He has been fêted by China, Iran, Russia and Ken Livingstone. He has used rising oil revenues to buy support in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and America.
But on Sunday President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela was checked in his drive to create an anti-American bloc south of the Rio Grande: his preferred candidate in the Peruvian presidential election, Ollanta Humala, was soundly defeated by Alan García.
Mr Chávez had hoped that Mr Humala, a Left-wing populist, would bring Peru into the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, a regional group conceived as a counterweight to the Washington-backed Free Trade Area of the Americas.
Continued on Page 49
#1
I wonder if Hugo sees himself as a tub thumper. If the Revolution hits the Canal, the 82d AA will go back to Panama. No doubt. That should be interesting to watch given the current media hysterics.
A letter staked through the heart of the dying film director Theo van Gogh began: Open letter to Hirsi Ali. So the men in black detailed to protect todays special guest were bound to be twitchy.
The Dutch home secretary sent her a letter informing her she never has been a Dutch citizen. A refugee for the second time in her 36 years, she is resigning from the Dutch parliament and moving to America.
Van Goghs murderer promised Ali torture and agony. So, I suggest at our secret rendezvous in the Hague, surely those evil prayers have been answered.
Continued on Page 49
From Jewish World Review online
By Caroline B. Glick
Because of the defiant, irrational and immoral refusal of Western political, cultural and media elites to acknowledge the threat that internal and external jihadist forces manifest to the very notion of human freedom, they make it impossible for their societies to take measures to protect themselves.
Allegedly spurred on by images of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, and angered by what they saw as the mistreatment of Muslims at home, they became increasingly aggressive in their beliefs, according to media reports.
This is how London's Sunday Telegraph explained the decision of 17 Canadian Muslims to stockpile three tons of ammonium nitrate and plot acts of war against their country. These men all Muslims who reportedly planned to blow up the headquarters of Canada's Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in Toronto, are what Canadian officials refer to as "home-grown terrorists," and products of the "jihad generation." Before their arrests on Friday, they had never visited Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq or the Palestinian Authority. They chose the path of jihad in the streets and mosques of Toronto. They learned how to build bombs from the Internet. They trained for their mission in a training camp in Ontario.
Like the Telegraph, most media reports claim that these men were prompted to wage a war against their country because they believe that their fellow Canadians are launching war against Islam. But why would they think this? Canadians are outspoken in their anti-Americanism. They have contributed generously to the Palestinians. It only took the Canadian government a few weeks after the Palestinian elections to announce it would fund a Hamas-led PA. Canadians overwhelmingly oppose the US-led war in Iraq and President George W. Bush.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/06/2006 17:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A GOP-CONSERVATIVE will support SOCIALISM as a last-ditch, ideally temporary resort to solve national issues-probs: DEMOLEFTIES do it as a matter of course, supporting everything, anything, and nothing that promotes and entrenches Universal Governmentism. THE GLITCH IS WHAT DO THE PEOPLE GET BACK ONCE THE WAR IS WON, AS THERE ARE THOSE WHOM PREFER TO SEE THE WAR IS EITHER NEVER WON, NO EVER-ENDING!?
The arrests of 17 Toronto-area Muslim men - allegedly intent on blowing up such southern Ontario targets as CN Tower, Parliament and the Toronto Stock Exchange - led to some Nancy Kerrigan "why me?" moments among Canadians.
Folks here think that targeting Canadians is like gunning for the Care Bears. A mere flash of a Canadian flag on our backpacks is supposed to make people from all over the world want to hug, feed and clothe us.
The reaction to what might've been the biggest terrorist attack in North America was the same when Osama bin Laden, and more recently, the Taliban's Mullah Dadullah threatened Canada: Surely they didn't mean it. After all, no country is more diverse and tolerant than Canada. And no city within Canada is more Muslim-loving and liberal than Toronto; the provincial government even considered sanctioning oppressive Muslim Sharia law. Want to live in a ghetto with your peeps and not have to integrate with your fellow Canadians? Toronto is the place for you.
Continued on Page 49
#2
Speaking as a Londoner, Get over it and give them no quarter in future. Starting a deportation programme may be an idea.. you'll have more balls than us if you do.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/06/2006 8:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Canada's Cry; Why Us? because your infidel get use to it.
#6
The question reveals ignorance. There are still people in this world who believe the muzzies do things for a reason. There's no cause and effect to their thinking, Canucks. The're just evil f*cks.
#14
Umm, I got new for you guys north of the border. The islamonuts hate tolerance, diversity, multiculturalism and most of all religious freedom.
What ever made you think, like France, that they don't want to kill you too? Welcome to the party, we saved you a seat.
