½ Pound Ground Beef
½ Pound Bulk Italian Sausage (mild or hot)
2 Whole Eggs
½ Cup Dried Bread Crumbs
¼-½ Cup Grated or Minced Onion
2-4 Cloves Garlic
2 TBS Chopped Italian Parsley
1-2 TBS Dried Italian Seasoning
1 TSP Salt
½ TSP Ground Black Pepper
¼ Cup Olive or Vegetable Oil (for frying)
Optional:
¼-½ Cup Grated Parmesan Cheese
Minced green bell pepper
Red pepper flakes (for heat)
Preparation:
Note: For best results, run ground beef, Italian sausage, chopped onion and garlic through a meat grinder one or two times. If using Italian sausage links, break open casings and crumble meat into mixture.
Beat eggs in a separate bowl until creamy. Mix all other ingredients completely and fold in eggs. Continue mixing until well incorporated.
Warm a large skillet over medium heat and add oil to pan. Once pan is hot, use a large spoon to scoop out 1-2 tablespoons of the meat mixture at a time and shape into small balls using two spoons or your hands. Gently place in hot pan and begin frying until lightly browned on all sides. Drain on paper towels and reserve or add to hot marinara sauce for use with cooked pasta.
Heat one or two quarts of water in a large pot. Bring to a boil and add sausages. Turn off heat and wait ten minutes. Warm a large skillet or fire coals in a barbecue. Fry or grill sausages until outer casing begins to brown and swell. DO NOT prick or pierce links while cooking.
Cut sweet and hot links in half and serve along side a link of the Calabrese sausage on each plate. Accompany with a variety of mustards.
Some classic mustards:
Zatarains Creole Mustard
Sierra Nevada Porter Mustard
Colmans English Mustard
Beaver Hot Russian Mustard
Inglehoffer Horseradish Mustard
Grey Poupon French Mustard
Pommard French Country Mustard
I thought the article was goint to quote the Iatollya Crimini: "The Prophet (PTUI) would have supported Foley. After all, "Younguns is Gooduns' was the Prophet's (PTUI) favorite saying."
Mod - you might want to hold this one over for Monday - it's worthy, I'd say.
We'll run it both days. AoS.
The tyranny of political correctness has for years suppressed the qualms that many Britons have had about what was happening to their country. Radical imams were allowed to preach hatred while being funded with state benefits, but few dared to question such madness, let alone act against it. The doctrine of multiculturalism dictated that all beliefs should be allowed to flourish, and to challenge that view was as politically incorrect as pinning up a Pirelli calendar in Islington Town Hall or suggesting that two married parents usually provide the best start in life for a child.
Gradually, however, people are gaining the courage to defy the diktats of political correctness and to question the assumptions of what should be acceptable in Britain today. In Bournemouth last week, David Cameron admitted to feeling uncomfortable about the segregation that now exists in many cities, where people remain isolated in ethnic communities. Jack Straw has publicly raised the veil on an issue that, privately, many will have admitted to finding disturbing. And even the Church of England, it seems, may be rediscovering sufficient backbone to assert the importance of its role as the predominant faith in the country.
Multiculturalism, as an increasing band of influential voices is prepared to say, has not worked. Both Labour and Conservative politicians have now stressed the need for all immigrants to learn English, but merely speaking the language is not enough. For the country to feel comfortable, there needs to be a sense of cohesion. That is unlikely to be achieved by the Commission on Cohesion and Integration set up by Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Communities. The omission of any representative of the Church of England on the 14-strong Commission, which includes the secretary-general of the Hindu Forum of Great Britain, indicates that it may be starting from the wrong place. To start from the right place requires a degree of confidence in core British ideals. That does not mean harking back to John Major's Hovis-style vision of bicycling delivery boys doffing their caps to village worthies. But we should reassert Britain's claim to be a country that believes in tolerance, politeness and compassion, and one in which, even if the church-going habit has faded, Christian values prevail.
