Taliban supreme leader Mulla Mohammad Omar said on Saturday that his fighters would step up attacks on foreign forces in the coming months, which will surprise many. “With the grace of Allah the fighting will be increased manifold and it would be much more organised. Our previous predictions about attacks were not incorrect,” Mulla Omar said in his “Eid” message. “I am confident that the fighting will be a surprise for many. I advise the Mujahideen to maintain unity in their ranks as rift in their ranks affected jihad against the former Soviets,” he said in a two-and-half page Pashtun language message, issued by a Taliban spokesman in Afghanistan and received through email here.
Mulla Omar further said,
“Our enemy has faced defeat despite his misleading programmes and his move about so-called democracy has also failed. The aggressors released fake films to malign and weaken us…the enemy propaganda has achieved nothing and the nation is behind us.”
“Our enemy has faced defeat despite his misleading programmes and his move about so-called democracy has also failed. The aggressors released fake films to malign and weaken us…the enemy propaganda has achieved nothing and the nation is behind us.” He added that the regime in Kabul had failed to establish peace and stability had not been able to control narcotics. He said, “Alien cultures and faiths are being imposed on Kabul. Those who are ruling Afghans are, in fact, aliens as they have returned to Afghanistan with foreign cultures and ideas and they feel ashamed to adopt their own culture.”
Mulla Omar added, “I am confident as the former Soviets, despite the backing of Warsaw, faced disintegration. The Americans will face the same fate despite NATO support.”
Mulla Omar said that all the NATO members today were loosing their soldiers only for America and added that they must think of their own interests and quit Afghanistan. He added, “The UN has not played any positive role so far with regard to Palestine, Iraq and Kashmir and even if it has taken any decision, it has not been implemented.”
Regarding Muslim rulers following the example of the US, he said, “Muslims will lay heavy hands on them. They must stop the betrayal of the Muslim Ummah.” Dismissing the notion that Pakistan was supporting the Taliban, he said, “America used Pakistani airfields for attacks on Afghanistan…In my opinion, those who have a mind, will not accept the notion of Pakistan support for Taliban.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
One-eye is generous with other people's blood. He needs a quick death.
#4
Bomb Quetta and this a$$tard will shut up - permanently, we can hope. It's time to tell Pakiwackiland that either they get serious about the anti-taliban war, or we divide Pakistan between Afghanistan and India, with NO muzzie imams allowed to remain alive in either former pak territory.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/22/2006 14:07 Comments ||
Top||
SUDAN ordered the top UN envoy, Jan Pronk, to leave the country within three days following comments he made that the army's morale was low after suffering two major defeats in the violent Darfur region. "The reason is the latest statements issued by Mr. Pronk on his website regarding severe criticism of the Sudanese Armed Forces and the fact that he said the government of Sudan is not implementing the Darfur peace agreement," Mr al-Sadig said. He said the Foreign Ministry met with Mr Pronk and had informed him of its decision.
THE row in Britain over Muslim women wearing veils could trigger riots and worse, the country's race relations watchdog chief warned today. Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, said the divisions exposed in the debate that his dominated British media for more than two weeks risked sparking "fire" on the streets.
Sure sounds like a threat to me. "Nice city you got here, be a shame if anything burned down ...
He said the friction between communities risked becoming "the trigger for the grim spiral that produced riots in the north of England five years ago. Only this time the conflict could be much worse".
"All the recent evidence shows that we are, as a society, becoming more socially polarised by race and faith," Phillips wrote in The Sunday Times newspaper. "The only place where this may not be true is in our schools and the main reason is that in many of our cities things cannot get any worse."
He called for a "civilised" debate on race.
'Civilized' meaning according to his rules, his terms and his dictionary.
The veil has been at the centre of a political storm over Muslim integration, with Prime Minister Tony Blair entering the debate by calling the veil a "mark of separation".
Jack Straw, the leader of parliament's House of Commons and a former foreign secretary, sparked renewed debate when he disclosed that he asked Muslim women to remove their veils when they came to consult him in his constituency. Straw represents the industrial northwestern English town of Blackburn, which has a large Muslim minority of South Asian origin.
Phillips criticised Muslims who had lambasted Straw. "The so-called Muslim leaders who initially attacked Straw were wrong," he wrote. "They were overly defensive and need to accept that in a diverse society we should be free to make polite requests of this kind."
He warned the veil debate was becoming dangerously polarised. "On one side of the trenches we have those who want a fully fledged auto-da-fe (burning of a heretic) against British Muslims in which anything any Muslim does or says must be condemned as a signal of their willful alienation and separation.
"On the other hand the defensiveness of some in the Muslim communities has hardened into a sensitivity that turns the most neutral of comments into yet another act of persecution.
"This is not what anyone intended and it is the last thing Britain needs."
What Britain needs is to remember what makes it Britain.
#2
The British gov't. should make it illegal to wear a veil in public. This would define the issue. Any street distrubances should be met with overwhelming force to declare that this is not to be tolertaed. Statements by this prick merely energize the Muzzies.
#5
This guy, Trevor Phillips, is a prime example of the ever thinning bloodlines of the British upper crust. The only person named Trevor in recent memory with any detectable hint of testosterone is Trevor Hoffman.
#6
Let them riot, then shoot them. Rioting is a small act of rebellion, saying that if the rioters don't get their way, they will smash, burn, and destroy the property of others. This is not "free speech" but terrorism. It should be treated as such. Shoot them. Shoot as many as you can find.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/22/2006 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#8
For once and all, Islam must be saddled with its rightful label of Abject Gender Apartheid (hat tip VDH). Even without the horrors of terrorism, Islam's institutionalized abuse of women alone would still discredit it anyway. Churchill's comparison of how Islam treats women and the practice of slavery is absolutely spot on.
But above all, we should use the time to make the West Islam-unfriendly and implement a policy for the containment of Dar al-Islam.
If Britain has any sense, it will ban both the burqa and the veil so as to gradually institute policies that are unfriendly to Muslims. As Fjordman notes about writer Raymond Kraft's observations:
The Islamic movement “has turned the civility of the United States and Europe into a weapon and turned it against us. It has weaponized niceness, it has weaponized compassion, it has weaponized the fundamental decency of Western Civilization. We have become too civilized to defeat our enemies, perhaps too civilized to survive.”
If we are to survive the onslaught of Muslim infiltration, a fine starting point is to begin weeding out all of the extremists who cannot possibly tolerate the least adjustment or integration with host cultures. Banning the burqa and veil are a perfect way of enforcing such integration.
#10
Zenster, I read Fjordman "Suggestions for Solutions" with great interest. I think he is right on target. I am skeptical that America will wake up to the danger and do anything about it before another 9/11 occurs or we lose a city to a jihadist nuke. There are many people here that believe that 9/11 was somehow our fault. How they came to this conclusion beats me. We have too many people that are concerned about PC, multiculturalism, being liked, diversity, ignoring illegal immigration, spending hard-earned dollars on the UN and providing aid to less than supportive or "enemy" governments. It seems to me the left wing in this country would like to see America defeated. We have a main stream media that seizes upon everything that is counter to America and keeps up the drum beat continuously, e.g. Guantanamo, Afghan prison torture (?), terrorists rights, murder by Marines, etc. ad nauseum. The press tends to be arrogant elitists that truly believe they know what is best for everyone else. If a hostile press, the left, and the PC adherents can be defeated, then there might be a chance to implement what Fjordman recommends.
#11
There are many people here that believe that 9/11 was somehow our fault.
I've personally met people who espouse such tommyrot. It is the root of self-loathing anti-Americanism and a millstone around the neck of our War on Terrorism.
I'm really glad you enjoyed Fjordman's article, JohnQC. Anything the man writes is worth reading at least once. It truly pains me to concur with you that our nation will probably have to suffer something far worse than another 9-11 before the populus wakes up. We must immediately ban both burqa and veil to begin winnowing out those who refuse to assimilate. Much harsher measures will probably be needed to catch those who will cheerfully doff them in the name of taqqiya.
#12
I think it will all depend on whether or not the Dems take the house. If the Dems take the house expect anti-semitism to escalate. Expect multicultural clotted jibberish to be presented as intelligent fact. Expect complaints of immigration issues to be dismissed as racist xenophobia.
The logic for some is that the Senate is going to take the house, so it's a good thing if the House goes Dem cause the Senate will keep the crazy stuff from passing. The problem is that the House Dems will give rise to endless discussions about impeachment, 911 conspiracy, Israeli oppression, palestinian plight, bleah, bleah, bleah and it will stall the work that urgently needs to be done for the next four years happens to protect us.
If the Dems lose, they won't be able to get their "will of the people" wagon in gear. The Dems are wanna be Europeans. So don't be surprised when they help bring Europes problems to us here at home.
John Reid has issued a dire warning that the Government risks losing the "battle of ideas" with al-Qaeda. The Home Secretary spoke out at an emergency meeting of ministers and security officials amid an ever-growing threat from home-grown Islamist terror groups.
Ever think of putting forward more traditional, British ideas?
He called for an urgent but controversial escalation in the propaganda war and said al-Qaeda's so-called "single extremist narrative" was proving ever more attractive to young British Muslims. The Government needed to do much more to win the "battle of ideas", Mr Reid said. The meeting came as ministers — including Jack Straw, Ruth Kelly and Phil Woolas — started to take a much more aggressive stance against radical Islam.
A key government weapon in the struggle to win hearts and minds is the decision to fund covertly an Islamic website appealing for moderation. A classic of New Labour terminology, it is called the Radical Middle Way. Government documents disclose that the site is "run as a grassroots initiative by Muslim organisations". However, it has "most of its financial backing from the Foreign Office and Home Office". The site uses video and podcasts to spread an "alternative message" to young Muslims. Some content is available through the iTunes website with no indication that it is effectively an arm of Government.
Around 100,000 CDs promoting moderation have also been funded and distributed free to Muslim students as an "antidote", apparently, to the jihadist CDs circulated at universities and colleges.
The emergency meeting was held at the Home Office 10 days ago and addressed by Mr Reid, Miss Kelly, the Communities and Local Government Secretary, and Sir Richard Mottram, the permanent secretary for security, intelligence and resilience at the Cabinet Office. Other ministers and many of the nation's top security service personnel were present. The meeting discussed failings in the Government's "Contest" strategy — its overall programme for combating Islamist terrorism — and, in particular, measures to stop young Muslims following the jihadi path.
After the meeting, a minister said the foiling in August of the alleged plot to blow up transatlantic airliners had led to an order from Tony Blair for a tougher stance. The minister said: "The approach is to bolster the moderate voices and isolate and attack the extremists."
The Prime Minister was said to have ordered colleagues to start working with "the leaders, not the panderers" in the Muslim community, pointing to a more critical approach to groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain.
The Home Office said last night: "It would not be appropriate to comment on meetings of this nature."
#2
He called for an urgent but controversial escalation in the propaganda war and said al-Qaeda's so-called "single extremist narrative" was proving ever more attractive to young British Muslims.
Making sure that more jihadist imams and Muslims were arrested and abruptly deported back to their toturing homelands might make this "single extremist narrative" a little less appealing. So long as you coddle the fanatics, what's the incentive for them to integrate or pacify? Idiots.
Screw this "hearts and minds" bullshit. Go straight for the short and curlies.
#3
Talk about losing your way... The Brits have got a legacy of getting behind the right big idea that goes at least as far back as the Magna Carta. Forget funding islamo-pablum. They need to get in touch with their history--and stuff it down newcomer's throats if need be.
#4
If the Government was serious about ending enemy propaganda it could do worse than to start with rolling heads at the BBC. At least some members of the Government have a good grasp of the problem, but the state-funded multi-culti scold that is the Beeb has always made them and othe rpoliticians suffer for speaking anything except inane platitiudes about the problems of Islam.
A plebiscite would no doubt back an end to Muslim immigration.
Mind you, if the police were actually interested in the business of stamping out crime rather than adhering to moronic political correctness, maybe more young people, Muslim or not, would have more respect for our society.
#6
Al Qaeda is not winning anything. Its professional supporters in the institutional media are providing billions in free propaganda and they are the real winners in this conflict.
The same media-based totalitarian forces that agitate for open borders in the United States, and who have made it a crime to point out that illegal voting is illegal, have brainwashed millions into accepting AQ as a kind of civil rights NGO.
#7
You are absolutelyright AC, but it isn't that the point?
For all our victories they steal the significance away because they(the LLL and Arab media) don't want us to win. it makes each victory feel (while significant on the ground) like a pyrrhic victory.
I feel we can't win in the media, we can kill them all, give them soccer balls, take and hold hold ground but we are "bushchimpymchitlers".
If half the country wasn't actively working against us it would be a hell of a lot easier.
Pentagon is damn right we need to get out in front of this part of the war. You can't blame them for not suspecting the LLL's would turn on them in the beginning but we are going on years now and still playing catch up.
I hear a lot of talk of this, so maybe it is the DOD pounding the drums but it's necessary . Most Americans don't know the heroes in this war, but they know the enemy and "empathize" and blame us on top of it Hell CNN just showed a jihadi sniper vid the other day, when is the last time you saw anything about the MOH candidates. It's disgusting , but that's where we are
#8
Most Muslims appear to be on line with OBL. They want Westerners out of the Mohammadan junk states; and they want to come to the West. At the start of WW1 there were only a handful of independent Muslim majority countries, and most of those were leveraged by the UK and France. That can happen again, only Uncle Sam would play the lead role.