#17
"Why us ... why CANADA?" Becuz the WOT IS A DE FACTO WAR FOR CONTROL OF THE WORLD, AMONGST OTHER THINGYS, AND "THE WORLD" INCLUDES CANADA WHETHER CANADIANS LIKE IT OR NOT. The Socialists-Commies and Left-dominated Globalists have their OWG and "International/Global Proletarian Revolutions", the Chicoms have their 1/2-plus of CONUS-NORAM, which includes Canada, and the Radical Muslims have their GLOBAL CALIPHATE = GLOBAL ISLAMIC/MUSLIM STATE, which includes Canada again. BOTH CANADA-MEXICO were also part of the global "HUGGING THE BELT/WAIST" anti-US-NATO warfighting strategems of the COLD WAR USSR-CHINA, AND STILL ARE. RUSSIA vv Gorby-Yeltsin-Putin Doctrine reserves its unilateral and unconditinal right to use any means necessary, including MILITARY FORCE, to protect the lives of Russian-Soviet citizens and EMIGRES' AROUND THE WORLD - Radical Islamist cells are in Canada for a reason, and again "the World" includes Canada and everyone else, NOT JUST AMERICA.
They arrested seventeen alleged Islamist terrorists in and around Toronto on Saturday, most of them young and Canadian-born. They had bought three tons of ammonium nitrate, and are accused of planning to bomb targets in southern Ontario. Shock! Horror! How could this happen here?
Thought Canada refused to take part in the US invasion of Iraq, it does have several thousand troops in Afghanistan, and Ottawa is actively seeking closer ties to the US. Enough, perhaps, to motivate a bunch of radicalized young Muslim-Canadians who couldnt reach non-Canadian targets anyway.
Any terrorist attack on Canada is bound to be homegrown, because there is no shadowy but powerful network of international terrorists waging a war against the West. There are isolated small groups of extremists who blow things up once in a while, and there are websites and other media through which they can exchange ideas and techniques, but there is no headquarters, no chain of command, no organization that can be defeated, dismantled and destroyed.
Continued on Page 49
#3
Whoever is writing the propaganda now is really bad. Even the north koreans do much better than this. This must be the same guy that wrote that other piece.
#4
"Never was much of an International Islamist 'terrorist network' - WRONG, as both the COld War NATO-WARPACT Blocs knew decades ago the 1979 Iranian Revolution was heavily influenced and instigated by ideologues or adherents dedicated to both militant, anti-Western Radical Islamism, and ditto hardline or militant Marxism-Communism. THE USDOD, US INTEL, and NATO KNEW AND BELIEVED THAT AN INTEGRATED, PRO-MARXIST ISLAMIST NETWORK WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME, ESPEC GIVEN THE HIGH TO PROHIBITIVE LEVEL(S) OF ASSISTANCE THE FORMER USSR WAS GIVING RADICAL-ANARCHIST MARXIST IRANIAN GROUPS. Remember the Palestinian Liberation Front's, etal. violent efforts to usurp and control the Palestinian cause from Arafat's PLO and other local groups -the PLF wilfully launched extensive, typically bloody attacks and murder campaigns against any Pals group in favor of, or at least tolerant of, of collusion wid the US-NATO for Pals rights, including tolerant or moderate Pals MARXIST pro-Soviet groups. THE BOLSHEVIKS WERE INITIALLY
"HOMEGROWN", AS WERE THE MAOIST CHICOMS. THE GWOT > THE "STATUS QUO", COLD WAR OR POST COLD-WAR/PRE9-11, IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE FOR AMERICA'S = WEST'S ENEMIES. THE GWOT, REGARDLESS OF APPEARANCES, AND HOWEVER PERFECTLY OR IMPERFECTLY FOUGHT BY ANY SIDE, IS A DE FACTO WAR TO THE [INEVITABLE] DEATH! To "Ignore It" = Armistice/Stalemate = will kill youse later.
#7
Sometimes not doing much is the right thing to do. Not doing too much would have been the right response in 2001, too.
You mean kinda like Jimmy Carter? Dim the national Christmas tree? Boycott the Olympics? Put the flags at half mast?
He don't live here no more. I prefer killing the bastards. Preferably, where they live.
#8
The correct course would have been to invade Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan, seize the oil wells and behead who we want, including the Arab News, and chase the rest off to die in the desert. Either that or apply Mohammed's solution for the Qurayshi Jews. Take your pick, Wahabi assholes.
Posted by: ed ||
06/06/2006 16:02 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"The right goal was not to fall into Osama Bin Ladens trap ..." Is the trap where we lose because Bin Laden must hide in a cave to survive? Very clever these Arabs. ROFL.
#10
He's not an Arab. He's Canadian. I remember his series "War" on PBS back in the 80's. Wasn't too impressed with it as I remember and he was a pompous know it all windbag...