Multiculturalism was on its way to destroying that ethos, as became apparent to me several years ago at my daughter's school in south-east London. Academically selective, it had students of a variety of races and religions and, in their early years there, they seemed oblivious to their differences and friendships ranged widely. Sadly, as they grew older, the groupings became less mixed. By the time they were installed in the sixth form, the differences were so -pronounced that a dispute over Christmas decorations had to be taken to the head-mistress.
The majority of the girls had wanted to festoon the common room with streamers and festive fripperies; the Muslim girls objected. The headmistress's judgment was a cowardly compromise: the room was to be divided and half could be decorated. All over the country the politically correct have abandoned Nativity plays, decreed there must be "season's greetings" rather than "Happy Christmas" messages and tried to abandon our traditions in an effort not to cause offence. The result has not been the creation of a happily integrated society. Immigration is not new to Britain and people from many countries have, over the years, been welcomed and assimilated. In its current guise, though, multiculturalism militates against such assimilation and keeps communities separate.
Clothing can be a tangible demonstration of that separateness. It need not be a barrier to integration: in a society in which just about any style of dress imaginable is now seen on the streets, there is no reason why a turban or a shalwar kameez should look out of place beside a T-shirt or a tartan mini-dress. But a full veil is something different and Jack Straw was absolutely right to point this out. If a woman should wish to shroud herself in black from head to foot and cover her face all but for a slit for her to peer through, then it is her right to do so.
Britain has long given up insistence on any particular dress code in public places, apart from the requirement that total nakedness should not be seen on the streets. The chador-clad female might argue that the opposite style of attire to her own, in which great swathes of flesh go unclad and bra straps and thong tops are displayed, is far more likely to cause offence than her modesty.
But Mr Straw's argument is that the full veil prevents him having a proper face-to-face conversation with the wearer and thus limits his understanding of what is meant rather than what is just being said. He is surely right. The veil forms a barrier that limits the creation of relationships. It unites those who nestle behind such garments and makes it harder for them to integrate with the bulk of the population.
It may be that there are many Muslims who choose to wear the veil but also want to play a full role in British society. They should realise that they are making that more difficult because of the uniform they choose to wear. That this has not been the subject of public debate before shows what a hold political correctness has had on the country.
And still does in some areas. Only this week a Conservative councillor was forced to resign after implying that a modern Noah's Ark would have to accommodate some gay animals. "How offensive", came the howls of outrage. Political correctness is no joke.
#1
Only a "religion" of little(least)spiritual depth is stuck in mere physical observances. All being political and exoteric(not the least esoteric)impositions.
#2
Muzzies are incompatible with modernity. Kick their asses out or be overcome with their hideous slop and shit they represent as religion, but is merely a political cult.
#4
It could be like halloween all over the world......
Everyone wears a mask when they preach their hearts- to you could mean nothing. Are you gonna give them candy or not?
#5
The majority of the girls had wanted to festoon the common room with streamers and festive fripperies; the Muslim girls objected.
Ooooh. Festive fripperies! What's that gonna get ya? Lashes? Stoning? A hand cut off? Beheading even? You just gotta know that any festive frippery shit ain't gonna go down well with the local imam.
#6
By the time they were installed in the sixth form, the differences were so pronounced that a dispute over Christmas decorations had to be taken to the head-mistress.
The indoctrination process was in full swing and bearing fruit.
#7
The multi-cults work against loyalty. They are subversive.
The mozzie creed will never succeed in integrating with any society, especially Western societies. The Western asshat Leftist 'intellectuals' chose to be wilfully blind from the beginning. No such problems with other ethnic groups apart from that MoCult.
"I think that history will judge the Left's program of headlong appeasement and cultural self-hatred as one of the great stupidities of the 20th century equal to and possibly surpassing the disastrous actions of the Men of Munich in the 1930s. This has been evident for some time. And even the Church of England knows it now. This fatal policy has helped set up a world crisis whose end is not yet in sight and whose course may bring untold sorrow not only to Christians, but to Muslims too."