#9
One of the biggest ironies of the whole debate is that I have heard it all before!
Instead of "Moslems", substitute "communists".
"They" are all communists. "They" don't want democracy. "They" can't handle democracy.
"The communists are winning the propaganda war."
"Everywhere you look, the communists are winning and democracy and capitalism is losing." (Well, that part was true, at least during the Carter administration.)
Granted, it's not an exact analogy. But if you look at the left, they are just as weak-kneed and ineffectual before Islam as they were before communism. If it was up to them, by now the US would be sending tribute to prop up the utterly decrepit Soviet Union, desperately trying to save communism "because what will replace it will be worse!"
And Islam isn't even a political movement. It is just a ragtag bunch of fanatics and dictators who have been bossing around everybody else for so long that they accept it.
One of our big mistakes has been to treat their instigator priests like they were political leaders who shouldn't be killed, because we don't kill political leaders. In fact, had we started blasting Imams and Mullahs from the start it could have saved thousands of lives. A loud mouth should be a death sentence.
But I am sick of the insistance that we in the West are so weak and pitiful, that we have no tools or intestinal fortitude or strength and endurance, or just anything, that we can be pushed over by any squalid peasant who says he can.
And just as bad, that somehow even though there are pictures of American celebrities for sale on t-shirts in every corner of the globe, somehow *they* are getting out *their* message, and we aren't.
Bullshit. It claims to be the way to organize your life from the biggest questions of existence down to how you wipe your ass. That includes the organization of the state and the application of justice.
It's a totalitarian political system masquerading as a religion, not a religion with a political slant.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
10/22/2006 9:41 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Rob: It isn't a political movement, and Sharia isn't a form of government; Islam is government by whim.
It is the opposite of order. It is enforced chaos. Might makes right at the spur of the moment.
What law there is invariably finds in favor of the strong against the weak. It is even written on the fly, again by whim. Spur of the moment arrest, trial and conviction all by the same gunman.
The appearance of order exists solely to oppose order, to tear down order and restore whim to the fore.
Even in the Ottoman Empire, organization was more like a criminal mafia, with all people acting solely to support the great leader. Any bureaucracy was based on the leader's needs and desires. All property was owned by the leader.
In most of the Moslem world, the order seen is really a reflection or extrapolation of tribal order to a national level. It is not inherent to Islam.
#13
We need a pic of Reid in an Arab headdreen. Photoshop anyone?
Al
Posted by: frozen Al ||
10/22/2006 13:48 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I'll second you on that one, RC. Islam is political. It is most definitely a political ideology masquerading as a pseudo-religion. Due to its ostensibly religious underpinnings, Islam represents a new order of threat. It is one that combines the most dangerous elements of Nazism, communism and religious zealotry.
Islam seeks global domination while pursuing Nazi genocide against the Jews. Like communism, it regards Western civilization as decadent (or bourgeois) and regards itself as a means of "liberating" (read: enslaving) us ideologically impure secularists. All of this is driven by a deeply imbedded conviction of religious ascendancy and self-declared supremacy despite outright barbarism and Abject Gender Apartheid (hat tip VDH).
This triumvirate of exceptionally toxic memes is propelled by obsessive xenophobia and an eggshell collective ego utterly incapable of even minor introspection. Corralled by a dictatorial clergy and benighted by its doctrinal one-trick-pony of Koranic lore we are confronted with a cult of death worshipers eager to take insult and humiliated by the slightest setback. Nonetheless, we are expected to treat with them as honorable equals even as they grant themselves the God-given right to lie and deceive at every last turn.
The net result is a Global Cultural Genocide that would easily see half this entire world's population perish at Islam's behest. Every single aspect of Western decency, courtesy, kindness, humanity and tolerance are all turned against us in the most vicious manner imaginable. Yet, at every turn we are coerced by incessant demands to show respect for Islam even at the cost of sacrificing our hardest won liberties and freedoms.
Islam's monumental hubris brooks no coexistence nor tolerates any reversal of faith under pain of death. Glorying in the slaughter of innocents and foe alike it is a Juggernaut of retrograde forces that threatens centuries of the free World's progress. Cosseted by adherents of component ideologies, Islam has gained a solid foothold in socialist Europe. America's open door has allowed its tendrils to take root in our own free soil as well.
If we in the West are to survive, a dramatic reversal must be visited upon the House of Islam. Nonviolent tactics of expulsion and containment rapidly are becoming irrelevant in the face of overwhelming numbers and skewed demographics. Islam's obsession with weapons of mass destruction has combined with a decentralized global body of religious fanatics who will stop at nothing, even massive loss of Muslim life, if it achieves their desperate ends.
The time approaches where a line in the sand must be drawn against further incursion. Even a single trespass of that boundary's outermost limits must be greeted with horrific retribution. Unimaginably ghastly atrocities will repay any reluctance upon our own part in making good with such reprisal. Those among us who doubt the measure of danger we face may well need to be isolated from society as an internal threat to the public weal. The apocalyptic nature of Islam's aggression has imposed eschatological dimensions that remove this conflict far beyond the realm of all previously known military confrontations. Only when the West finally accepts this crucial strategic paradigm shift will we have any chance of survival.
#15
'moose, while your attribution has merit, one does not wage war against "whim". For all intents and purposes, Islam must be addressed as a political ideology. Giving it any benefit of religious credibility completely undermines the measures required to quell this virulent threat.
Yes, much of Islam's implementation is based upon whim. This in no way changes how we must counter it with military force. When whim is enthroned as a supreme dictate, it becomes just as dangerous as any other self-arrogating political mandamus.
#16
I'm going to disagree here as I did on the West Point thread.
Like it or not, Islam is a religion. By any generally agreed on definition of the term.
NOW .... it is a religion that some believe demands there should be no division between religious teachings and secular government. In that, it is little different from, say, the Christianity of the middle ages in western Europe.
We got past that. Will they? I don't know -- but it took the west several long nasty wars to settle the issue. It's not surprising it is taking more than a couple years to settle it within Islam.
The Islamacists must not be allowed to ACT on their intent to impose Islam on the West. They must not be allowed to ACT on their desire to subjate women, forbid criticism of their beliefs and actions or kill those who leave Islam. And they must not be allowed to have, proliferate or use WMDs.
period.
All of those things I believe quite firmly. But none of them changes the fact that Islam is a legitimate religion.
Whether all those who profess to be acting out of Islamic convictions are in fact doing so is a separate issue. I doubt that most of the Palestinian leaders are -- certainly not in Fatah and in most cases not in Hamas. They would be much more dangerous to us if they were, frankly.
But if you refuse to acknowledge that Islam is held by many as a religious conviction, you do two things:
First, you agree with the Islamacists that every Muslim is inherently in conflict with the West, and
Second, you deeply misunderstand and underestimate what we are up against.
I've said it here at RB before and I'll repeat it again: Islam is gaining converts in the West among those not born to muslim families. Refusing to understand that fact, and why it is happening is a recipe for losing the West to Islam over the next decades.
#17
One historical correction. In traditional Islamic societies, the so-called whim of the Caliph or Sheikh was subject to substantial limitations. Bernard Lewis' books describe the way in which those checks and balances work, in some detail.
Lewis - who is no apologist for muslim radicals - points out that we have created some of the problems in muslim countries, by demanding they adopt governments that operate via formal laws along the lines of post-Englightenment Europe. This dismantled the checks and balances on rulers, but did not instill the whole cultural apparatus that makes government by law and by vote WORK for us. The result was the House of Saud, Saddam and the Mullahs in Iran -- absolute rulers who really can govern at a whim.
Clearly the old cultural mechanisms are not sustainable. Not in a world with 24 hour international banking and stock trading, with the internet, with television.
But it's a mistake to ignore the ways in which muslim cultures worked when they were not pressured by the West as they are today. Ignoring that history means failing to understand the excruciating set of negotiations going on among the factions in Iraq, for instance.
#18
The leaders of islam say the word means "submission". What it actually means is "surrender" - all your individual freedoms, all your personal desires, all your LIFE - to the whim of the masters - the imams and mullahs who decide how islam is to be enforced. It is a totalitarian regime that includes politics, religion, and every other aspect of life, and subjugates them all to the will of a few. It is not a religion, but a cult. It needs to be totally eradicated - either by force or peaceful means - but it can no longer be tolerated by freedom-loving individuals.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/22/2006 15:01 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Well, you can try. Good luck with that.
I'm not ready for the "eradication" path myself. It might come to that, but those inside it must be given the chance to change it -- or to reject changing it.
And I think your description is an exaggeration of the state of things for many muslims. For some, yes. But not all, not even the majority of muslims are under the thumb of mullahs and imams that way.
That's why the Wahabis and Salafists are up in arms, literally. Because they WANT that to be the case and it isn't.
#20
First, you agree with the Islamacists that every Muslim is inherently in conflict with the West
lotp, I once felt as you did. Such is no longer the case. FIVE SOLID YEARS of Thundering Silence from the supposedly moderate Muslim world has forced me to take them at their word and believe that their stance on terrorism is either tacit or overt. The overwhelming dearth of condemnation for terrorism amongst Muslim societies gives me no other choice.
Feel free to call Islam a religion. Thank goodness we live in a country where we are free to disagree, unlike so many Muslim utopias. I just so happen to believe that no substantial progress will be made until we begin treating Islam as a political entity.
THEY CANNOT SIMULTANEOUSLY DECLARE MILITARY WAR AND STILL CLAIM RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.
This is what they are doing and the amount of internal dissent over it is so negligible as to be essentially nil.
So long as Islam continues to weaponize all the valuable aspects of Western culture in order to turn them against us, they are fighting a military war and do not deserve any religious status.
Yes, it took centuries for Christianity to sort out its theocratic leanings. That was in an age of crude technology and limited means of transportation. Those buffers have long since fallen by the wayside and we are confronted with an ideology that has no compunctions about slaughtering unbelievers like so many cattle and is actively seeking the weapons to do just that.
I will not stand for giving such barbaric fanatics any mantle of religious righteousness. Until they show themselves to be capable of tolerance, coexistence and especially respect for women, they are merely a bunch of violent savages who refuse to adapt to a modern world but somehow allow themselves to cherrypick moral justification for the most evil conduct imaginable.
Call Islam a "religion" if you will, but you risk cloaking a murderous death cult with vestiges of respectability it has yet to earn by any honest measure. The level of reformation required to rehabilitate Islam is akin to a full body transplant where only one original component exits the surgical theater. Islam will survive in name alone if it is to become compatible with the outside world. Should Islam fail to do so it must be eradicated like the disease it is.
Unless the CD contains a listening device and option of exploding.
Posted by: Captain America ||
10/22/2006 16:46 Comments ||
Top||
#22
"Call Islam a "religion" if you will, but you risk cloaking a murderous death cult with vestiges of respectability it has yet to earn by any honest measure."
Amen to that.
I'll start treating Islam as a religion when "submission to the will of God" no longer means "submission to the will of man."
Until then, I refuse to treat it as anything other than a cult.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/22/2006 16:49 Comments ||
Top||
#23
FIVE SOLID YEARS of Thundering Silence from the supposedly moderate Muslim world has forced me to take them at their word and believe that their stance on terrorism is either tacit or overt
The voices are there. They are few and haven't exactly dominated the discussion, but they're there.
You lump muslim women who suffer honor rapes in Pakistan and Africa along with the jihadis. You lump moderate muslims I know who are working to educate their people, to build stable civil structures, to build working economies in their homeland ... you lump them in with Mulla Krakkar.
I'm not willing to do that. I know what they are risking and what they believe.
#24
A large plurality of Muslims speak out against terror in: Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, and Jordan. But, frankly, the closer you get to Saudi Arabia and Iran, the more extreme the political culture. Pakistan's only jihad-critical publication, Daily Times, gets posted on the blogs more than any other Muslim news source (including al-Jazeera, Dar al-Hayat and al-Ahram). Fred Pruitt is a Daily Times reader.
#26
The voices are there. They are few and haven't exactly dominated the discussion, but they're there.
With five years under their collective belt they are ineffectual at best and tacitly complicit at worst. If these "moderate" individuals were truly determined to salvage their faith, there would be a lot more mysterious killings of jihadist imams and terrorist recruiters. Instead, there are literally zero such events and only more atrocities.
By dint of their flaccid rebuttal of terrorism, I am forced to begin advocating the dismantling of their church and am further obliged to repudiate any attribution of honorable religion to their creed's practice.
You lump muslim women who suffer honor rapes in Pakistan and Africa along with the jihadis.
That is a below-the-belt shot and you know it, lotp. By now, you are more than familiar with my resolute detestation of Islam specifically for its institutionalized abuse of women. While they may be unwilling participants in Islam's continuation, they assist in its propagation nonetheless.
Utilizing the Nazi metaphor, during WWII Allied forces were occasionally obliged to bomb concentration camps, killing many innocent internees in the process. This was done to interdict weapons manufacturing being performed at those sites.
Muslim women are much like those internees. They assist in the promotion of radical Islam even as they are subjugated. We have no way of gently prizing apart these marginally less cooperative members from those who seek to do us harm.
As I have mentioned before, NOWHERE are we obliged to meticulously harrow through Islam's practicioners in an attempt to isolate and prosecute the jihadists in their midst. In fact, this goes entirely to the heart of the criminal prosecution model that is so deeply flawed.
We simply DO NOT have the time, manpower or material resources to segregate the offending members of this totalitarian ideology. Neither are we required to do so in our attempts at preserving our hard won progress against the onslaught of these barbarians.