#12
MYWAY.com reports that the 17 had planned to take hostages and behead the Canadian PM + others. HOW CAN SOMEONE, EVEN MCKENZIE BROS-LOVING CANADIANS, IGNORE DECAPITATIONS??? DRUDGE also reports on the CBSNEWS.com article where US officials believe the the agenda of the Canadian 17 may had been a pretext for wider attacks across North America - read, USA. Radical Islamic leaders are allegedly calling on worldwide cells and mainstream supporters to arm themselve andor stockpile weapons in case America ignore the UNO and attacks Iran or Syria."America must submit to Islam", or words to that effect. FTLG, STAY ARMED. TEACHER YOUR WOMEN AND DAWGS TO FIGHT AND SHOOT "CUZ THE SECULAR AND GOD-BASED LEFTIES-ANARCHISTS ARE COMING!
For many Canadians, especially those in the Greater Toronto Area, the most understandable emotions this week are fear and mistrust, prompted by the stunning arrests late Friday of 12 men and five youths on terror-related charges, allegedly linked with plots to attack unspecified targets in Toronto and across southern Ontario.
Not that they're justified, of course. It was only three tons of potential explosive and a few firearms and such. Nothing serious...
News of the arrests sparked front-page headlines around the world, tarnishing Toronto's image as a safe city immune to terrorism.
Y'know, I never had that image of Toronto. The image I had was one of a city run by Marshmallow People, living in a dream world...
Adding to the unease were police comments that those arrested had enough explosive material to build a bomb three times the size of the one used in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 in which 168 people died.
Shucks. Why would that cause anybody unease?
Yet, in this intense climate in which suggestions that radical Islamic fundamentalism plays a part in this case, it is vital for all residents to show restraint, to let the justice system work as it should, and to avoid prejudging members of south Asian or Arab descent, or those who are Muslims.
I'm not sure anybody is. There are lots of people preparing excuses for them, or trying to poke holes in the case, if only by innuendo. One might even suggest to them that they let the case play out and get the facts, rather than what they want to be the facts.
Unfortunately, such restraint may have been broken Saturday night when vandals struck a Toronto mosque.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
06/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
we all will be compelled to draw upon the best of what Canada has represented over the decades/EM>
Accurate rifle fire.
Posted by: Matt ||
06/06/2006 8:14 Comments ||
Top||
#2
PIMF
Posted by: Matt ||
06/06/2006 8:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Run 'em all or prepare to pay the price. It isn't just the Great Satan the Muzzies hate--it's everyone who isn't THE RIGHT KIND OF MUZZY. Guess what, Canucks? You aren't and sucking up to those who would kill you because of it won't make you safe.
Posted by: mac ||
06/06/2006 9:02 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"Oooh! They're gonna go crazy and start stringing up muslims!"
#5
After the arrests Friday, the biggest challenge for politicians and security forces is to win the support of moderate Muslims
Granted to completely eliminate this scourge, the moderate Muslims cant be marginalized as part and parcel of a collective threat. But the logic behind this Hearts and Minds approach fails on its own merit. Why should their support be a challenge in the least? Are they not like other rational humans that are outraged by terrorists within their midst? In fact, should they not be more outraged by the radicalized bunch that hijacks their religion for their twisted ideology? Ironically opinions like this actually counter their stated intent. This logic only reinforces that somehow Muslims, as a whole, are somehow different from the rest of civilized society and require distinct rules of community behavior and interaction. And frankly, given the reactions after events like these, one has to wonder if that isn't indeed the case.
Congress is in the midst of the most dramatic overhaul of our nations immigration laws in 80 years. So why is hardly anyone asking the basic question: How might this affect government costs?
In the case of the immigration bill passed in the Senate, a measure sponsored by Senators Mel Martinez (R.-Fla.) and Chuck Hagel (R.-Neb.), we have an answer: It would raise them substantially.
The bill would grant amnesty to about 10 million illegal immigrants and put them on a path to citizenship. Once they become citizens, the net additional cost to the federal government of benefits for these individuals will be around $16 billion per year. The bill would also spur a rapid new flow of low-skill immigrants with its program for guest workers (for life, that is) and other provisions.
Posted by: P. W. Herman ||
06/06/2006 12:06 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I hope a few people wake up and pay attention to this. This is the most monumentual piece of BS ever legislated. It is staggering in it's stupidity and ability to undermine the US government as it has existed for more then two centuries. Every single one of these asses who has concocted this abomination should be thrown out. There are a special few whom I'd personally love to reach out and rip their heads off..Kennedy, McClain, Hegel, Martinez, Frist, Graham..you know them well. They are traitors to all US citizens.