That some have not recognized that FACT is a tribute to hubris-riddled stubbornness and intellectual laziness amongst its remaining proponents.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
10/08/2006 7:04 Comments ||
Top||
#10
A Letter to Mankind
Dear fellow human,
Today humanity is being challenged. Unthinkable atrocities take place on daily basis. There is an evil force at work that aims to destroy us. The agents of this evil respect nothing; not even the lives of children. Every day there are bombings, every day innocent people are targeted and murdered. It seems as if we are helpless. But we are not!
The ancient Chinese sage Sun Zi said, "Know your enemy and you won't be defeated". Do we know our enemy? If we don't, then we are doomed.
Terrorism is not an ideology, it is a tool; but the terrorists kill for an ideology. They call that ideology Islam.
The entire world, both Muslims and non-Muslims claim that the terrorists have hijacked "the religion of peace" and Islam does not condone violence.
Who is right? Do the terrorists understand Islam better, or do those who decry them? The answer to this question is the key to our victory, and failure to find that key will result in our loss and death will be upon us. The key is in the Quran and the history of Islam.
Those of us, who know Islam, know that the understanding of the terrorists of Islam is correct. They are doing nothing that their prophet did not do and did not encourage his followers to do. Murder, rape, assassination, beheading, massacre and sacrilege of the dead "to delight the hearts of the believers" were all practiced by Muhammad, were taught by him and were observed by Muslims throughout their history.
If truth has ever mattered, it matters most now! This is the time that we have to call a spade a spade. This is the time that we have to find the root of the problem and eradicate it. The root of Islamic terrorism is Islam. The proof of that is the Quran.
We are a group of ex-Muslims who have seen the face of the evil and have risen to warn the world. No matter how painful the truth may be, only truth can set us free. Why this much denial? Why so much obstinacy? How many more innocent lives should be lost before YOU open your eyes?
We urge the Muslims to leave Islam. Stop with excuses, justifications and rationalizations. Stop dividing mankind into "us" vs. "them" and Muslims vs. Kafirs. We are One people, One mankind! Muhammad was not a messenger of God. It is time that we end this insanity and face the truth. The terrorists take their moral support and the validation for their actions from you. Your very adherence to their cult of death is a nod of approval for their crimes against humanity.
We also urge the non-Muslims to stop being politically correct lest they hurt the sensitivities of the Muslims. To Hell with their sensitivities! Let us save their lives, and the lives of millions of innocent people.
Millions, if not billions of lives will be lost if we do nothing. Time is running out! "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing." Do something! Send this message to everyone in your address book and ask them to do the same. Defeat Islam and stop terrorism. This is your world, save it.
#11
The veil forms a barrier that limits the creation of relationships. It unites those who nestle behind such garments and makes it harder for them to integrate with the bulk of the population.
Does everyone know why mussie chicks wear head covering?
It's so that when they are outside the house and want to relieve themselves, no-one will know who they are.
That's why they are thinking of bringing in a law requiring the husbands to
carry a poop bag when they take their wives shopping at the supermarket.
Old habits die hard.
EFL for fair use and length. I wish that I had written this one-EB
Most "progressives" (meaning those on the left to far left who prefer that term) would freak if they were called conservative, but what I mean by conservative in this context is not donate-to-Jesse-Helms capital-C Conservative but fearful of change and uncomfortable with uncertainty conservative.
OK, most of you are looking at this askance - aren't progressives always trying to overthrow the government or something? Aren't they out starting riots at G7 talks? The answer is yes, sure, but what motivates many of them, at least where it comes to capitalism, is a deep-seated conservatism...
[...]
...Progressives who support the right to a person making unfettered choices in sexual partners don't trust people to make their own choice on seat belt use. Progressives who support the right of fifteen year old girls to make decisions about abortion without parental notification do not trust these same girls later in life to make their own investment choices with their Social Security funds. And, Progressives who support the right of third worlders to strap on a backpack of TNT and explode themselves in the public market don't trust these same third worlders to make the right decision in choosing to work in the local Nike shoe plant.