While it is all fine and noble to consider it important that we delicately sort through these BILLION AND A HALF potential terrorists, doing so will consume enough time alone, that our demise is guaranteed by such foolishness. Many people, possibly you included, lotp, feel as though we have the luxury of time on our side when it comes to swaying those ostensibly moderate Muslims who sit upon the fence. I speak for those who have decided that time is wasting.
As .com and others, including myself, have repeatedly pointed out; Those fence-sitters are the source of enormous wealth in the form of zakat flowing into jihadist coffers on a daily basis. Even as we attempt to recruit these putatively neutral parties, they are unconciously or overtly funding our demise.
You lump moderate muslims I know who are working to educate their people, to build stable civil structures, to build working economies in their homeland ... you lump them in with Mulla Krakkar.
I have no choice. Their collective inaction against something so blatantly hideous as terrorism mandates that I must. It is not up to me that they must take action. It is up to them and so little has occured to stem the onslaught of terrorism that it is now time to begin eradicating this virulent threat to all we know and love. This is not fearmongering. This a RATIONAL and SURVIVAL-BASED decision.
Whatever there are of so-called moderate Muslims, they obviously do not give a fucking damn about my survival. Elsewise they would have long ago begun offing these violent thugs in their midst who threaten their very existence along with my own. Instead, they choose to remain silent and thrust the decision into my hands. I have made my decision and it is THAT I SHALL LIVE EVEN IF THEY MUST DIE.
Let me assure you that I will lose not a moment of sleep over this choice.
#30
facta non verba, did you notice the terrorism-justifying language buried in Mubarak's statement? Go and find an article with his complete statement. From yesterday's "Mubarak: Muslims partly to blame for image" thread:
"We don't accept insulting our sanctities in the name of freedom of opinion or press, because disrespecting our beliefs inflames angry emotions, extremism and takes us toward grave paths," Mubarak said.
Note how Mubarak still advocates restrictions upon freedom of speech? Note how Mubarak makes the usual veiled terrorist threat regarding how, "disrespecting our beliefs inflames angry emotions, extremism and takes us toward grave paths"?
This is nothing more than Western-appeasing pablum designed to avoid any reduction in the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS we send this treacherous asshole. There is absolutely nothing of substance in his refusal to recognize the sanctity of free speech nor his hinting at terrorist reprisal for exercizing same.
While you may not regard Islam and its theocratic dictums as a threat, I do. If you do not, please refrain from ameliorating said danger, especially when you yourself are fully aware of taqqiya and the exceptionally negative ramifications of its use.
Of course, you are free to do whatever you like and any permission I seem to grant is the height of presumptiousness upon my own part. Nonetheless, I will ask that you reconsider your own defense of what is so often completely indefensible. Namely, Islam's continued justification of and dedication to terrorism. Even Mubarak could not refrain from imbedding the usual veiled terrorist threats in his supposedly conciliatory self-criticism of Islam. What sort of promise does this hold forth for any real reformation of Islam?
facta non verba, vis the five long years of Thundering Silence. Any replies being offered up at this long delayed point in time are simply a day late and a dollar short.
#32
lotp, I am obliged to add that, for someone of your intellectual depth, your replies have been far less than satisfying. You simply shrug off what I consider to be an incredibly apt metaphor regarding concentration camp prisoners. Likewise, a while back you never took the opportunity to provide any rejoinder regarding how Islam is so similar to a form of psychosis or mental illness. I'd like to think that this is not you simply resorting to easy outs. I had anticipated better from you.
#33
RD, any one of the mods can press the ban button should they choose to. I find the discussions enjoyable (where such exist) and the mud-slinging as well. I've learned something from lotp and even changed my opinion here and there. If you want to be just as engaging as lotp is, please go ahead.
Zenster, I will read his entire statement if I can find it, but at least we know he said the word reform and his lips didn't fall off.
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 23:00 Comments ||
Top||
#34
your replies have been far less than satisfying
Oh speak for yourself. Lotp is the (sole?) voice of reason on Rantburg, I noticed.
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 23:03 Comments ||
Top||
#36
at least we know he said the word reform and his lips didn't fall off.
If such an absolutely minimalist effort is satisfactory to yourself, you are nothing more than an, as yet, unsubjugated dhimmi. I rarely mention dhimmitude but you have made it more than appropriate. If this is all that supposedly moderate Islam has to show for itself, some FIVE LONG YEARS AFTER THE FACT, then it is high time to begin eradicating this virulent threat.
#37
Just for the record, and not to intervene in the argument between lotp and Zenster, for the most part the residents of the concentration camps would willingly have accepted the collateral deaths that would have come with the camps being bombed by the allies, because that would have prevented the guaranteed murders and torments that otherwise continued at the hands of the Nazis. In fact, in post-War writings the survivors uniformly condemned the Allies for refusing to do so.
#38
If such an absolutely minimalist effort is satisfactory to yourself
That was a reference to the salmon coloured comment....oh forget it.
except for yourself, of course
You still have a chance.
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 23:31 Comments ||
Top||
#39
Thank you so much for making that important ancillary point, trailing wife. I believe it only serves to concrete the Nazi metaphor and strengthen my own argument, in that many Muslim women would rather see an end to a culture that sexually mutilates them and all their daughters, enforces chattel-like treatment of women and promotes rape or outright spousal abuse. None of this even begins to mention the promotion of terrorist atrocities which kill women, men and children alike.
Servicepersons and Pyongyangites (Rubes) Hail Successful Nuclear Test
Pyongyang, October 20 (KCNA): More than 100,000 servicepersons and brainwashed rubes citizens from all walks of life at a Pyongyang city army-people rally held at Kim Il Sung Square ... Is every square in North Korea called Kim Il Sung Square?
... on Friday hailed the historic successful nuclear test.
Choe Thae Bok (politbureau member) said: the recent nuclear test was a quite just moderately just, a dash of just decision to defend the supreme interests of the state and the security of the nation from the U.S. imperialists' threat of aggression, avert a new war and defend peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. The nuclear test was a great deed of national significance as it strikingly manifested to the whole world the revolutionary faith and indomitable will of the army and people of the DPRK to resolutely foil the U.S. imperialists' heinous moves the finest heinous moves your highness to bring down the socialist system centered on the popular masses and firmly defend the ideology and system in the DPRK. Can you imagine how boring these speeches are? They are forced to listen to this crap for hours. I cut this a lot for length
Try listening to Fidel.
The DPRK was compelled to manufacture nukes by the U.S. nuclear threat, sanctions and pressure. (Everything is all your fault, all the time) Â…Â… SNIP all that blaming is thirsty workÂ… I can feel some Juche coming on Â….
All the party members, servicepersons and other people should devotedly defend the headquarters of the revolution and wage a dynamic struggle for the accomplishment of the revolutionary cause of Juche, ... aaaah, a nice cold glass of thirst-quenching Juche
... fully confident that they will always win victory as long as they are led by Kim Jong Il. Â… SNIP - More fawning on the army, the dear leader, the great Songun policyÂ…. Moving onto threatsÂ…
The Japanese militarists and other forces favoring the U.S. imperialists' moves should stop running amuck, ... I think you'll find that's running amok, illiterate one - but amok or amuck you still can't eat it. Unlike tasty tree bark.
... well aware that they will never escape a stern punishment Â… should they go reckless under the signboard of the UN Security Council "resolution."
SOME 3000 South Korean anti-communist activists have held a candlelit rally denouncing North Korea for carrying out its first nuclear test and urging Seoul to stop its economic aid to the North. "Down with Kim Jong-il. Dismantle North Korean atomic bombs," the protesters chanted as they waved national flags and raised candles during the rally outside the City Hall in central Seoul.
“A survey done hours after Pyongyang announced its first nuclear test on October 9 showed about 70 per cent of South Koreans believed the nuclear issue should be resolved through dialogue instead of sanctions. In another poll from October 11-12, 43 per cent of respondents picked the United States as most to blame for the nuclear crisis, followed by 37.3 per cent who chose North Korea. ”
Choi Sung-Kyu, a pastor from Full Gospel Church at Incheon City, told the crowd that the nuclear-armed communist state poses a threat not only to South Koreans, but their faith as well. "(North Korea's leader) Kim Jong-il and his clique, who say God does not exist, will certainly perish with his nuclear weapons," he said to the applause from the crowd.
The protesters also urged South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun's government to stop its policy of reconciliation and exchange with North Korea and scrap inter-Korean projects, including an industrial complex in the North's border city of Kaesong and tours to the country's Mount Kumgang resort. They said North Korea had used money it had earned from those projects to develop nuclear bombs. The government and the ruling Uri party have refused to shut the projects down but say they will "review" operations, asserting the schemes had helped ease tensions between the two Cold War rivals.
A survey done hours after Pyongyang announced its first nuclear test on October 9 showed about 70 per cent of South Koreans believed the nuclear issue should be resolved through dialogue instead of sanctions. In another poll from October 11-12, 43 per cent of respondents picked the United States as most to blame for the nuclear crisis, followed by 37.3 per cent who chose North Korea.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
PADUA, Italy—With its filthy stairways, crumbling apartments and menacing drug dealers, the Anelli complex has long felt like a ghetto to the African immigrants who live there. Recently, it also started to feel like a prison.
“In August, local authorities ordered the housing project virtually sealed off, prohibiting traffic on the only street that allows access to the apartment blocks. The gates along the high, steel-rod fence surrounding the compound were all barred shut except for one, where posted police officers monitor all who come and go. Authorities insist the measures are about security, not segregation. They prevent drug dealers from harassing the neighbours, they say.”
In August, local authorities in this industrial city near Venice ordered the housing project virtually sealed off. Two rows of cement barriers were placed across via Anelli, prohibiting traffic on the only street that allows access to the apartment blocks. The gates along the high, steel-rod fence surrounding the compound were all barred shut except for one, where posted police officers monitor all who come and go. On one side of the compound, the fence was replaced with a solid steel wall three metres high and 85 metres long that separates Anelli from the well-kept homes of its white Italian neighbours. Authorities insist the measures are about security, not segregation. They prevent drug dealers from harassing the neighbours, they say.
But for Anelli residents, and for many Italians, the housing project and its notorious wall have become a national symbol of all that's wrong with how Italy treats its rapidly growing immigrant population. "We're treated like animals, not people," said Didi Mhedi, 27, one of several hundred African residents in Anelli. "They say Europe is all about democracy and freedom, but I haven't seen any of that yet."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Borille then reached into his wallet and proudly pulled out a picture of the late Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini: "With him, in just one week these people wouldn't exist anymore."
This is an interesting story because it certainly indicates a shift in attitude. This comment seems fake to me. But then, I don't know, maybe they still do walk around with photos of Mussolini in their wallets. But true or not, it is simply not something that would have made it to print more than one year ago. Muslims in Italy should note it with concern. I'd even go so far as to say that it might be wise for them to get out. You can feel the winds change before a storm hits.
Someone here once said that these changes don't come gradually - but in lurches. I think there has been a lurch.
#3
Quite possibly, a decade from now the ONLY non-Islamic country in which Muslims will be tolerated may turn out to be ...
the US.
Provided they are willing to assimilate sufficiently. I'm with anon - the veil is a step too far, especially when it is adopted by converts here and worn as an overt challenge to all that the country stands for.
#6
Not sure that's true in Europe, tho. The Swedes WANTED a lot of immigrants in the 60s, 70s and 80s, to fill blue collar jobs. Didn't entirely work out that way, but they wanted them for that purpose.
French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said that despite recent tensions, France and the United States would always be united whenever their essential liberties were threatened. While the two countries may at times have conflicting interests, she said Friday, "each time that the essential, that is, liberty, democracy and the security of our people, was at stake, we were always together."
She cited this "profound friendship" and the long-standing cooperation between the nations' intelligence communities as vital to combatting terrorism. "Our special forces have always continued to combat terrorism side by side, for example, in Afghanistan," she said, though recently there has been some question as to whether France will pull its special forces out of the country. Alliot-Marie told The Associated Press that France is in the midst of discussions regarding the continued presence of French special forces, which are under separate command from the NATO troops in Afghanistan. "The forces in Afghanistan are in the process of being completely reorganized," she said. "We are in the middle of talking with all the countries who have special forces" in the country.
In a speech to the French-American Foundation, she said that European-American cooperation is essential for addressing the "clash" between the West and the rest of the world. The speech came on the second day of her tour of the U.S., during which she has emphasized the need for France and the United States to work closely in matters of security. "In a multi-polar world, it is essential that Europe and the United States may bring answers together," she said, speaking in English.
Alliot-Marie said that much of what some term a "clash of civilizations" is in fact simply a "clash of interests." She said the West must work to convince others of its point of view, and respect nonwestern perspectives, rather than seek to impose its will, as it has in the past through colonization.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
She hears the mob grumbling in the distance.
I'll respect nonwestern perspectives as long as they're not blowin' shit up. Then I tend to get peeved.
France needs to pull it's aristocratic head out of it's ass.
#2
Getting a touch nervous about all the car-b-ques, apparently.
Any time a French government official brings up our "special friendship", I start looking for the stab in the back coming our way (double that when Chirac is talking, and treble it when it is that lowlife de Villepin.)
#9
General Patton "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me."
Sorry to disappoint you but this is probably apocriphal. Martin Bluenson (member of Patton's staff, and a one of the main authors of US Army's official history of WWI) tell in his book about Patton that he was quite a fancophile and a friend of Leclerc.
Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk is in favour of imposing a ban on the wearing of a burka in public spaces. The Liberal VVD told MPs on Thursday night the face-covering clothing is a symbol of division (between the West and Islam) and was not in harmony with the integration of Muslims and the emancipation of women.
But Christian Democrat CDA Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin refused to confirm after the parliamentary debate whether he supported Verdonk's proposal, stressing that now was not the time for differences in opinions between ministers. However, Hirsch Ballin also said Verdonk was speaking from an integration perspective, while the commission of seven experts that was advising the Cabinet about a possible burka ban had a broader focus.
The commission will need to balance the constitutional rights of citizens against the public opposition against the burka. How the Islamic community views the burka will also need to be assessed. The commission — which includes lawyers, an Arabist and an imam — must issue recommendations to government ministers at the start of November. The Cabinet will then make a decision, Verdonk said.
“ Government ministers had been called back to the Parliament to explain why they had not yet imposed a ban on the burka, as demanded by MPs in December ”
One of the options being studied is whether a general ban on the burka is possible under current regulations. It will then also be assessed whether a ban wearing a burka can be justified based on issues of safety and public order. The final option is whether a ban can be imposed via existing regulations such as a general local ordinance or compulsory identification laws. Government ministers had been called back to the Parliament to explain why they had not yet imposed a ban on the burka, as demanded by MPs in December at the initiative of Geert Wilders. It had previously been revealed that the cabinet was divided over the issue.
#1
wasn't this witch face the one who was jealous of Hirsh Ali? Now she's in favor of imposing the ban??
whew! I don't often say I told you so, but just the other day I pointed out that the first people who will viciously turn on the Muslims will be the liberals. Their game is blame. Winds are shifting and if the new whipping boy is to be the Muslims, they will jockey to be first in line.
#2
I dunno - she seems to be very elastic when it comes to covering and saving her political ass. That she still holds her position, after the Hirsi Ali fiasco in which she made them look like pikers and fools, makes me doubt that they get it. Verdonk should've been canned, IMHO.
I hope you're right - we need some outposts of sanity in Eurabia for bases of operations as we deny the 'Slammies the nukes scattered about.
It was one of the few things State has done that caused me to smile in the last decade or three, so I'll thank her for that, heh.
Germany's president Horst Koehler has appealed to Muslims in the country to feel like Germans, not immigrants.
“Muslim life is part of German normalcy ”
In a message to mark the feast of Eid al-Fitr, which ends the fasting month of Ramadan next Monday, Koehler said, "Muslim life is part of German normalcy." He said change was already under way with young people perceiving themselves less as having foreign origins. "They identify themselves increasingly with Germany and know the responsibility that arises from this.
"I hope that in the end, as many men and women as possible living here will say, 'This is my home, I'm faithful to this country, I will live by its laws. I am a German Muslim'."
Good luck with that.
It's worked well everywhere else it's been tried ...
He said a start had been made and the process should be continued and set an example to the rest of the world that would say, "Look at us, we can be different from one another, while mutually respecting and being interested in one another without mistrust or fear."
The alternative isn't pretty.
The presidential greetings to German Muslims were issued Friday before the start of the two-day German weekend
Authorities in Munich banned Friday a neo-Nazi rally that had been planned for next month's 68th anniversary of the start of nationwide Nazi mob violence against Jews.
A new Jewish Centre containing a synagogue, museum and kindergarten is set to be opened in Munich on November 9 in the presence of German leaders. The neo-Nazis had planned to demonstrate a few hundred metres away outside Munich's town hall.
#1
Whew. Maybe that'll fly in Skokie, but that's pretty raw for Munich.
I bike a lot, and my rides take me through zillions of little German towns. Every one has a perfectly maintained cemetery, each of which has a section with prominent WWI memorials. The war dead Germans are allowed to lament.
Gravestones from WWII, on the other hand, appear to be deliberately overgrown. Just yesterday, I picked through the brush and found several soldiers' markers; one said, "died for the Fuehrer and the Fatherland."
Funny, if the Fuehrer hadn't been such a batshit micromanager, they mighta made it.
#2
Dummies. If they had entitled it "Pro-Palestinian" or "Moslem Pride" day, they could have had the exact same banners and such and they could have gotten away with it.
Sailors could be turned into infantry soldiers under a new plan the Canadian military is considering to keep fresh troops headed to Afghanistan. Military planners are looking at several possibilities to avoid sending soldiers to the country more than once.
“We're all part of the same family. It doesn't matter if we're in the navy or the air force or the army — we all signed on the dotted line. We're all here to defend our country, and that's what we're paid to do.”
"We're all part of the same family," said Petty Officer (2nd Class) Derek Speirs, a navy cook based in Halifax who has done a peacekeeping stint in the Golan Heights and is willing to serve in Afghanistan. "It doesn't matter if we're in the navy or the air force or the army — we all signed on the dotted line. We're all here to defend our country, and that's what we're paid to do."
Canada has promised to keep a force in Afghanistan until 2009; 42 Canadian soldiers have been killed there since 2002.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Not a bad attitude! There is no such thing as a "rear area" in the war against islamonazis. They'll attack anywhere they can, whether it's in Afghanistan, Iraq, Great Britain, Germany, or Cleveland. Every military member should receive at least SOME training as an infantryman, regardless of branch of service (and yes, that DOES include my old alma mater, the Air Force).
I wrote a training scenario where islamist terrorists attacked RAF Alconbury, in the UK. It was scheduled to be a three-day exercise. If it had been implemented and run as I set it up, we expected casualties to be in excess of 80%, because nobody expected to fight that kind of war and weren't trained to defend against it. Every scenario before had been a US/NATO against the Soviet Union. NOTHING I set up in that scenario was outside the capability of a well-trained cadre of 60 or so terrorists with the backing of either one of a half-dozen Middle East countries. We haven't changed that much to this day, unfortunately. One day it's going to rise up and bite us big-time.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/22/2006 17:41 Comments ||
Top||
The brother of an NFL player who was killed in Afghanistan after quitting the team to join the U.S. Army Rangers has spoken out.
Kevin Tillman, a former Army Ranger who served in Iraq and Afghanistan with his older brother, Pat Tillman, has remained silent since his brother's death in 2004. But this week, he wrote a scathing indictment of the war in Iraq, the Bush administration and American apathy. "Somehow, the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes," Kevin wrote on Truthdig.com, which purchased his work.
The brothers, both Arizona State University graduates, joined the Army in response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. They served together as Rangers with the 2nd Battalion of the 75th Ranger Regiment. Pat Tillman, who played defensive back for the Arizona Cardinals, was killed by friendly fire near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in April 2004. The Defense Department is investigating allegations of a cover-up, including failure by the U.S. Army to tell Tillman's family for several weeks that he had been killed by gunfire from his fellow Army Rangers, not by enemy fire as they initially were told.
Kevin Tillman has not spoken publicly about the war or his brother's death since his discharge from the Army. But in Truthdig.com, Kevin wrote openly about the war and America's response to it. "Somehow, the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country. Somehow, this is tolerated. Somehow, nobody is accountable for this."
After playing for the ASU Sun Devils, Pat Tillman was drafted by the Arizona Cardinals in 1998. He played with the team for four years.
On Sept. 12, 2001, he gave an interview in which he talked about how "stupid" football seemed relative to world events. "At times like this, you stop and think about not only how good we have it but what kind of system we live under," he said. "My great-grandfather was at Pearl Harbor. And a lot of my family has gone and fought in wars. And I really haven't done a ... thing as far as laying myself on the line like that."
Pat was on the verge of signing another contract with the Cardinals in the spring of 2002 when he decided to join the Army instead.
The Tillmans were initially sent to Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In 2003, the brothers returned to the U.S. for training to become Army Rangers. After that, they were sent to Afghanistan.
Posted by: Captain America ||
10/22/2006 14:54 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Kevin wrote on Truthdig.com, which purchased his work.
whore. I wonder how much his brother's honor was worth to him?
I do take a bit of comfort in the fact that despite what was certainly a monumental effort on their part, they could only find two souls willing to sell.
#7
I can appreciate criticism coming from those who believe we've waged a PC-war that has allowed an insurgency to grind away at our military.
For example, NBC Nightly News last week had a disturbing story about a US ARMY patrol inside Baghdad. During the patrol, some hidden Iraqis used a long stick with a black flag attached to it to signal nearby snipers and mortar teams that the Americans were closing in on their neighborhood. Under normal warfare conditions, an airstrike should have been immediately called in; to hell with the so-called collateral loss of "innocent" lives. Instead, the patrol had to put up with the bullshit and sure enough, came under mortar fire a few minutes later. What a BS way to fight and lose a guerrilla war, something our ingenious military and political leaders have grown accustomed to these last four or five decades.
#9
I should add that "I can appreciate criticism coming from those who believe we've waged a PC-war that has allowed an insurgency to grind away at our military," I strongly disagree with the charge that the war in Iraq is illegal. However, I agree with Cyber Sarge, Kevin Tillman has earned the right to his POV.
#10
I'll bet that most of the lower enlisted personnel- the grunts - of every war had some scathing commnents on the leadership and conduct of the wars they fought.
As a former soldier myself, I know that soldiers bitch - alot!
So this is just the latest in a long history of soldiers returned from the fight - disillusioned and looking to blame someone higher up the chain of command for every thing not turnnig out like the movies.
What's interesting is, here again right before an election, that this guy can get national exposure while bad mouthing the command structure and the President in particular.
#11
No one denies Kevin the right to speak out, pro or con. But there are two issues here:
(1) The historical rate of reenlistment runs counter to Kevin's accusations,
(2) The timing, although Nov 6 is Pat's day, at a minimum Kevin knows that such statements would be political fodder for the slime.
Finally, I was taken aback at the causal dismissal Kevin makes at childrens' drawings and such for the troops. While they may be dismissed by Kevin, childrens' renderings come from the heart.
Posted by: Captain America ||
10/22/2006 16:43 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Kevin wrote on Truthdig.com, which PURCHASED his work.
PURCHASED HIS WORK. Take note of that. He has the right to EARN the money but should not earn your respect. If he had said it for free, it would be a sign of his conviction. But that he took cash from truthdig just shows this guy is a whore profiting off of his brother's fame and valor. I have no respect for him at all. None.
#14
Kevin Tillman is flat wrong. I'm not sure if he ever believed in the Iraq war in the first place and I really don't care. I don't think he's arguing that our ROE's are too restrictive. I think he plainly just doesn't believe in the war at all. They have a third brother who is also a total loon. Their family still believes the Army bungled the investigation into Pat's death, etc. That may or may not be true. However, any idiot knows Hussein needed to go. We can argue on the 'burg if our post-invasion tactics have been as effective as they could be, but, we all agree this conflict had to happen now. And, after you remove the dictator you have to leave the place somewhat coherent. That's a messy job but quite imperative. Seems to be a bigger picture concept then Kevin can grasp.
BTW - I studied pretty hard how Pat got killed in Afghanistan and it was sad and prolly preventable. However, I think his brother is just venting his grief the wrong way. Sadly typical.
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/22/2006 18:24 Comments ||
Top||
#16
The President solicited new war strategies in at least 4 interviews last week. Hopefully he takes good counsel, and winning conditions can at long last be created.
Clinton's Kosovo/Bosnia dogma against "ethnic cleansing" appears to attach to the GWOT. It is one thing to toss minorities off family land, and another to establish controlled protection zones. Green Zone clones would secure Iraq from marauders. Snipers and mortar lobbers would be another matter.
I won't respond to Tillman's comments because they are the product of futility. Once Clintonism is out of the Iraq picture, optimism might be possible once more.
#17
Pat believed in what he was doing. He realized he was part of something greater. Pat was not killed in Iraq and his brother is tieing his death in Afghanistan to Iraq? He is either confused or a whore. He gets his opinion, every soldier's - pro or con, is respected. But this is timed at elections and for sale. He should have more honor than to sell his opinion and I bet he is coldly recieved at the Reg reunion. I guess if the dems search long enoough they will find someone to hang out front. I wonder who they will find next.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
10/22/2006 18:58 Comments ||
Top||
#18
I can understand that he doesn't want any more soldiers to die and is pissed his bro lost due to friendly fire.
"Somehow, the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes."
Is he saying the invasion was illegal but is now looking more legitimate or more illegal?
I agree we should of gone to war and I'm proud of our troops, but damnit, I'm really PISS at Bush for not responding to all these outrageous accusations that have built up. His staff always say, we will not dignify this or that.
US PR is way too outdated and slow. How can our troop moral be good when people (friends/family) everywhere begin to believe the enemy propoganda and conspiracies.
I, for one, still believe WMD were in Iraq in 2003 but we've already said they never existed to the world.
#19
I stood in the blazing sun for over two hours and listened to Kevin Tillman speak at Pat's eulogy here in San Jose's municipal rose garden. He spoke well and lovingly of his departed brother. Nothing he mentioned hinted at such an unworthy appraisal of how and why his own brother sacrificed a life of promising wealth and comparative luxury to so honorably serve his country.
It is pathetic in the extreme that Kevin now does such an injustice to Pat's memory, especially so for monetary gain. From all that was said by the fellow officers and friends who provided their own memorials, I am confident that Pat would not agree.
A WISCONSIN grocery store clerk charged with making a hoax threat to detonate "dirty bombs" at US National Football League stadiums thought it was a joke no one would take seriously, the FBI said today.
A joke! Heh heh! Atsa pretty fonny!