Note that legal immigrants often have to have a sponsor - and in many cases (at lest for a fiancee visa) the sponsor must sign a Affadavit of Support saying that they will support the person until that person has been working for 10 years as long as they are in america.
If the immigrant signs up for welfare or any other 'means tested' program the Feds can go after the sponsor for the money.
Illegal aliens would not have a sponsor.
In other words the illegal aliens get yet-another-reward for violating our borders and breaking our laws. They get to cut-in-line in front of the law abiding people who are patently waiting for their visa AND they can sign up for welfare without having to worry about having someone else pay for it.
By Richard Baehr
The rubber chicken circuit can be brutal. So one of the best indicators of how likely it is that a potential candidate will in fact run for national office is how much effort he expends to campaign for his party's candidates in the Congressional election two years before the presidential race.
Tomorrow night, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani will be in Chicago. He will be here for a fundraiser for Dave McSweeney, the Republican candidate for the 8th Congressional District in Illinois. While there are a few dozen endangered GOP incumbents around the country, McSweeney's race may represent one of the best pickup opportunities for the GOP in 2006, as he tries to unseat first-term Democratic Congresswoman Melissa Bean in a district that President Bush captured with 56% of the vote in 2004.
Giuliani is also providing support for other GOP Congressional and Senate candidates, as well as to Ralph Reed, the GOP candidate for Lieutenant Governor in Georgia. Giuliani has been a busy man since he left office in New York at the end of 2001. He has consulted with municipalities on how they can reduce their crime rates, created an investment banking firm, associated with a Texas law firm, and given lots of speeches. At age 62, he appears to be happily married, financially successful and cured of the prostate cancer that forced him out of the 2000 US Senate race in New York against Hillary Clinton.
Many of Giuliani's talks are on the topic of leadership. Democrats have run on the issue of competence several times in recent decades, and not very competently. Michael Dukakis' "Massachusetts miracle" did not resonate nationally, in part due to the frozen fish personality of the former Massachusetts governor. John Kerry also campaigned on competence, but could not articulate how his approach would be different from the President's on Iraq, the issue where his critique of Bush's competence rang loudest.
Continued on Page 49
#3
It won't be easy for him to get some of his personal history and issues on social stands past the GOP primary electorate. If he can pull that off, he'd have comparatively smooth sailing in the general election
#5
What do Republicans want more: to capture the "social issues" right or to capture a majority of American votes for the presidency of 2008?
If it's the latter-if they want to pick another winner-then Rudy would be a fabulous choice. Probably the best choice. Not thrilled about his gun control stance, but in most other areas, I think he is a solid, believable centrist candidate with great security credentials. That would keep my presidential vote Republican.
#6
I have been a good Republican my whole life, but I WILL NOT vote for Rudy. His stance on gun control is totally unacceptable and precludes my support. In a Clinton vs. Giuliani election I will scream A pox upon both your houses! and vote Libertarian.
#8
SM, I understand your frustration but I think john66 makes the point. NRA too strong (I'm a lifetime member btw). I'm sure he will have to come way right on guns and he knows it. Actually a lot of moderate dems don't like either of their gun stances. It's only the loonies on the far left who keep it an issue. Guns is usually a non-issue among non-gun owners.
#9
Secret Master, the President cannot change the Constitution so his stance on gun ownership is not as big a deal as you think.
You should ensure the Congress agrees with your stance on gun ownership and your state elected officials because they are the only ones who can truly change things.
Sorry I can't remember the date and author, but someone quoted some evangelical ladies after a presentation by Giuliani to this effect: None of the social issues will matter if America is not safe.
#11
Seeing what I'll probably have to pick from, I'd vote for him. I don't agree with with on every issue but just seeing how he pulled New York out of that cesspool it had become would've been good enough for me. And the man can lead.
#12
While I understand the point that all of you are making, for me gun control is a Martin Luther issue. As in, Here I stand; I can do no other. The president sets the tone on social issues in nation. While I understand the importance of a strong leader in uncertain times, Giuliani and I arent playing on the same team. Hell, we arent even playing the same sport.
For me, being a Republican is kind of like being a libertarian with the happy advantage that Im not insane. For example, you cant convince me that an unborn child is just tissue or that we dont need a military. Other than that, government is a parasite with very little appreciable value. Im a Nevada mind your own business or else Republican. Wanna smoke a joint and shoot up copies of Koran with a machine gun while reading porn? So long as you do it on your own property, not my business. Giuliani is a New York do what youre told or else Republican. Hell thrown your ass in jail for AT LEAST three out of four of those things because, in his opinion, everything you do is societys business.
Honestly, the two types of Republican (libertarian vs. statist) dont have that much in common outside of our mutual support for an aggressive, military-backed foreign policy and a belief in the free enterprise system. But without a functioning version of the constitution our Founding Fathers created, whats the point? Rudy doesnt give a damn about the Bill of Rights and his judicial appointments wont either!
