the rest would break through the ambush as anti-ambush drills are routinely taught and practised.
However, in the absence of any battle or casualties, the capture of such a contingent, followed by a smaller one, within the span of a few days offers no explanation other than that the troops opted to surrender. Admittedly, this is conjecture, but following the explanation offered before this conclusion is drawn, there appears no logical alternative.
Knowing the way militaries all over the world operate, it is a matter of certainty that the careers of the officers among the captured will come to a swift and untimely end, whenever they are repatriated. The other ranks will also be interrogated and while many of them may also be discharged, those who are retained will bear this stigma for a long time.
If the troops have indeed chosen to lay down their arms rather than fight against their own brethren, two conclusions can be drawn.
First, morale is low and the idea of killing own citizens, which has never sat well with any moral soldier, has become an increasingly difficult burden to bear. Some of us may recall that in 1977, when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto wanted to declare martial law in selected cities, including Lahore, three brigadiers refused and resigned in protest; which was the catalyst for the military takeover by General Zia-ul Haq.
Second, there is, among the soldiers and officers, either increased sympathy for the so-called militants or decreased sympathy for Musharrafs policies; in all probability the latter. It is important to state at this point that those who have chosen to blame the captured soldiers, of whatever rank, for these incidents should perhaps pause and consider for a moment, for the moral burden of killing your own citizens can only be understood by those who have had occasion to do the same.
In either case, if even the rank and file of the army are disillusioned with Musharrafs policies for dealing with the very real problem of religious militancy, then there really is no possible justification for him to continue in uniform, which he refers to as his skin, and none whatsoever for him to prolong his stay.
It is time for him to say his farewell to arms and political power.
The author is a retired brigadier. He is also former vice president and founder of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI)
Posted by: john frum ||
09/08/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
By abandoning many of the nuclear arms agreements negotiated in the last 50 years, the United States has been sending mixed signals to North Korea, Iran, and other nations with the technical knowledge to create nuclear weapons. Currently proposed agreements with India compound this quagmire and further undermine the global pact for peace represented by the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
At the same time, no significant steps are being taken to reduce the worldwide arsenal of almost 30,000 nuclear weapons now possessed by the United States, Russia, China, France, Israel, Britain, India, Pakistan, and perhaps North Korea. A global holocaust is just as possible now, through mistakes or misjudgments, as it was during the depths of the Cold War.
The key restraining commitment among the five original nuclear powers and more than 180 other nations is the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Its key objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology...and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament. In the last five-year review conference at the United Nations in 2005, only Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea were not participating the first three have nuclear arsenals that are advanced, and the fourths is embryonic.
The American government has not set a good example, having already abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, binding limitations on testing nuclear weapons and developing new ones, and a long-standing policy of foregoing threats of first use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. These recent decisions have encouraged China, Russia, and other NPT signatories to respond with similar actions.
Knowing since 1974 of Indias nuclear ambitions, I and other American presidents imposed a consistent policy: no sales of nuclear technology or uncontrolled fuel to India or any other country that refused to sign the NPT. Today, these restraints are in the process of being abandoned.
I have no doubt that Indias political leaders are just as responsible in handling their countrys arsenal as leaders of the five original nuclear powers. But there is a significant difference: the original five have signed the NPT, and have stopped producing fissile material for weapons.
Indias leaders should make the same pledges, and should also join other nuclear powers in signing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Instead, they have rejected these steps and insist on unrestricted access to international assistance in producing enough fissile material for as many as 50 weapons a year, far exceeding what is believed to be Indias current capacity.
If Indias demand is acceptable, why should other technologically advanced NPT signatories, such as Brazil, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Japan to say nothing of less responsible nations continue to restrain themselves?
Having received at least tentative approval from the US for its policy, India still faces two further obstacles: an acceptable agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and an exemption from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), a 45-nation body that until now has barred nuclear trade with any nation that refuses to accept international nuclear standards.
The non-nuclear NSG members are Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and Ukraine.
The role of these nations and the IAEA is not to prevent Indias development of nuclear power or even nuclear weapons, but rather to assure that it proceeds as almost all other responsible nations on earth do, by signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty and accepting other reasonable restraints.
Nuclear powers must show leadership, by restraining themselves and by curtailing further departures from the NPTs international restraints. One-by-one, the choices they make today will create a legacy deadly or peaceful for the future. DT-PS
Jimmy Carter is a former President of the United States
unfortunately
Posted by: john frum ||
09/08/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
But there is a significant difference: the original five have signed the NPT, and have stopped producing fissile material for weapons.
This is intellectually dishonest.
The original five signed the NPT as Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) and get to keep their arsenals.
If India signed the NPT, it would have to do so as a Non Nuclear Weapon State (NNWS) and would have to disarm.
China has not stopped the production of fissile material.
In any event, the NWS only stopped fissile material production when they had stockpiled what was needed for their arsenals and had an excess.
India will probably stop when it too has an excess.
Posted by: john frum ||
09/08/2007 7:58 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Carter? Intellectually dishonest? yeah, and an anti-American and anti-semite too, apparently. I didn't read the article. I saw "by Jimmy Carter" and figured I'd save myself the time. Craven Saudi bootlicker and embarrassment to humanity
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/08/2007 9:09 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I believe I am the third person here who read "By Jimmy Carter" and scrolled down to the comments.
#8
It is only Carter's total lack of spine will that makes nuclear weapons seem undesirable to him. Any free person knows damn well that in a few more years having an abundant supply of them will likely prove crucial. Through his complicity with Islam, Carter has become the enemy. He is a traitor to America and this is routinely reflected in his words and deeds. His citizenship should be revoked.
In fact, by lending his support to Islam, Carter encourages even more rapacious behavior by Muslims. It is through increasingly provocative Muslim atrocitieseffectively condoned by Carterthat the limit finally will be reached and all Islam will be incinerated.
#10
I do not mind seeing more nuclear weapons in the hands of responsible nations like India, I want to see fewer or none in the hands of nations like North Korea and Iran. And that goes double for Pakistan, especially with A.Q. Khan still regarded as a national hero.
#4
TT: There was no discussion of how much of that immigrant population was illegal: who in theory should not be able to vote in national elections.
The big reason Democrats need illegal immigrants is because seats are allocated based on population. Without illegal immigrants, the number of seats allocated to blue regions would shrink, since those are the regions with huge inflows of immigrants and outflows of native born Americans.
#5
Without illegal immigrants, the number of seats allocated to blue regions would shrink, since those are the regions with huge inflows of immigrants and outflows of native born Americans.
Is it just me or is there something that barely skirts treason the the foregoing equation?
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.