Jake Brahm, 20, who lives at home with his parents in Wauwatosa near Milwaukee, was arrested after police there picked up rumours that he had been bragging about the hoax, said Richard Ruminski, of the Milwaukee FBI office. "It's a hoax. It's nonsense, not a credible threat," Mr Ruminski said. "But in a post 9-11 world, you take these threats seriously. It's almost like making a threat going onto an airplane - you just don't do it." Asked what Mr Brahm, held in federal custody, was thinking, Mr Ruminski said: "It seemed (to him) like a good idea. He thought it would be funny. Mr Brahm put out this threat thinking that it was so preposterous no one would take him seriously."
[Chortle!] It's a real thigh-slapper!
Mr Brahm was accused of spreading a fake message on the internet that threatened to hit the sites with weapons of mass destruction and radioactive materials. If convicted, he faces a maximum of five years in prison and a $US250,000 ($330,000) fine.
I just love jokes with a 5-year punch line.
That fine will suck up his allowance from Mums and Dad for YEARS.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
""Jake Brahm, 20, who lives at home with his parents
One line says it all.
Posted by: Almost Anonymous5839 ||
10/22/2006 18:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Visualize the quote "INSIDE" the quotation marks. Just like I did.
Posted by: Almost Anonymous5839 ||
10/22/2006 18:20 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Folks in Wauwatosa generally don't pay good-sized allowances to the kids; Wauwatosa is more working class.
Columbus WI cops recently traced a set of bomb threats to two 15 year olds. Columbia County has filed charges and says they're going to bill the kids for all the police, fire, K9, and other costs.
I think it's going to take some stiff sentences, very publicly announced and enforced, to get the point across.
And no, Wisconsin does not have a monopoly on nutjobs. It just looks like that this week.
Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department, said in an interview aired Saturday on al-Jazeera television that the United States had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in Iraq but was now willing to talk to any group, outside of al-Qaida, to further reconciliation in the country. A senior Bush administration official questioned whether the remarks had been translated correctly. "Those comments obviously don't reflect our position," said the official.
Fernandez can be dumped at any time.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Arrogance" and "stupidity" are as close as the nearest mirror, Al. Don't let the door hitcha...
#4
Once muzzies have consolidated their gains through the reconquista in Spain, Senor Fernandez's new job title will be director of public diplomacy for the Bureau of Andalucia. Appropriate, no?
Posted by: Mark Z ||
10/22/2006 8:33 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Thinking of running for office are we?
Better run as a Donk.
Asshole.
London and Washington are discussing a range of eight options for an exit strategy from Iraq as violence in the country continues to escalate, the Guardian newspaper reported on Saturday. The options include a phased withdrawal, the break-up of Iraq into three regions, and "one last push" - a short-term injection of troops to create enough security to build confidence in the Iraqi government, the paper said.
The immediate withdrawal of coalition troops seems unlikely, the Guardian said, quoting an unnamed Foreign Office diplomat saying: "We could pull out now and leave them to their fate but the place would implode." An early exit would also constitute "an unpalatable humiliation" for the Bush administration, the paper added. However, it did suggest that British forces in the area would likely be slashed by half in the middle of next year, followed by further reductions later. A phased withdrawal is "still the likeliest option" but depends on Iraqi security forces becoming properly trained, the paper said.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Put thier trops in the cities - flood the zone.
Double our troops for 6 months, put our most of our guys on the borders - lock out Iran and Syria, and provide a fire brigade (Strykers) to stiffen the spine of Iraqi forces when needed, and use one marine+army heavy combat brigade to bust up any nests like Fallujah.
We need to shut the dmaned spigot off, so the Iraqis will ahve room to work and the enemy will not continually rearm and reinforce formoutside. IF it were Iraq, isolated, this whole thign would have been over a while back.
I fault Bush in his inability to slam the door on Iran and Syria.
But it comes back to that old problem: we have the military force to do that but the political will is lacking because we have lost the PR battle in the media.
That is where wars are fought in democracies: because the population no longer supports the government as in WWII but fights against it as in Vietnam.
I have problem with the compartmental approach. I think we have done as much as we can in the current country, we need to follow the cause to it's root. Afterall these jihadis don't respect borders That means Iran...Next stop Saudi. We can't pretend they aren't contributing to our problem in Iraq and seal them off.
They either got to cut the shit or we cut it for them. Otherwise we will protecting their borders for years before we protect ours.
I used to think this should be long term strategy , but I think it's time to shorten it up a bit.
#6
Heh, Dunno. I'm thinking we'll hafta parallel process some stuff. I believe we sure need to get started right here at home, mucking out the stables (congress, MSM, Judiciary, ACLU, ANSWER, ISM, CAIR, etc), methinks. Declaring the front-orgs of our domestic enemies as, well, as enemies - just as we do for "charities" and such that contribute to Islamofascism - strikes me as the sort of effort that will serve as a force-multiplier as we take on the foreign challenges. Yes, I am "evil" and will be seen and excoriated as such for awhile longer. But that's okay, I'm not really all that lonely now, and certainly won't be soon, I believe. :-)
#7
I believe that's what the 2008 campaign will be about. If the donks were really smart, that's the position they'd advocate. But they'll leave it to the trunks who'll be afraid to touch it with a ten foot pole and the majority of Americans will be disgusted by the cowardice of their leaders.
- leftists in the West, Democrats in the USA, most media everywhere, anti-reason professors almost everywhere
- totalitarian Moslems from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, via Iran
The only "exit strategy" discussed should be similar to the one policemen consider when they've cornered bankrobbers with their cars: Exit the car to shoot (or maim and capture) them unless they surrender unconditionally.
We know our enemies won't surrender, because they either hate the West too much or they still think they can destroy our civilization.
Make no mistake. These leftist scumbags are deadly serious, knowing that attacking America from within weakens resolve and morale, thus providing material support for our enemies abroad. One of the many "champions of freedom" coddled within our universities, Chief Churchill, states:
"I don't want other people in charge of the apparatus of the state as the outcome of a socially transformative process that replicates oppression (leftist gibberish decoder ring translation: change via voting-ed.). I want the state gone: transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether." Satya Magazine interview 4/04.
While living among these seditionists, and confronting them on-campus for their puke "progressive" ideals, I've learned to never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by malice (spoonerism of quote attributed to Napoleon).
.com, you're not alone by a long shot. But more need to wake up to the fact that CAIR, ANSWER, etc. are cancerous parasites, and will not stop until they are stopped.
#11
Hyper - No, sorry if I made it sound like I was alone, "I'm not really all that lonely now", I know I'm not... but it will win us no friends - and pull in the occasional trolls to say it.
It's "okay" to rant and get hinky about people who are visibly different (man-dresses, turbans, kaffiyehs, head-bangin 5x per day, sawing off heads and making home movies of it, etc) - the evidence is clear people accept it, whether propaganda or legit - but to take on those amongst us, who look just like us, who are being voted into office by our neighbors or the moron in Big Blue City, who are the same in every way except they're Stalinist tools, etc. well now, that's a whole 'nuther thang.
#13
I'm thinking we'll hafta parallel process some stuff. I believe we sure need to get started right here at home, mucking out the stables (congress, MSM, Judiciary, ACLU, ANSWER, ISM, CAIR, etc), methinks. Declaring the front-orgs of our domestic enemies as, well, as enemies - just as we do for "charities" and such that contribute to Islamofascism - strikes me as the sort of effort that will serve as a force-multiplier as we take on the foreign challenges.
I can't find anything here that I disagree with. My only question is, how do we accomplish all of this. In time. Oh, I know what I think is going to have to happen, but one doesn't dare say it out loud. And where do we find the people willing to make the sacrifice, and do the things that have to be done?
#14
It will take massive civil disobediannce coordinated ny local crredible types with the authority to send the cops home while the nasty work gets done.
#15
In a representative democracy all legitimate / legal power flows from the vote.
And, as JD may have subtly implied (???), there's also extracurricular work to be done where the law just doesn't cut it... where power flows from something else...
#16
It IS a two-front war---the home front and the "over-there" front. Make no mistake about it.
*Syria and Iran have suffered NO consequences for their aiding and abetting the terrorist effort in Iraq.
*Tater has suffered NO serious consequences (like a lead headache pill) for his little gangsta activities.
*Terrorists caught by our troops get rotated out of jail just like the late Arafish's guyz in Gaza.
No wonder we are having all this trouble in Iraq. Look at the message we are sending. This PC BS will kill us all.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/22/2006 14:08 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Everyone, please read the entire second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. We have the power and the authority to make sweeping changes in how things work. All we need is the courage and the willingness to do so. Voting alone won't do it - the corruption is too deep. There is a second revolution coming. I only hope I live long enough to participate.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/22/2006 20:11 Comments ||
Top||
#18
.com
"I'm not really all that lonely now", I know I'm not... but it will win us no friends".
That knowledge is one of the things I like about Rantburg.
But you ain’t whistlin’ Dixie that “to take on those amongst us, who look just like us, who are being voted into office by our neighbors or the moron in Big Blue City, who are the same in every way except they're Stalinist tools, etc. well now, that's a whole 'nuther thang”…
Life sure can get interestinÂ’...
... what the hell was the headline of this article? Oh yeah...
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has brought a top security commander out of retirement, in part to curb a planned Hamas troop buildup in the West Bank, officials said Saturday. The commander, Ismail Jaber, will take command of all the Palestinian security forces in the West Bank, with the exception of the three branches that fall under the control of the Hamas-run Interior Ministry. In April 2005, Abbas had sent Jaber and other senior officials into retirement in a house-cleaning of the corruption-tainted security forces. However, little progress has been made in carrying out reforms.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Israel has no aggressive intentions towards Iran, Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres said on Saturday, after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert cautioned Tehran it would pay a price for pursuing its nuclear ambitions. "We must never consider such a thing," Peres told Channel Two television when asked if he would support an independent Israeli military strike against Iran if other nations failed to curb its uranium enrichment programme. Israel has never shown aggressive intentions (towards Iran) -- it has none. I don't think we have to, or can, deal with this issue," he said, cautioning that Israel could face international isolation if it attacked Iran.
Israel has said repeatedly it wants the United States and other countries to take the lead in dealing with Iran over a nuclear programme that has raised international concern the Islamic Republic could build atomic weapons. Iran this month rejected demands that it suspend uranium enrichment, prompting United Nations Security Council to consider sanctions. It says it wants nuclear power only to generate electricity.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Can someone put him on kool-aid restriction please?
Iran has said that the West's "carrot and stick" method for getting it to halt sensitive atomic work is doomed to failure.
Iran's case has been returned to the UN Security Council because the Islamic Republic failed to heed a UN demand to suspend uranium enrichment, a process the West believes Tehran is using to develop nuclear weapons, despite Iran's denials.
The United States and European states back UN sanctions, although European officials say this will be an incremental process which Iran can curtail by halting enrichment.
At the same time, the five permanent members of the Security Council - the United States, France, Britain, Russia and China - plus Germany have offered Iran trade and other incentives if it suspends enrichment as a precondition for atomic talks.
"Our negotiating partners have always emphasised the need for talks, but they are moving in two different directions," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said.
"Iran's position is that you cannot use the policy of 'carrot and stick' at the same time because it is an incompetent policy and it will result in failure."
Mr Hosseini said imposing sanctions would have an impact beyond the region. "But if they choose sanctions, we will make appropriate decisions in proportion with that," he said.
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator has said its response could involve halting UN checks of atomic sites.
Mr Hosseini said a suspension of uranium enrichment "has no place in Iran's nuclear policies".
"But we have said also that, if the conditions are fair, this issue could be discussed during negotiations like other issues," he added.
Iran has said it would discuss suspension during talks, rather than as a precondition. But officials have also said such discussions would examine why Iran saw such a step as illogical.
France, Britain and Germany are drafting a Security Council resolution on sanctions and have been discussing it with the United States, which wants tougher measures. Russia and China, which can veto a resolution, are wary of imposing penalties.
"We are witnessing a positive position by the Russians compared to some other Western countries," Mr Hosseini said.
#5
Buffs at 45,000, supported by F/A-18s and EA-6Bs. Arm the Buffs with anything, even concrete - it'll do the trick if delivered properly. Most Buff pilots know how to deliver properly.
Got a pic from another Rantburger showing the boneyard at Davis-Monthan. Saw at least 40 B-52Ds there. Refurbish them, use them as dumb bomb carriers. NOTHING terrified the NVA more than the Buffs. I'm sure the muzzies aren't even half the fighters the NVA was.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/22/2006 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
#6
OP: As much as I like your idea about pulling the BUFFS from D-M; the hue and cry over treaty violations would be audible all the way from the Kremlin. I think it was Jimmah's SALTII that parked them there for destruction; and the destruction was to be visible from space. Some of the pix I have seen show big cranes w/ blades on the cables and they just drop them on the wings or fuselages; anywhere that renders the aircraft incapable of ever flying again. Damn shame however, and we are limited in our ability to part them out for those still flying.
#7
USNR:
As far as I know, the Senate never Ratified SALT II, though RR said that he would abide by the terms anyway. Though we could try a carrot-and-stick with Russian (vice Iran) to see we won't do it if they stop selling all the stuff they do to Iran, Syria, et al.
Or, we could maybe refurbish them and sell them to the Kurds or Afghanis at $1 each. Well, maybe not, as they might point them elsewhere.