#13
It would be good if social conservatives could pick a couple of their most important issues and have him pledge not to cross certain red lines - a pledge to appoint strict constructionists to the federal bench would be an obvious one. More conservative Republicans might vote for him if they got a sense that there wouldn't be any regression on those things that they consider crucial - especially when they would be expecting regress should the Democrat win. Under those circumstances, most Republicans would feel that a "pox on both houses" vote from someone who usually votes Republican would be, in essence, a vote for the Dems. Maybe a good VP nomination would help win social conservatives over. I would find it personally satisfying if he chose John Bolton for VP - I would certainly enjoy the reactions - but since he has good WoT creds, that would probably be a silly choice.
#14
Rudy is unelectable. The prostate cancer issue will kill him politically. The Doinks need only whisper 'cancer'.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/06/2006 16:49 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I think his hanky-panky, not cancer, would do him in.
Posted by: ed ||
06/06/2006 17:11 Comments ||
Top||
#16
By 2012 Sept 11 will be too far in the past and those issues will kill him (for now I think he'll get a pass). If he wants to run 2008 is his only chance.
#18
Straw poll in Michigan is putting Tom Tancredo in first. Love him on immigration, but where does he fit overall on the political spectrum? Super right on every issue? Only right on immigration? Any Colorado folks care to chime in?
#21
For me, among established politicians, only Rudy generates confidence that the three fronts in the WoT would be prosecuted and taken to the next level:
1) We must call Islam the problem - out loud and very publicly. Demand they reform it, isolate the jihadists, or go down with them. We have to take this step, else we lose - fighting ghosts and phantoms.
2) We must attack the funding and safe harbor centers of Islam. The funding from "charity" networks, the Mullahs, the Saudis, and the Pakistan / Malaysia / Indonesia harbors. All must be made front-burner villians from the bully pulpit. All must be stopped, by whatever means necessary, or this goes on forever.
3) We must prosecute the internal war against the subversive leakers, the outlaw activists who wear the robes of the law, the social-engineering enemies who want open borders and indoctrinate our children into moonbat cults. We need someone who knows the law, believes in the law, and will prosecute according to the law. Either we believe in what we claim to be, and act accordingly, or we bleed to death from "a thousand cuts".
And people like Rice, Bolton, Tancredo would make excellent VP's.
Every election is crucial. We can't afford to take 4 years off in the WoT. The rest of it, including some individual issues that ring the bell personally, have to take a back seat to the one that is for our very existence.
#23
Of the potential Republican candidates in 2008 put forward thus far, the only two I would seriously consider voting for at the moment are Condi and Rudy.
Part of me wants to see Condi win the Republican nomination just so I can watch all the LLL's heads explode. A woman who is also a minority running as a Republican, and a formiddable opponent to boot, will send them all into a tizzy of the likes we've never seen before.
The other part of me wants Rudy to get the nod just so I can cast my vote his way with more conviction than any Presidential vote in my 13 years as a voter.
#24
#15 I think his hanky-panky, not cancer, would do him in.
Ed does have a point on this one. I live in a Seattle-area congressional district represented by a lefty Democrat who defeated a Republican incumbent several years back. The Pubbie was a prominent Seattle lawyer and big "family values" guy who made the reeeeally unfortunate mistake of bringing his twentysomething cutesypoo extracurricular activity to a number of public functions in the district.
Now, Democrat/lefty women don't give much of a rat's ass about this if the guy makes the right noises on policy - remember the radical feminist who said she'd be perfectly happy to polish Bill Clinton's knob out of gratitude because he "kept abortion legal"? Republican women ain't like that at all...as my district's Repub now-former congressman found out to his great chagrin, they actually take stuff like that both very seriously and very personally. A friend of mine told me that once this guy's hanky-panky became public knowledge, the district's Republican women manned the jungle telegraph to get the word out - this guy says his wife personally cost the congressman at least a dozen votes.