Beyond just the concept of individual decision-making, progressives are hugely uncomfortable with capitalism. Ironically, though progressives want to posture as being "dynamic", the fact is that capitalism is in fact too dynamic for them. Industries rise and fall, jobs are won and lost, recessions give way to booms. Progressives want comfort and certainty. They want to lock things down the way they are. They want to know that such and such job will be there tomorrow and next decade, and will always pay at least X amount. That is why, in the end, progressives are all statists, because, to paraphrase Hayek, only a government with totalitarian powers can bring the order and certainty and control of individual decision-making that they crave.
More at link
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
10/08/2006 11:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hardly news here. All 'progressives' (a term I detest) are social (and historical) determinists precisely because they crave certainty of outcome. They are pathologically averse to anything genuinely new.
#2
Yeah, that's why I call them "regressivists." They're all Miniver Cheevy wannabes, going right back to Marx.
Even obvious things need to be articulated well, especially when too many people profess to see invisible clothes.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
10/08/2006 13:06 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Oh that's a *good* article - it's almost like the old Kirk 'confuse the robot with a paradox and watch it pop it's clogs' ploy....
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
10/08/2006 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
#4
They're also blue-noses that make the Pilgrims look like libertines. Sure, they don't care how you reach an orgasm, but just *try* to light up a cigarette, enjoy the wrong movies, or the wrong books.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
10/08/2006 18:18 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Of course without reading the article you can guess it's all the rights fault. You bad bloggers that read LGF and RB! How dare you,sitting in your living rooms, hold the MSM to unachieveable standards of truth and honesty! The shame of it all! GFY MSM!
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
10/08/2006 9:36 Comments ||
Top||
In this era of violent intimidation, it is crucial for the continued life of our free society that we speak out, and do so fearlessly.
Evidence of the urgency of this multiplies daily. Pope Benedict XVI called upon Muslims (and Christians) to forsake religious violence, but in the course of doing so quoted a statement by a fourteenth-century Byzantine emperor that offended some Muslims. In response, in Pakistan a thousand Islamic clerics and scholars have demanded that the Pope be removed from his position immediately for encouraging war and fanning hostility between various faiths" and "making insulting remarks" against Islam. Just to make sure that we all understand that Islam is a religion of peace, they added: If the West does not change its stance regarding Islam, it will face severe consequences."
Meanwhile, a new Palestinian jihad group announced: Every place relevant to Christians will be a target until the cursed infidel the Vatican apologizes to Muslims. Muslims in Gaza burned and vandalized seven Christian sites, including a 1,400-year-old church. Meanwhile, a nun in Somalia and two other Christians in Iraq were killed, and others threatened worldwide -- including, of course, the Pope himself.
Then French philosophy teacher Robert Redeker published an article in which he characterized the Muslim prophet Muhammad as a merciless war chief, plunderer, slaughterer of Jews and a polygamist. Quickly he was forced into hiding by death threats, despite the fact that many Muslims around the world seem to agree, unapologetically, that Muhammad was just those things, as I illustrated in a recent article.
In the face with violent intimidation, the worst thing anyone can do is acquiesce to being silenced. That would just send the message that violent intimidation works. On the contrary, it is all the more crucial in this politically correct age to stand and forthrightly speak the truth. That is one reason why I am so glad to see that a new Americas Truth Forum conference is coming in November: The Radical Islamist Threat to World Peace and National Security, sponsored by the Americas Truth Forum, in association with Basics Project. I will be participating in this symposium on November 10 and 11 in Las Vegas, along with Harvey Kushner, author of Holy War on the Home Front; former Palestinian Liberation Organization member Walid Shoebat; the courageous Wafa Sultan, whose fiery confrontation with an imam on Al-Jazeera (no Jew has blown himself up in a German restaurant) gained her international notoriety; Paul Williams, author of Al Qaeda Connection and Osamas Revenge; veteran CIA agent Bruce Teft; and more. The keynote speaker is Hamid Mir, the lone journalist to have met with both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri since 9/11.