RUSSIA would oppose any effort to use the UN Security Council to promote a change of regime in Iran, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an interview published today. "We cannot support and will actively oppose any attempt to use the Security Council to punish Iran or to use Iran's nuclear program in order to promote the idea of regime change'' in Tehran, Mr Lavrov said in the transcript of an interview with the Kuwaiti news agency KUNA, released by the Russian foreign ministry.
Mr Lavrov said Russia regarded the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation as an "extremely serious'' problem and called on Iran to respect international demands aimed at ensuring that its nuclear program posed no threat in this regard. "We believe that the Iranian side must finally bow to the constructive proposals that have been made and fully co-operate with the IAEA to answer all currently outstanding questions'' about its nuclear ambitions, Mr Lavrov said.
The interview with Mr Lavrov was done yesterday and the transcript was released by the foreign ministry as he held talks in Moscow with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who arrived in the Russian capital today on the final stop of a trip focusing on the North Korea crisis.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
For the life of me I just cannot figure out why Russia cares. Unless, of course, it has some hopeless under-the-table deals with the Iranians . . . .
Hell, Russia's building their fucking reactors, all out in the open. Selling them air defense systems, too. Shit, they're clearing out the warehouses, peddling them all sorts of doodads and trinkets - recall the Shkval "jet torpedo", for example? I particularly love how the Black Hats insist that they "invented" the stuff.
It's like a couple of mega-twisted insecurity complex patients who met at group and decided to move in together.
So back to the article: Why are the Russkies against regime change? Lol, they want the checks to clear - and to triangulate against the US, of course.
#3
We sunk those bastards once, one might think they'd shy away from another confrontation until they get back on their feet. Lots of big talk from that side of the ocean lately, but when it comes down to it they always come out short.
Muslims at the U.S. Military Academy numbered just two in 2001. This year, there are 32. Now West Point has opened its first space dedicated to Muslims, a worship hall complete with a pulpit facing Mecca. The space officially opened Thursday. "I knew the Army had a policy of religious tolerance, but I didn't know it was to this extent," said first-year Cadet Ahmed Moomin, 20, from the Maldives.
Until now, Friday prayers were held in an increasingly crowded first-floor office, said Imam Asadullah, the academy's Muslim cleric. The number of Muslim cadets jumped by 10 from last year. The new hall is large enough for dozens of followers, he said. West Point's Muslim leaders approached administrators last year for help. "We live in a world where everyone is looking at the United States saying, 'You're anti-Islam.' But here at West Point, that's not what we do," West Point Chaplain Col. John Cook said.
Asadullah said the new hall is a strategic move. "We have cadets here who are going to be the future of tomorrow," he said. "If we treat them differently from other cadets or other faiths, that will be a cause for future confrontation."
Some but not all of those Muslim cadets are foreign. There is always a contingent of foreign cadets who do the full 4 year program at the Academy. Many of them become influential leaders back home -- their governments must pay the costs of their time at USMA and only the best are sent. There are also officers and academics who spend time at the Academy from foreign countries, including Muslim ones.
A lot of Protestant, Catholic and Jewish cadets take their religion seriously too. The new Muslim hall fits the Army tradition both of supporting the work of chaplains and also of insisting that soldiers work, fight and relax alongside other soldiers no matter what their beliefs, race or origin might be.
Below: the protestant Cadet Chapel (which stands prominently above the parade grounds), the Catholic Chapel, the original cadet chapel, which is next to the cemetary and is still in use for weddings, funerals and some regular services, and the Jewish Chapel. There is also a post chapel which offers regular protestant services and more musically-oriented gospel services.
And here is the new Muslim worship hall. Note the black soldier (or cadet - can't tell here) wearing BDUs, the cadets (grey trousers with stripe, white shirt and/or grey jacket) and several blonde women including a cadet. It's possible some of the attendees are not muslims but were there for the opening service.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/22/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It would be fine if we weren't at war with Islamist fascism.
But we are.
How can we be sure some of those muslims are not infiltrating for the purpose of Jihad?
#2
Exactly, anon1. If they want a space to worship, fine, have a space. But they need to remember that this is OUR country, with OUR traditions, and OUR military acadamy. They are in OUR culture now. We better be damned vigilant. I would hate to give away the farm. We sure as sh*t bend over backwards to accommodate any sennnnnnsitivity that Islam has. Just ask any Air Force lassie that served in Saudi in GW1.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/22/2006 3:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Seems to me like offering the virus a goat host. Or, since we're talking about WP, mebbe a mule.
Posted by: DanNY ||
10/22/2006 7:39 Comments ||
Top||
#6
He's not the only imam in the Army. They all need to be thoroughly vetted. But that's all. We do need to integrate and assimilate muzzies into America. All this is part of it. Note that the more one moves into orthodox Judaism in America, the greater the concern that their children will be so assimilated into America that they will lose their distinctive Jewish identity.
Yesterday I attended the wedding of the daughter of my 100% Jewish brother-in-law. There was absolutely no reference to Judaism in the white bread Protestant service or any of the reception festivities and no apparent concern on the part of the bride's second generation American grandparents.
That's how we make Americans over generations and we need to get started with the muzzies. It's how we'll get well trained loyal Amderican officers who understand Islam thoroughly. Failure to do so will only give us Euro-muzzies, not Americans.
#7
I would hate to give away the farm. We sure as sh*t bend over backwards to accommodate any sennnnnnsitivity that Islam has.
Snort! Give away the Farm? We've already sold the damn thing to the Saudis'. Seriously, the destruction of America has already been decided upon, the deal has closed and the checks have been written.
#8 We do need to integrate and assimilate muzzies into America.
The ones that can be assimilated are considered apostate by their brethren. The majority will not be possible to assimilate. We need to stop ALL muslim immigration to this country and start working on ejecting the ones that are here.
I would be much happier if we would remove recognition of Islam as a legitimate religion, then proceed accordingly. Oh well, maybe after we've lost a city or three.
#8
Adriane, if you're suggesting that the foreign cadets are there just to keep them safe, all I can say is that anyone the sponsoring country sends has to pass the acceptance criteria at the Academy.
So if they're there to be kept away from violence at home, they have to meet and continue to meet standards here. That includes the full military drill (being dressed down by upper classmen for tiny infractions -- nobody cares who your daddy is), physical program and academic program (which includes the calculus, physics, information technology and a lot of other mandatory classes).
#9
The majority will not be possible to assimilate.
So you say. I'd like to give them the choice and know for sure before we start adopting religious tests that are an anathema to everything my country stands for as you recommend. And that doesn't require losing a city or three; it requires treating them like any other American until they prove that as a group each individual deserves otherwise. And then I'd give each individual the chance to determine which group they wish to belong to. We are not going to succeed with Know-Nothingism.
#10
How can we be sure some of those muslims are not infiltrating for the purpose of Jihad?
We can't, any more than we can be SURE that some other cadet won't decide to frag his buddies in combat or decide not to serve and start holding press conferences in Canada instead.
However,
the 4 years at the Academy are designed to wash out those kinds of people. Strong bonds are formed (and yes, some rivalries too) as they go through the pressure-filled years together. USMA has a pretty good history of either shaping people or having them leave.
#11
they need to remember that this is OUR country, with OUR traditions, and OUR military acadamy. They are in OUR culture now
AP, a good number of the Muslims at USMA are citizens born here. So while I agree that I am unwilling to see us adopt sharia or distort the core of who we are to accomodate Islam, you'd better be having that debate WITHIN our culture, because people ARE either converting or being born into Islam here.
#12
Islam is not a religion but a totalitarian death-cult.
Islam yearns for a world-wide Caliphate and total submission of all people, plus chattel status for women. Not to forget dhimittude, conversion, or death being offered to infidels. And death to apostates. (Talk about "crimes against humanity" -- there it is advocated on a massive scale.)
We will NOT win this war until the above is clear to a majority of key political, military, and intellectual figures in the West.
If we are to survive as a civilization, one day Moslem leaders will be hunted down and executed in their countries, or banned from the USA -- the same way Nazi leaders have been. The Caliphate is no more acceptable than the Third Reich.
#13
The Caliphate is no more acceptable than the Third Reich.
Agreed on this. I disagree that Islam isn't a religion -- it is. It also happens to be one in which separation of church and state is NOT sought, but is rejected. Which is the danger.
But don't expect the leaders at West Point to run point on that issue by excluding Muslim citizens and visitors, or by refusing to offer appropriate space for worship. The Army will -- and SHOULD -- accomodate religious belief so long as the believers adhere to Army regs and the spirit behind them.
The fight is out in the culture. Or literally, on the ground in places like Iraq where the military is quite clear about the nature and ideology of the enemy.
#16
Kalle, much as you hate the fact, Islam is a religion.
National Socialism and Communism are not. They function in similar ways, but they're not.
And consider the fact that the sermons at this center can be attended by ANYONE on post. Without prior notice or the need for permission.
Yes, many muslims are radicalized. Yes, many mosques are politicized. But it is not automatically the case that the fundamentalist Islamacists define what Islam is everywhere and for all muslims -- despite the fact that they would like that to be true.
I have zero interest in Islam as a religion, personally. But I will not interfere with it, in those places where it does not:
* advocate death to Jews, apostates or infidels
* prevent anyone from leaving the religion if they choose
* forceably marry young females
* refuse to pledge allegiance to the civil authorities (or refuse to obey lawful orders if military)
and so on. In other words, the issue is the behavior. IF muslims can pursue their religion without these and similar behaviors, more power to them.
But if not, then the behavior needs to be confronted and stopped.
That's the basis of this country's approach to religion since before the Revolution here. I am not willing to change it without clear evidence that the majority of muslims are unwilling to abide by our rules.
Yes. So I say, and so they demonstrate with their words and actions. Islam is NOT a religion, it pretends to be one, but that does not make it legitimate.
Do you consider Scientology to be a religion?
Islam is a death cult, it resembles no other religion currently practiced these days. In fact, it is the polar opposite, by design. Mo' was pretty ingenious when he cobbled together this abortion called Islam, he covered all the bases, of course it helps to have a bunch of ignorant, inbred primitives as your seedstock of faithful adherents.
Look at Europe, see what importing Muslims has brought them, by the time we realize that we have made a terrible mistake, it may be too late. I believe in what this country stands for as well, but I am unwilling to risk its demise for a group that has demonstrated time-and-time again for 1400 years that it is predatory. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Religion is a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought. It is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system"[1], but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions.
Islam is a religion. It posits a supreme being who places moral demands on followers.
Some followers of that religion are predatory, many are tribal and uncivilized. Those behaviors are totally unacceptable and must be stopped cold.
If muslims are willing to live and worship here while respecting our norms of behavior, that's fine by me.
I'm not naive, however. We have ample reason to monitor what is being spread through the Saudi funded mosques and STOP IT. We have ample reason to monitor the funds transfers, weapons practice etc. of a bunch of jihdis and STOP THEM.
Do it. But base it on the behavior. I will not be part of a movement that establishes a thought police. I'm happy to be part of a movement that comes down hard on destructive behavior, whether by the Nation of Islam, other converts, immigrants or the children of immigrants.
Or, for that matter, by leftists promulgating equally dangerous and destructive teachings.
#20
Kalle, much as you hate the fact, Islam is a religion.
No. It is not! And no amount of insisting that it is will change the fact that it was cobbled together from half a dozen belief systems of the period, and then tailored to allow whatever vile and evil acts old Mo' felt like including.
Just because he was able to dupe a few desert nomads into following him, and then spread the sickness by deceit and bloodshed doesn't alter the fact that Islam is NOT a religion. If one examines Shar'ia in depth, you discover that it is nothing more than an enforcement mechanism to keep the conquered cowed and submissive.
You, and NS, each seem to have two alternating opinions vis-a-vis Islam that are 180 degrees out of sync with each other. The opinions that is.
#21
Why would I know about NS' beliefs? S/he believes whatever s/he believes. I hold my own opinions.
Sorry, but by pretty much every definition, Islam is indeed a religion. Not a very attractive one to me, but a religion nonetheless.
And it is one that is at least nominally professed by 1.5 BILLION people. Any effective response to its (physical, cultural, legal, religious) aggression will need to begin by taking seriously the roles it plays for its adherents. Who, by the way, differ greatly in the degree and nature of that adherence.
Push back against that aggression -- yes!! But understand that you aren't going to get very far by deluding yourself that it is merely a "death cult" "cobbled together". Whatever YOU think of Islam, its adherents regard it as the true religion, and its teachings as the commands of God.
The danger to the West is much more serious and deep than any cobbled together death cult would pose.
One of those dangers is that there is a small but accelerating rate of conversion of westerners to Islam. Some of them are converting out of a need to be told exactly what to do with their lives. Others are converting out of a deep disgust with a pop culture that is crude, deeply sexualized and coarse. But they ARE converting, a few now but more than a couple years ago and -- I will lay odds -- more still in the future, unless those with other values lay claim to the mantle of reforming our culture AND defending it against the "anyone but the West" crowd.
#22
Some people are just stubborn to the point of being irrational. That is why sometimes I think Islam won't have to raise a finger to destroy your country. You'll do it yourselves.
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 13:15 Comments ||
Top||
#23
I don't see the need to be in synch with lotp nor she with me. I do see the need to obey the law, which you do not. We aren't at the point where we as a society have refused to classify Islam as a religion. Personally I think most religions, Islam, as well as Mormonism, Christian Science, Scientology, Branch Davidianism, and Roman Catholocism provide assurance, comfort spiritual and moral guidance to the vast majority of their followers. They also have, to greater and lesser extents at various times, numbers of really wacko followers who think they've found the one true path to the ultimate truth. Doesn't mean we then get to line them all up and ship them out of the country to whereever they or their forebearers came from regardless of what they've done as individuals. It may prove inconvenient, it may prove dangerous, But it is the law many are sworn to uphold. If you don't like it, change the law. But don't expect a lot of support from all those whose religions have their share of wacko fringe elements.