That being said, I think that Rudy would still have a very good chance of winning both the nomination and the presidency, messy personal life aside. Republican women don't like philanderers, but I think they'll grit their teeth and support someone with a proven track record of getting horrendously difficult shit done and done right. Newt Gingrich? Fuhgeddaboudit...to the Republican woman, his achievements as the conservative movement's ideas guy are counterbalanced by his disgraceful treatment of both his first and second wives. Rudy's behavior was similar - he went out of his way to publicly humiliate his wife in his last years as NY mayor. But the Republican woman will compare that with the indisputable fact that he singlehandedly saved a city that everyone assumed was doomed to be an American Calcutta. And they'll decide that the man capable of doing that would be capable of keeping them and their families safe in the years ahead.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
06/06/2006 23:26 Comments ||
Top||
By Shireen M Mazari
The US may claim that it has de-linked its relationship with India from that with Pakistan, but ironically, its policies relating to India now impact Pakistan's security concerns as never before and US government representatives continue to identify common security issues for Pakistan and India. In the context of the former, much has already been written in this column earlier on the direct security threat that the US-India nuclear deal poses to Pakistan, which will provide safeguarded US nuclear fuel for India's civil reactors and thereby liberate a large quantity of un-safeguarded Indian fissile material from these reactors. This can now be diverted to weapons production, allowing India to stockpile a vast nuclear arsenal.
In the context of the US constantly linking Pakistan and India in terms of regional security policies, we have now seen General Peter Pace, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a visit to New Delhi, urging Pakistan and India to work together to fight the Taliban. What was General Pace implying, given that India shares no border with Afghanistan and the highly questionable presence of Indian forces in Afghanistan is already a source of a security threat for Pakistan? Does he actually seek a more enlarged Indian military presence in Afghanistan? If so, is he truly unaware of the security dilemma and threat that would pose to Pakistan?
He also indulged Indian commanders as they apparently briefed him on New Delhi's concerns regarding Pakistan's Afghan policy. Now why should Pakistan's Afghan policy be a source of concern for India? Do we voice our concerns, of which there are many, to the US regarding India's Nepal policy, especially in the historical context of India's territorial expansion in the neighbourhood? And are we to actually believe General Pace's naiveté when he remarked that the Indians brought to his attention, "that the Taliban has sanctuaries in Pakistan"? Or was he actually using the Indians to voice his own accusations? Interestingly, while he declared that "Pakistan's President Musharraf is fighting hard to clear those territories" (that is, the so-called sanctuaries), the Pakistan army and state's efforts in this fight against terrorism was totally ignored.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john ||
06/06/2006 19:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad
One of her "research assistants" was involved in the ISI honeypot trap of the British military attache in Islamabad.
Posted by: john ||
06/06/2006 22:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Then she needs to be on a Pr0n mailing list for research purposes. Also subscriptions to their services..
By Vikram Sood
Different states react differently to similar situations. When Israel is subjected to terrorist attacks, which is very often, the State reacts immediately and with force each time. In India, two days after Pakistan-backed terrorists kill innocent civilians in Srinagar, we send an official delegation to talk about cooperation in the war against terrorism with the sponsors of terrorism. There is no pretence of postponing the meeting. It is as incongruous as the London Police seeking the help of Jack the Ripper to find Jack the Ripper.
The Iranians, too, have a lesson to teach. As the world watches, they have shown that if you know what you want, you have the rules on your side and have the courage to stand up to all pressures, the other side will ultimately blink first. One does not have to roll over and play dead at the first opportunity.
Talking with the Pakistanis about curbing terrorism is a dialogue of the deaf. We say stop the violence; they agree, but say that Indian security forces must stop killing innocents. We say stop the infiltration; they demand the withdrawal of Indian troops. We call it terrorism; they call it a freedom struggle. When a terrorist is killed, they call him a martyr. They glorify their suicide terrorists by calling them fidayeen; alas, unthinkingly we do likewise.
Meanwhile, Pakistan has no intention of rolling back its jehadi infrastructure. This is a vital low-cost weapon they have. So the embers are kept bur ning with vicious anti-India, anti-Israel and anti-US campaigns that get detailed coverage in the thriving jehadi press. The campaign to curtail the jehadi outfits and control madrassas is an elaborate charade.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john ||
06/06/2006 16:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
And of course, it was all their fault. For an interview with one of the Israeli pilots, go here.
As part of a series marking 25 years since Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, former Iraqi nuclear scientist Dr Imad Khadduri speaks to the BBC News website:
"We had just finished a day's shift work and were back at our homes around 1800 [1500 GMT] that day. I heard the explosions all the way from my home, which is about 25km (16 miles) away.
I ran to the roof for a better view, and witnessed the smoke plumes rising from the area of the Tuwaitha Research Centre [where the Osirak reactor was located] and watched the Israeli planes flying west into the sunset.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
"All I could think about, what consumed my very being, was the cardboard box the lithium discs had been shipped in, down in the cool dry basement where the stray Aliyah, we named her Aliyah, had chosen to have her kittens. I didn't have the heart to tell my children, but they could see my tormented soul, the terrible grief in my face. We sat down and cried, together, for hours - murmuring their names in hushed tones."
I'm thinking the Dark and Stormy Night graphic would work.