This is the second Americas Truth Forum conference. I also spoke at the first, which was held in the Washington area in April 2006. It was refreshing to hear speaker after speaker (including Andrew Bostom, editor of The Legacy of Jihad; Walid Phares, author of Future Jihad; and Kenneth Timmerman, author of Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran) tell truths about the reality and magnitude of the challenge the West faces today, without pulling their punches out of political correctness and fear. I am honored to be able to participate in a second such forum, and hope there will be many more. So many in the West have been willing, even eager, to acquiesce to jihadist intimidation -- witness the chastened reaction to the riots over cartoons of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in a newspaper in Denmark: after violent rioting around the world, Church officials, government leaders, journalists and others solemnly pontificated about the dangers of "insults to religious figures." But it wasn't really a question of blasphemy or insult at all. The Cartoon Rage riots, as well as the reaction to the Popes remarks and the death threats against Robert Redeker, are attempts to frighten the West into chastened silence about Islam, including Islamic jihad terrorism. Rather than being a question of sensitivity to the religious sensibilities of others, the challenge posed by these riots and threats revolves around the question of whether non-Muslims will submit to Muslim standards and restrictions on their speech, thought, and behavior.
If we are willing to do so, we can end the war on terror tomorrow, for Osama bin Laden will have obtained his goal.
The Americas Truth Forum conference in Las Vegas is one part of the larger attempt to keep that from happening. Tickets and reservations must be acquired by October 27. Dont miss it.
by GENERAL (RETD) MIRZA ASLAM BEG
Last month while visiting China on the invitation of the Chinese Peop1es Association for Peace and Disarmament, it was our privilege to participate in a seminar in Beijing to discuss: "Chinese Concept of Peace. Cooperation and Engagement - A Practical Manifestation of Regional and Global Peace and Stability." It was a very rewarding experience indeed to engage in discussion with Chinese scholars and intellectuals, to identify the peace paradigm in the region as the basis for lasting relationship between China and Pakistan.
I thought it proper, to first dwell on contemporary global concepts which are shaping global peace and security environments: The Chinese concept of Peace, Cooperation and Engagement, was expounded by the Chinese reformist leader Deng Xiaoping during the 1970s and the practical implementation of the concept began with the demilitarisation of borders with India and Russia during the I980s - a step which allowed China to demobilise over two million troops and to turn these borders into borders of peace. Subsequently China signed Shanghai-5 Accord, which developed into Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in 1996, with six members, and soon it may have Pakistan, India, Iran and Mongolia as the new members. In fact this concept is in total harmony with the contemporary trend of globalisation, which promotes cooperation as the common denominator of economic interests of nations, thus providing the peaceful environment to China to 'Rise Peacefully' towards peace and prosperity. In fact it is a win-win concept, to be emulated.
The American concept of 'Global Primacy and Pre-eminence', expounded by Brzezinski during the 1970s and supported by scholars like Bernard Lewis and Henry Kissinger, which after the break-up of the Soviet Union became the gospel in the hands of the neocons to implement it, in order to maintain global primacy and pre-eminence by use of military and economic power. As a result the United States launched the first Gulf War in 1991, occupied Afghanistan in 2001 and invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003.
European Union joined the US to achieve the objectives of the concept while India entered into a 'strategic partnership' with the US, with the declared objective to 'Contain and Curb the rising economic and military power of China' and to 'Contain and Curb the Islamic resurgence'. However they have failed to achieve these objectives because of the Islamic Resistance growing from the 'Islamic concept of Deterrence and Defiance,' and has contained and curbed the forces of aggression of the US and its allies.
The Islamic concept of Deterrence and Defiance against foreign occupation, tyranny and injustice, developed into a full-fledged resistant force of the Islamic Jihadis, against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in 1980s and gradually gained a global reach, confronting and containing the forces of aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Palestine and Kashmir. Islamic Resistance belongs to no one country. It is an idea which grows out of the faith and belief of the Muslims to resist against injustice and tyranny. In a short period of two decades, it has put a limit to the power of the most powerful; ie the Soviets in 1980s, and now the Americans in Iraq and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Recently it inflected a shameful defeat on Israel in Lebanon. In fact it is a phenomenon by itself, which has been wrongly dubbed as terrorism, and to wage war on it has become a fashion - a war which has been lost. Hence the need to understand this phenomenon and find ways to deal with it peacefully than to unleash a war against it and lose it.