#24
Islam won't have to raise a finger to destroy your country. You'll do it yourselves.
I'm quite confident neither Islam nor any other earthly power can destroy America. We're too strong and getyting stronger by the day. Only we are strong enough to do it.
#25
Well said, LOTP. I lived in Morocco for six months in 1976. I thought the people were really friendly and nice. Some of the very poor people were very generous, even to 'wealthy' Americans. A guy came out of a shack while several of us were waiting for our driver and insisted we have tea with him. We obliged, and he was quite pleased.
Some of 'em went to Spain and blew stuff up, but I didn't know those guys. Many of them just want to live their lives and be left alone, and are not interested in jihad. Whether those folks comprise 88% or 0.88% is a matter of some debate.
I never went to Saudi Arabia; I imagine it's different.
Living among them, for six months, 30 years ago - I was impressed by their religion. Now I am depressed by the radicals who use it as an excuse to take power and control of others.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/22/2006 13:31 Comments ||
Top||
#26
We're too strong and getyting stronger by the day.
I'd argue the exact opposite. You are divided, and if some commentators here had their way, you'd be divided even further. (Which brings up an interesting question, namely, where would this division stop?)
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 14:20 Comments ||
Top||
#27
You are divided, and if some commentators here had their way, you'd be divided even further
#30
Islam is a religion. Deal with it. Billions of people take great comfort in it and have embraced it with deep conviction from cradle to grave. What is the point of squabbling over the semantics of the absolute technical meaning of religion. It is what it is. If you call a dog a duck, it's still a dog. What is your point?
#33
So true, anon. Usually you can ID them by their chosen nym, and this one does not disappoint.
So far, I've seen nothing but sniping, maybe one complete sentence, but unsubstantive across the board. A contrary little babblemonkey.
You want dialog, verba non facta? Then pin the target on yourself and post some substance.
You've justified nothing you've "asserted" - provided no facts or analysis, intelligent or otherwise - so your babble doesn't actually qualify for the term. Earn your right to question others and expect the investment of thought and effort.
Well if you say so...
I agreed with most of what lotp said, except that that last statement seemed like an odd thing to throw in there at the last minute.
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 15:34 Comments ||
Top||
#36
If one examines Shar'ia in depth, you discover that it is nothing more than an enforcement mechanism to keep the conquered cowed and submissive.
Put it that way, the reason Judeo/Christianity is a religion today is that the Pharohs of Egypt recognized a perfect Slave Religion when they saw it.
Think from a Pharohs viewpoint, "Do not strike back, turn the other cheek, do not combat "False Gods" God will do it for you, and you should work really hard to get your reward, which you only get after you're safely dead so you can't tell anyone you've been lied to.
The Pharohs must have been laughing their asses off. Free slave labor with a religion that actively helps the entrenched Rulers.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
10/22/2006 15:49 Comments ||
Top||
#37
What things promulgated by leftists are in your opinion equally dangerous and destructive?
Let's see ....
* abrogation of national identity and borders
* empowerment of government by UN / EU / similar unaccountable bureaucracies in place of representative government of accountable elected officials; i.e. deep dislike of the marketplace of ideas and a desire to control things "for peoples' own good"
* state control of firearms and a state monopoly on the possession/potential defensive use of them
* deep dislike of free market economies
* desire to destroy Western civilization and culture and a desire to impose as an alternative a coercive regime "for peoples' good"
#38
Usually you can ID them by their chosen nym, and this one does not disappoint.
It comes from this emblem, actually. You don't have to like it. I see that you are equally as creative with nym picking.
So far, I've seen nothing but sniping, maybe one complete sentence, but unsubstantive across the board...You've justified nothing you've "asserted" - provided no facts or analysis
I simply made an observation: There are some of you who would like to exclude Muslims from your military. I don't see this as anything other than an admission that Muslims cannot be true Americans. This is indeed divisive. And I cannot see how dividing yourself is supposed to make you stronger.
As to Canada, I don't think we are divided in the same manner that you appear to be in the U.S. In fact, we're too polite to do anything other than adopt lotp's point of view....most of it anyway.
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 16:18 Comments ||
Top||
#39
Well I'd love to be able to look at iit like lotp does, but I just can't. As much as it nauseates me harshness is called for.
As long as M ILLIONS support a jihad against our lifestyle society and culture and do so expressly in the name of "the ummah" of ISlam in toto, and are only rebuked in this by a small minority (who all need bodygguards and frequent relocation) I have no choice but to look askance at all things Islam.
It is undoubtedly a hardsip for patriotic muslim-americans joining the US military.
#40
Tell the Quebeçois that Canada is not divided. Or the Albertans! LOL
Re: muslims in the US military, the question in my mind isn't whether we should exclude them, but whether they will adopt and abide by our norms. Those norms include loyalty to the country and to the military oath.
If one says, "My religion prohibits me from swearing and maintaining allegiance to any secular authority", then I can respect that -- but I won't allow that person to serve in uniform or become a citizen.
What worries many here is the sanctioned practice of taqiyya - deliberate and strategic lying in order to deceive and lull the enemy who is too strong to be taken on directly. As you no doubt are aware, taqiyya is encouraged by many muslim religious leaders and has certainly be practiced to devastating effect recently, as in the numerous faked videos that were used to justify the latest decade of intifada in Palestine, that were promulgated out of Lebanon this past summer and in a lot of other documented cases.
Those who belong to a community which sanctions and encourages taqiyya cannot be trusted even if they do swear allegiance. Unfortunately, while a few muslims have spoken out to decry the effects of taqiyya on public perception of muslims, the voices have been few and weak.
#41
I can't believe I'm saying this, but considering what we know now, I have wonder if we can allow them to serve in the military like we would just any other American citizen. You have verbalized it well, lopt. It's not that there are not Muslim Americans who make great patriotic soldiers - but that as a group, they have clearly shown that their allegiance lies with their religion which shows no loyalty to country or their neighbors. Their religion swears their loyalty to killing infidels.
#42
One more thought. It is not a right to be allowed to serve in our military. You are selected as being worthy.
We do not openly gay men. We do not allow people who are too short, too tall, too dumb, too crazy, or who have made life choices that show a lack of good judgement, etc. We are in a war against militant Islam. I don't think they should be allowed to serve without quite a bit of thought going into their potential for sabotage.
Lol, no that's true - it's simply pretentious, just as it was meant to be.
.com is as anonymous as anonymous, so you're implication is asinine and absurd.
I simply made an observation
No, you didn't say that, or anything near to that. You came in with your tiny stick and poked - and you manners sucked. Who knows what you expected, but I don't much care.
Regards what follows, I use "we" here and there. Anyone who wants to disassociate themselves are perfectly free to do so.
As for Muslims who do not assimilate or even try, who continue to put their "religion" above all else (Rule 1: Muzzy First), who isolate and segregate themselves by manner, by complaints about free speech, by dress - and then whine about it, and who practice a host of other cancerous tumor behavior, the fact is that they have chosen divisive behavior. I, and many others, don't welcome them anymore. We will not be weaker for their loss, we will simply lose an irritant (at best) or implacable foes (at worst). Who cares? We don't want their cultural baggage - it has been examined, weighed, and found not only wanting, but brutal and barbaric.
the question in my mind isn't whether we should exclude them, but whether they will adopt and abide by our norms....What worries many here is the sanctioned practice of taqiyya
That's a tough nut to crack isn't it. How do you solve this problem so that at the same time you stay true to your values and all that you stand for? My personal preference would be to first give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but at the same time provide ample opportunity for anyone to demonstrate their allegiance (a way to probe for conflicting values). In other words, be inclusive and not exclusive. That way, should a conflict in values emerge, you have all the justification in the world to do what you want with that person.
The granting of Canadian citizenship takes full advantage of this, as an example (and this is only a recent change post 9/11). To be granted citizenship you must sign an agreement and affirm that you will indeed adopt and abide by our norms. Should you be discovered to support terrorism, your citizenship will be taken away and you will be booted out. This is just an example, but it demonstrates a reasonable approach, I think.
Unfortunately, while a few muslims have spoken out to decry the effects of taqiyya on public perception of muslims, the voices have been few and weak.
All the more reason to welcome and extoll those few, rather than toss them out with the rest.
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 18:05 Comments ||
Top||
#45
fnv - you're hopelessly naive. You'll always be reacting and NEVER proactive. Trust all muzzies when their leaders actively advocate lying? I don't think soooooo. I'll take the proactive means - demonstrate your loyalty and we'll talk, otherwise, by your loyalty to the ummah, you're a second-class citizen here - and should be quarantined. I foresee Relocation camps. Any propert equal in size to Dearborn, Lodi, and Lackawanna available?
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/22/2006 18:36 Comments ||
Top||
#46
you're hopelessly naive
No, you just have different values. Like I said, you're dividing yourselves even further. First it's the Muslims, then it's people like me who don't agree with you (and I'm not a Liberal, pacifist, or <insert label here>). You sure you have the numbers? Where will it stop?
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 18:45 Comments ||
Top||
#47
when will it stop? When we're (western society and culture)secure. Whether you support the Islamists or not (I don't think you do), or simply facilitate their infiltration and acceptance, you then become an accomplice. I have no issue with including you in the enemy. Naivety is no excuse on your part - you've said as much.
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/22/2006 18:51 Comments ||
Top||
#48
demonstrate your loyalty and we'll talk
For a Muslim, that would be impossible in your world. Joining the army would be a good way, but apparently they shouldn't be allowed in.
And what about Americans with dual-citizenships? Their loyalty could be questioned as well. Oops, here comes another group of second class citizens.
And don't even mention Mexican-Americans. They could have illegal aliens amongst their families. Should they be trusted?
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 18:51 Comments ||
Top||
#49
dual citizenship shouldn't be allowed - take a position and defend it. Illegals should be deported and NO anchor babies. I live in San Diego, what do you know about it? Muslims can prove their loyalty. Let them demonstrate how...and watch em. Trust, but verify. Their own religion's members have made them complicit. I'm Roman Catholic, and even though I'm only 47, I remember when the Pope's control was an issue. Why should Muslims be given a pass?
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/22/2006 19:00 Comments ||
Top||
#50
simply facilitate their infiltration and acceptance, you then become an accomplice.
Slippery slope, Frank. Do you believe in being assumed innocent until proven guilty or don't you? If you don't, then you keep bad company, sir. Say hello to your friend Hugo, Fidel, Kim, Hu, and a bunch of others.
But go ahead and change if you want to.
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 19:01 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/22/2006 19:17 Comments ||
Top||
#52
My bad: Adolf...but you knew that, didn't you?
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/22/2006 19:22 Comments ||
Top||
#53
dual citizenship shouldn't be allowed - take a position and defend it.
Dual citizenships are moot. People can renounce their other citizenship for the sake of conveniance and still have divided loyalties. Oops, another group of second class citizens: immigrants.
wow! nice company!
It's true though. If that's what you believe.
Alright then...make it only Pat Buchanan.
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 19:25 Comments ||
Top||
#54
should I have to write /sarc?
you DO NOT want to pursue this logic. It will confirm your status. Dual Citizenships are unacceptable. Anchor babies are a confirmed goal for illegals to appeal their status/deportation.
The Buchanon reference is a punkass lite version of Godwin's Law for those (you) too cowardly to offer alternatives that ACTUALLY work. As .com noted, you have not offered EFFECTIVE alternatives. Until then, good day to you.
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/22/2006 19:57 Comments ||
Top||
#55
Dual Citizenships are unacceptable.
I didn't say they were or were not. I make the claim that getting into a fit about it is useless. The only way to prevent fear of divided loyalties is to stop immigration altogether. In the context of lotp's mentioning taqiyya, you should understand why that is true. If you can accept lotp's argument, you should have no problems with mine (regarding citizenships and immigration).
you have not offered EFFECTIVE alternatives
It seems that way to you because you have a different value system, it appears. In that case, nothing I say will ever be acceptable to you. I'm against relocation camps, you're not, end of story.
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 20:28 Comments ||
Top||
#56
Put it that way, the reason Judeo/Christianity is a religion today is that the Pharohs of Egypt recognized a perfect Slave Religion when they saw it.
Think from a Pharohs viewpoint, "Do not strike back, turn the other cheek, do not combat "False Gods" God will do it for you, and you should work really hard to get your reward, which you only get after you're safely dead so you can't tell anyone you've been lied to.
You are an idiot. The age of the Pharohs was over before the emergence of Christianity. Of course Judaism was around, and the exodus out of Egypt is well documented in the scriptures. Those people were Jews, and were all over the Middle East LONG before Mo' crawled out of the desert with his made up religion.
As for all the, "turn the other cheek" stuff, it doesn't mean what you think it does.
Personally, I'm not very religious, having rejected Catholicism at an early age, along with all forms of organized religion. Say, just what was your point, anyway?
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/22/2006 20:36 Comments ||
Top||
#58
fnv -- There are few absolute guarantees short of extreme measures (relocate all muslims etc.) But that doesn't mean we should sit back, find everything hunky dory and be surprised by a major attack from within or a major act of betrayal.
I made the point earlier that the 4 year cadet experience at West Point is deliberately intense and rigorous. It's also rather competitive, while inherently demanding a lot of teamwork. Along the way, cadets are challenged to be very clear about their moral compass.