#4
T'is more indicia-evidencias, AGAIN, that POTUS Bill Clinton's Admins. + Sanctions + UNIAEA/UNMOVIC failed utterly to stop or AT LEAST DE-MOTIVATE Saddam from researching andor dev nukes or nuke-potential dual-use capabilities.
A dear colleague of mine, who is now teaching as a Professor in nuclear and theoretical physics at Baghdad University, is in need of physics codes that may be used as tools for post-graduate students to do their research projects in nuclear reactions, nuclear models, gamma transitions, gamma attenuation, radiation dosimetry, etc..., as all the previous codes were lost after April 2003.
If you know any colleagues who may be using such codes, preferably running on a Pentium Desktop, and are willing to send them (along with the programming language used, such as Fortran), please inform me to arrange for their delivery.
It would be very much appreciated.
All the best
Imad Khadduri
[*This post about nuclear physics codes +sure perked up my interest about a month ago. And plz take the time and read other posts of his.
NOTE: Dr. Imad Khadduri is a commited Batthist and one of Saddam's loyal subjects who accordinly hates Israel, America and the UK with a passion.
Nice to know that the BBC absolutely adores the good evil Dr. and lets him have all the ink he wants! [Brown nose shirt media*]
-------------------------------
*
I've challenged this asshole several times in his own public forums, in fact in writing, within his own blog comments section; But he refuses my challenge altogether by deleting my comments just as soon as I post them.
When Dr. Paul Heberle was arrested last April, dozens of chronic pain patients were left in agony. One of Heberle's patients called no fewer than 37 doctors seeking careall of whom refused to see him once he revealed the name of his prior provider. Finally, Robert Holmes, a 40-year-old man who suffers from a lung injury and requires supplemental oxygen to breathe, resorted to visiting a methadone clinic for drug addicts. He was turned away there, too. More than twenty others reported similar experiences at a meeting of patients affected by the arrest. Six would later attempt suicide.
For many patients, the situation was devastatingly familiar. Heberle had agreed to care for many of them after their previous physician was arrested and then convicted on some of the same charges that Heberle now faced: illegal prescribing of narcotics. That doctor, David Klees, got 12 to 24 years in prison. This time, however, the government would find it wasn't so easy to railroad a pain doctor.
In the last five yearssince a media panic over prescription drug abuse began with law-enforcement-driven reports of an "Oxycontin epidemic"dozens of doctors have been prosecuted for "overprescribing" painkillers. The Justice Department and the DEA have pushed this aggressive new campaign in the war on drugs.
Continued on Page 49
#1
It's sad to think that this kind of thing still goes on. I remember when my dad was terminal and needed opiates to deal with the pain. One of his doctors was reluctant to give him morphine because he might get "addicted". (Keep in mind that he had only weeks to live according to this medical genius.)
Good for Dr Heberle and Dr Fisher that they won against the DEA. I hope their patients find another doctor who doesn't suffer from rectal cranial insertion and gets them the medical help they need.
#2
My wife has chronic pain (to the point of debilitating) and still not fully diagnosed. Her headache specialist told her flat-out that he will no longer prescribe any pain meds stronger that ibuprofen. She's getting similar reluctance from other doctors for severe abdominal pain. And it's not like she was an addict, either.
Now, she spends most of her time sitting or lying down to try to minimize the worst pain triggers, while very little gets done around the house.
I loathe the DEA and the spineless politicians who let them get away with this BS.
#3
Reverse side of the story. The husband of my ex's good friend became addicted to painkillers and he managed to get prescriptions from three or four different doctors to keep himself supplied.
#4
xbalanke: Is your wife's chronic pain due to Fibromyalgia? I recommend Dr. Nancy Selfridge's book, "Freedom from Fibromyalgia." Pain used to flatten me for half a day every day; I now manage on naproxen and exercise.
#5
For patients with terminal illness, Hospice has made dramatic improvements in quality of life. My mother passed away last October after years of breast cancer metastasized to the bone. Hospice made her last two years comfortable and a blessing. I know, that's an unusually long time to be on hospice's case load; Mother had an 8 month period of slow cancer growth that she used to make her peace with Christ and everybody else.
#6
This is a prime reason the small ell Libertarian are right. The government should not be in the business of "drug enforcement". I would say people have a right to a pain free (real cronic pain) life. These pain killers are not the only under prescribed drugs eitehr. The Government doesn't belong between you and your Dr's care. Shut the DEA down and transfer them all to the Border Patrol.
#7
Sorry, SPOD; you're wrong about the importance of the DEA. Our community has hellacious alcohol and prescription drug abuse problems at the high school, and poor man's drugs in our lunch-pail, used car neighborhood that has 20% County Housing. The case mentioned in this article has nothing to do with my little neighbor whose brother has gone to jail several times for dealing. There are three moms in this neighborhood who are trying to look out for this little girl.