No point in chasing shadows. May be, the example which has been set by Pakistan, in Waziristan recently, could be followed, to find peace in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kashmir, Palestine and Chechnya. Similarly Brig Butler of the British Army is reported to have struck a deal with the Taliban in the Musa Qila district of Helmend province enabling him to extricate his troops. Truce still holds in Musa Qila and may become contagious.
In fact Islamic resistance having contained and curbed the forces of aggression, has provided a 'protective shield to China and Russia to rise peacefully. However this protective shield may not last for long because of the likely withdrawal of the occupation forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore a new situation will emerge, with US and its Allies to advance a new doctrine such as the Atlantic Alliance, to promote their interests and follow an aggressive posture which will impact directly China, Russia and the Muslim world. It is also likely that the Atlantic Alliance may try to replay the Great Game of keeping mid-west China, Central Asia and Russia land-locked. However the ground realities suggest that Chinese neighbours such as Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan have already done enough to break this lock. For example during the 1970s, Pakistan and China built Karakoram Highway, making the first breach across the Karakoram Mountains. During the 1990s Iran built the rail and road network to Turkmenistan region, thus opening up the way to the warm waters. Afghanistan, which though remains disturbed because of the on-going resistance movement, is always willing to open the rail and road communication from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. China itself is capable of taking the rail and road communication net work from Lhasa to Katmandu and Calcutta. These are the opportunities which are open to China and to Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan, to develop a natural strategic partnership for peace and security in the region.
China's strategic relationship with India is the logical outcome of the emerging realities in the region. And it should not be a matter of concern for Pakistan. Rather it should be considered as a development of significance, while the strategic partnership between China-Pak-Iran and Afghanistan materialises. Afghanistan is a war-ravaged country, which must be given special attention by its neighbours to reconstruct and re-build itself when the occupation forces leave. A weak, under-developed and unstable Afghanistan will jeopardise regional security.
The three contemporary concepts, ie the US concept of Global Primacy and Pre-eminence, Chinese concept of Peace Cooperation and Engagement and the Islamic concept of Deterrence and Defiance, together, are determining the contours of the emerging global order, while the new contenders of power, are joining the world order, making it more democratic in character, and the possibilities of global and regional conflicts, considerably reduced. Certainly, the emerging world order would not be as brutal as the unipolar world order of today. The environment thus created, would be more suited for peace, cooperation and engagement, as is the policy of China. Pakistan also adopted this policy in dealing with India in particular to resolve the Kashmir issue, showing great deal of flexibility hoping that India would realise the need for peaceful settlement of the Kashmir problem before the Jihadis get released after the withdrawal of occupation forces from Afghanistan and Iraq and add a new dimension to the Kashmir conflict.
The cliché, we generally use to define the existing friendship between China and Pakistan, is "Our friendship is taller than the Himalayas and deeper than the deep seas" should now be replaced by a cool and calculated thinking- neither too high nor too deep - to address the fast emerging ground realities and the challenges of the concept of Peace, Cooperation and Engagement.
Posted by: john ||
10/08/2006 12:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
GENERAL (RETD) MIRZA ASLAM BEG.
Rx: Take 3 doses of whoop-ass 4 times a day until you stop hitting the rosy crack pipe.
#2
It was General Beg who authorized AQ Khan to supply nuke technology (including the missile deliverable CHICOM4 design) to North Korea in exchange for missile technology
Posted by: john ||
10/08/2006 14:53 Comments ||
Top||
"Not losing" isn't the same as winning.