Certainly it's conceivable that some young person would be sufficiently motivated and able to hide true allegiances the whole time he or she was there. BUT ... it's not likely. Going for days on too little sleep tends to make people say what they're really thinking, for instance, and at USMA there is no such thing as skipping class to sleep in. Class attendance is a mandatory military duty as are the other aspects of the program.
On the other hand, people reconsider and change their opinions based on experience. Many here have concluded that many muslims are not to be trusted and that the risks involved are sufficiently pressing and sufficiently high that it warrants actions that will regretably harm some who are innocent. That's a conclusion based on experience via the news and in some cases personal experience as well.
Experience goes both ways. Being respected, but also challenged, in a diverse environment that places teamwork above differences is a pretty powerful experience for 18-22 year olds.
Coming to a foreign culture you've steeled yourself to find hostile and discovering that you can practice your religion without fear or disdain -- and also finding that you are respected enough that they challenge you the way they challenge their own -- can be especially formative for the foreign cadets at the Academy.
And so I am not particularly bothered by this new worship space. But that's because I know the context within which it exists. What is going on in Saudi-funded mosques in some places in the US is a very different matter and one that appropriately calls for a different response IMO.
#59
The granting of Canadian citizenship takes full advantage of this, as an example (and this is only a recent change post 9/11). To be granted citizenship you must sign an agreement and affirm that you will indeed adopt and abide by our norms. Should you be discovered to support terrorism, your citizenship will be taken away and you will be booted out.
WELL, fnv ..... Canada has been home to a number of jihadis known to have trained in the Qaida camps etc. How many have lost their citizenship? How many have been booted out?
#60
Many here have concluded that many muslims are not to be trusted and that the risks involved are sufficiently pressing and sufficiently high that it warrants actions that will regretably harm some who are innocent.
And some may see that as an overreaction by those who would revert to nothing more than a gut feeling. Fair enough. But remember that there are consequences for everything, some that are not readily apparent.
I would prefer to adopt the approach that leaves no doubt as to who is right and who is wrong. You tend not to lose allies that way.
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 21:14 Comments ||
Top||
#61
So long as you don't lose cities along the way.
#62
Canada has been home to a number of jihadis known to have trained in the Qaida camps etc. How many have lost their citizenship? How many have been booted out?
The change to the immigration act was done AFTER 9/11. It's a recent change. Anyone who obtained citizenship previously under the old Act has nothing to fear, unfortunately. Rest assured, it's different now.
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 21:18 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/22/2006 21:19 Comments ||
Top||
#64
It's a recent change.
Whose application by the courts therefore has not been tested, I take it?
It sounds great in theory but before you go boasting about how much better it is than our approach, I would like to see how it actually is interpreted and used. There's a bit of history to be overcome, I'm afraid ....
#65
So long as you don't lose cities along the way
...something that's not guaranteed either way.
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 21:21 Comments ||
Top||
#66
Whose application by the courts therefore has not been tested, I take it?
It will be when the Toronto 17 have their day in court.
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 21:22 Comments ||
Top||
#67
Toronto isn't the US, BTW - thank God. Good reason to screen more heavily entrants from the North, thanks, FNV
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/22/2006 21:32 Comments ||
Top||
#68
If it makes you feel safer, you're welcome.
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 21:35 Comments ||
Top||
#69
How is it that such pride is found in preening about how much better you are than Americans? That accomplishes what? Does it ever occur to you that we aren't going start blowing up in your busses and towns yet there are people among you plotting right now to do just that?
I guess it's so much easier to keep the discussion on how Americans aren't perfect than it is to talk about real solutions to real problems that you face.
#70
It'll help to cite when we appeal for stricter border/immigration controls on the North border, thanks :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/22/2006 21:40 Comments ||
Top||
#71
How is it that such pride is found in preening about how much better you are than Americans?
Kindly cite where I said Canadians are better than Americans. The Canadian immigration example I gave is just that, an example of what I thought was a reasonable approach to the original problem under discussion.
(BTW, stop being such cry babies. Why can't you just enjoy a good ol' fashioned cross-border mud-slinging?)
It'll help to cite when we appeal for stricter border/immigration controls on the North border
LOL :-) Dreeeeam on. We're #2 behind Mexico, and if you can't even control that part of your border, well.... Besides, there's the November 8th hurdle you gotta get over first.
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 21:54 Comments ||
Top||
#72
:-) meow.....
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/22/2006 21:54 Comments ||
Top||
#73
So then, what is your point exactly? Do you have one?
#74
And some may see that as an overreaction by those who would revert to nothing more than a gut feeling. Fair enough. But remember that there are consequences for everything, some that are not readily apparent.
I would prefer to adopt the approach that leaves no doubt as to who is right and who is wrong. You tend not to lose allies that way.
To demand that the USA be morally pure is a bar intentionally set impossibly high by the Left. There will never be a case where there is no doubt about who is right and who is wrong except in the LLL. They know that the USA is always wrong. Canadian and EU smugness fails to teach anything again. Sad really. The USA is going to end up standing alone.
Islam is an alien creed that cannot co-exist with western rationalism. Islam is either at your throat or at you feet. .com called it a virus. Anon called it a Borg religion. It is disingenuous at best and lying at worst to say that the jihadis are outside the mainstream of Islam. The Koran, the Hadith, and all of the major jurisprudence schools define violent jihad as a duty. Taqiyya and kitman are further problems. I don't see a solution. Exclusion of Muslims is not a new "further" division. They have already accomplished this themselves.
#75
What worries many here is the sanctioned practice of taqiyya - deliberate and strategic lying in order to deceive and lull the enemy who is too strong to be taken on directly. As you no doubt are aware, taqiyya is encouraged by many muslim religious leaders and has certainly be practiced to devastating effect recently, as in the numerous faked videos that were used to justify the latest decade of intifada in Palestine, that were promulgated out of Lebanon this past summer and in a lot of other documented cases.
Those who belong to a community which sanctions and encourages taqiyya cannot be trusted even if they do swear allegiance. Unfortunately, while a few muslims have spoken out to decry the effects of taqiyya on public perception of muslims, the voices have been few and weak.
lotp, I am at a loss in reconciling how you manage to continue in your defense of Muslims while knowing the above. I do not have the time to address all of the topics previously discussed over in the "Al-Qaeda is winning the war of ideas" thread in this one as well and therefore hope that you will address them, and my additional comments, over there.
#77
So then, what is your point exactly? Do you have one?
Why, yes:
Listen to your heartwhen he's calling for youListen to your heart here's nothing else you can doI don't know where you're goingand I don't know whyut listen to your heartefore you tell him [the Muslim] goodbye
(Sorry, I don't know how else to answer your question, without repeating the entire thread.)
To demand that the USA be morally pure is a bar intentionally set impossibly high by the Left.
But to ask that you maintain your current self (as much as is possible) is not.
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 22:18 Comments ||
Top||
facta Ok. So I'll assume for a moment that your comment is heartfelt. That's nice. It's always nice to be the one who points out that there are many good Muslim people. I do it all the time. Not to make myself feel special, but because I believe it. It's nice to be the one who points out that the bully is just a scared little boy masking his insecurities. Nice and heartfelt and worth considering when trying to deal with the bully. yep. Yep.
But given that we all know that many Muslim people want to live their lives in peace - I ask you - so what? They aren't the problem that we face. The problem that we face are the percentage that are crazed killers plotting to blow YOU up on the bus and yet there seems to be absolutely zero way for us to tell the difference between Mohammed the student and Mohammed the psycho.
So I guess my point is that your point nice. Worth repeating so that we remember it. But absolutely meaningless in the battle against militant Islam.
#81
Frank G, regarding the situation cited in that article....trust me, those stats that they give regarding immigration background checks are pure crap. No farking way do they get 99 percent done in six months. Try like 2 percent get done, and that's if they are rushing right along.
We are still waiting for the FBI to finally get around to verifying the Tsar's fingerprints, and we finished all of the requirements that ICE had for issuing a green card well over a year ago. It's not that they need to double check the results of a questionable nature, either. They just haven't gotten around to it, and probably won't until our newborn gets to kindergarten, either. Or maybe high school, considering how (in)efficient they are.
His case, unfortunately, is typical. I know several immigrants (not Arabic in origin, mainly Russian and Oriental) who have had to wait five years or more to get that done. Hell, if he was Arabic, it probably would have been done by now....must be politically correct, after all.
Quite frankly, the only way to get the FBI to do anything is to sue them. Again, we know people who had no other choice. They have previously asked for help from local congresscritters, and the FBI blatantly lied and said they would get right on it....after having been lied to by our government, yes, they have no other choice but to sue to force the issue.
If Ms Dirir is in the same boat, I wish her and her fellow plaintiffs success.
#85
there seems to be absolutely zero way for us to tell the difference between Mohammed the student and Mohammed the psycho
True. And I don't have the solution to this that is also consistent with my values. I merely suggested an approach that is inclusive and not exclusive, one which is admittedly based on the concept of the benefit of the doubt. This doesn't mean you have to give up on the WOT, btw.
The reason I'm so adamant is that I don't believe this would stop at Muslims, and as Liberalhawk once suggested, this kind of thing tends to attract all sorts of truly undesirable characters. Set the precedent and all bets are off.
Posted by: facta non verba ||
10/22/2006 23:24 Comments ||
Top||
#86
yeah well ok. You seem like a nice guy and all. Big heart and such. But if you ask me your point deserves the Master of the Obvious graphic. It's like I say, "you need to have a heart to deal with the problem of teenage pregnancy, but you need more than heart, you need to address the problem in a kind and heartful manner." Well then, problem solved! Thanks for the cutting edge emotions that will help get the problem solved!
#89
#36: If one examines Shar'ia in depth, you discover that it is nothing more than an enforcement mechanism to keep the conquered cowed and submissive.
Put it that way, the reason Judeo/Christianity is a religion today is that the Pharohs of Egypt recognized a perfect Slave Religion when they saw it.
Think from a Pharohs viewpoint, "Do not strike back, turn the other cheek, do not combat "False Gods" God will do it for you, and you should work really hard to get your reward, which you only get after you're safely dead so you can't tell anyone you've been lied to.
The Pharohs must have been laughing their asses off. Free slave labor with a religion that actively helps the entrenched Rulers.
Historically inaccurate I'm afraid, RD. "Turn the other cheek" is a Christian thing, not a Jewish one. In fact, that the Hebrew slaves clung to their god even when enslaved was revolutionary for the time. The Pharohs apparently felt threatened by this, finding it necessary to kill off male Hebrew infants to reduce the threat. In those days it was assumed that if a group was conquered or enslaved it was because their god was not strong enough to protect them, so they went over to the god of the people that ruled over them. This, indeed, is assumed to be what happened to the Israelites of the Ten Lost Tribes, when the Kingdom of Israel was conquered and its inhabitants carried off into exile.
Nor has concern about the rewards/punishments of the afterlife ever much concerned the Jews, being much more interested in achieving the maximum of justice and mercy in this life... hence the disproportionate Jewish representation in both Law and Medicine.
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.
Taliban supreme leader Mulla Mohammad Omar said on Saturday that his fighters would step up attacks on foreign forces in the coming months, which will surprise many. “With the grace of Allah the fighting will be increased manifold and it would be much more organised. Our previous predictions about attacks were not incorrect,” Mulla Omar said in his “Eid” message. “I am confident that the fighting will be a surprise for many. I advise the Mujahideen to maintain unity in their ranks as rift in their ranks affected jihad against the former Soviets,” he said in a two-and-half page Pashtun language message, issued by a Taliban spokesman in Afghanistan and received through email here. 
Servicepersons and Pyongyangites 
French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said that despite recent tensions, France and the United States would always be united whenever their essential liberties were threatened. While the two countries may at times have conflicting interests, she said Friday, "each time that the essential, that is, liberty, democracy and the security of our people, was at stake, we were always together."
Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk is in favour of imposing a ban on the wearing of a burka in public spaces. The Liberal VVD told MPs on Thursday night the face-covering clothing is a symbol of division (between the West and Islam) and was not in harmony with the integration of Muslims and the emancipation of women.
Germany's president Horst Koehler has appealed to Muslims in the country to feel like Germans, not immigrants. 
Authorities in Munich banned Friday a neo-Nazi rally that had been planned for next month's 68th anniversary of the start of nationwide Nazi mob violence against Jews. 
Sailors could be turned into infantry soldiers under a new plan the Canadian military is considering to keep fresh troops headed to Afghanistan. Military planners are looking at several possibilities to avoid sending soldiers to the country more than once. 
Israel has no aggressive intentions towards Iran, Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres said on Saturday, after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert cautioned Tehran it would pay a price for pursuing its nuclear ambitions. "We must never consider such a thing," Peres told Channel Two television when asked if he would support an independent Israeli military strike against Iran if other nations failed to curb its uranium enrichment programme. Israel has never shown aggressive intentions (towards Iran) -- it has none. I don't think we have to, or can, deal with this issue," he said, cautioning that Israel could face international isolation if it attacked Iran.
RUSSIA would oppose any effort to use the UN Security Council to promote a change of regime in Iran, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an interview published today. "We cannot support and will actively oppose any attempt to use the Security Council to punish Iran or to use Iran's nuclear program in order to promote the idea of regime change'' in Tehran, Mr Lavrov said in the transcript of an interview with the Kuwaiti news agency KUNA, released by the Russian foreign ministry. 