THe article here speaks of one particular class of Govt. bureaucracy gone amok. We still need the agents who keep poison out of kids' hands.
#8
mom: Thanks for the tip. Unfortunately, my wife's pains are caused by frequent, intractable headaches of unknown origin (not true migraines) and GI endometrial implants (cleaned out several times), kidney stones (non-operable), and diverticulosis/diverticulitis or some combination of all of the above. Fibromyalgia and CA are some of the few things that have been ruled out.
#10
I had frequent, intractable headaches of unknown origin for decades. Variously diagnosed as "sinus" "migrane" and "cluster," they went totally away after I had a VP shunt put in my head after a rather severe stroke and resultant coma. The shunt went in to reduce my intracranial pressure to normal. That was 3 years and NO HEADACHES ago. Now I walk a little funny (and get tired) due to the lingering effects of the stroke but I have zero headaches. Ziltch. Nada. It was the most incredable feeling to be headache free after decades with them. I don't reccommend the stroke but having normal ICP reduced my headaches to zero.
During its 20th-century struggles for world domination, international communism periodically benefited from the naivete and willful ignorance of some in the Western media, who foolishly portrayed totalitarians as agrarian reformers and social democrats. During the 1930s, for example, New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for a series of articles falsely depicting Soviet dictator Josef Stalin as a reformer while ignoring his responsibility for the murders of tens of millions of people. Similarly, beginning in the late 1950s, New York Times reporter Herbert Matthews made then-Cuban guerrilla leader Fidel Castro out to be an advocate of democracy; Matthews persisted in depicting Mr. Castro this way even after it became apparent that he was a Marxist-Leninist intent on becoming a dictator.
Judging from some of the recent front-page coverage of Iran's Holocaust-denying President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the NYT and The Washington Post, the specter of Durantyism is alive and well. Last Sunday, for example, the Times' page one, above-the-fold story by Michael Slackman suggested that the Iranian leader has been misunderstood: His real concerns are coming to grips with "a system of conservative clerical rule that has lost credibility with the public"; negotiating with the United States; and fighting "wealthy people" who are making life difficult for "poor people" inside Iran. And never mind all that negative reporting elsewhere in the press about the regime's insistence that women wear the veil, or the vigilante harassment they are subject to if they are thought to be "immodestly" dressed. Mr. Ahmadinejad is in the vanguard of the fight for social equality, opposing the vigilantes and fighting to permit women to enter stadiums.
To be sure, Mr. Ahmadinejad has a few eccentricities, according to the Times: He apparently became so upset that jokes about his personal hygiene were being exchanged via text messages on cellphones that he decided to "punish" cellphone system managers for permitting this to happen. And there is his preoccupation with Jews. But not to worry, the Times reminds us, this is just a part of his campaign to create a "new identity" for his countrymen. As one Iranian pol put it: "Being against Jews and Zionists is an essential part of this new identity."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He also likes to spend his free time trying to fashion a nuclear warhead to hasten the return of the 12th Imam.
But I'm sure that makes me a "racist" or a "warmonger", or an "Islamophobe" for bringing that up.
Letter from Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville - who knows his stuff and is therefore not a darling of the MSM.
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Paul Krugman sure smeared me in his June 2nd column [link unavailable] accusing me of "fraud pure and simple" in congressional testimony eight (!) years ago.
Krugman was incensed with my July 27, 1998, testimony before the House Committee on Small Business. In it, my purpose was to demonstrate that commonly held assumptions about climate change can be violated in a very few short years.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/06/2006 16:44 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How many millions of lbs of jet fuel has Al Gore burnt flying around the world bending peoples ears about our imminent death from global warming.
#2
bigjim - that's OK, doncha know. He's an elite, so his jet fuel doesn't actually pollute, like, say, the cars of us plebes.
Know your place, man.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/06/2006 17:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I'm currently reading STATE OF FEAR by Michael Crichton and its one long bitch slap of the environmental movement. Weak characters but he presents his data well and footnotes the hell out of it to cover himself (so did Bjorn Lomborg though and they nearly burned him as a heretic).
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The arrests of 17 Toronto-area Muslim men - allegedly intent on blowing up such southern Ontario targets as CN Tower, Parliament and the Toronto Stock Exchange - led to some Nancy Kerrigan "why me?" moments among Canadians.
For many Canadians, especially those in the Greater Toronto Area, the most understandable emotions this week are fear and mistrust, prompted by the stunning arrests late Friday of 12 men and five youths on terror-related charges, allegedly linked with plots to attack unspecified targets in Toronto and across southern Ontario.
Congress is in the midst of the most dramatic overhaul of our nations immigration laws in 80 years. So why is hardly anyone asking the basic question: How might this affect government costs?