BY PETE HEGSETH
I've heard President Bush repeatedly state he will send more troops to Iraq if the commanders on the ground ask for them. I think, having returned home from Iraq two months ago, that there must be a breakdown in communication somewhere along the line. Maybe units on the ground are painting too rosy a picture for the generals. Perhaps the generals aren't asking because it goes against the "can do" ethos of the Army. Possibly the military is being squeezed by the Pentagon to do more with less. Or maybe the White House doesn't want to admit more troops are needed. In any case, while I do not have the answers nor do I seek to place blame, it is painfully obvious there's a disconnect.
I volunteered to serve in Iraq because I believe in our mission there. I share the president's conviction about the Iraq war--we can and must win, for the Iraqi people, for the future of our country and for peace-loving people everywhere. But I'm frustrated. America is fighting with a hand tied behind its back. Soldiers have all the equipment we need--armored humvees, body armor for every body part, superior technology, etc.--but we simply do not have enough troops in Iraq, and we need them now.
NATO's top commander in
Afghanistan warned on Sunday that a majority of Afghans would likely switch their allegiance to resurgent Taliban militants if their lives show no visible improvements in the next six months..."They will say, 'We do not want the Taliban but then we would rather have that austere and unpleasant life that that might involve than another five years of fighting,'" Richards said in an interview.
The commander would like the troop level there increased 7.8% to accomplish these improvements.
That's for a long time that the West has been preparing complicated and deliberate plans to destroy Islam, said Tehran's Substitute Friday prayers Leader Ayatollah Mohammad Imami-Kashani, IRNA reported.
Addressing worshipers at Tehran University campus, the cleric said the Islamic world is currently facing a situation where the world arrogance, West in particular, has set different plans to distort the image of Islam among the world nations.
"It a long time that West has been planning to damage Islam at any possible way and disperse Muslims," he added.
Referring to the recent Islamophobic remarks of the Pope Benedict XVI, the ayatollah said such comments would be harmful for believers of both faiths of Islam and Christianity.
"Making anti-Islam remarks by the top politicians of the world arrogance is not new but it was the first time that a prominent religious leader was making such comments willingly or unwillingly and consciously or unconsciously," announced the cleric.
He stressed "Peace is the message of both Christianity and Islam." As for West's propaganda against Iran's peaceful nuclear programs, the cleric said that they (Western officials) wanted to deprive Muslims from scientific success.
He urged world Muslims to be vigilant and foil all plots of the enemies.
#6
the cleric said that they (Western officials) wanted to deprive Muslims from scientific success.
Why should we bother? They do that so well by themselves.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
10/08/2006 9:19 Comments ||
Top||
#7
the cleric said that they (Western officials) wanted to deprive Muslims from scientific success.
That is very rich, since they (muslims as a whole) have been piggy-backing on the West's achievements for, what, 8 centuries? 5, or 3 centuries, perhaps? And that is true even when it comes to fighting us... explosives, firearms, comm,...
Even their oil wealth has been made possible only by the West, which discovered it, exploited it, and made it useable by developping gasoline engines and chemestry in the first place.
#9
Zen, Gimme a #11 here, Go drink an American beer, dance with an American girl, then go back and Kick some more muzzie ass just because. LOL
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
10/08/2006 9:43 Comments ||
Top||
#10
It ain't complicated, Mo-honey.... :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/08/2006 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
#11
It ain't complicated, Mo-honey
Well, technically speaking, Barbara, it is permissible to label as "complicated" the design and manufacture of nuclear bombs. As to my strict regimen of repeated and thorough Muslim ass-kicking, most certainly not. Just make sure they're all at room temperature when you're finished.
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.
think, having returned home from Iraq two months ago, that there must be a breakdown in communication somewhere along the line. Maybe units on the ground are painting too rosy a picture for the generals. Perhaps the generals aren't asking because it goes against the "can do" ethos of the Army. Possibly the military is being squeezed by the Pentagon to do more with less. Or maybe the White House doesn't want to admit more troops are needed. In any case, while I do not have the answers nor do I seek to place blame, it is painfully obvious there's a disconnect. 
