"Four hundred parents lost a child, 46 parents lost their only child, 65 women were widowed, 11 men lost their wives, 140 [people] lost a parent, seven lost both parents."
-- Scottish prosecutor Colin Boyd at the 2001 trial of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi flew home Thursday to his wife and children in Libya. Scotland's justice secretary, Kenny Mac-Askill, freed al-Megrahi only eight years into his life sentence for murdering 270 people, 189 of them Americans. A flag-waving crowd greeted al-Megrahi when his Afriqiyah Airways jetliner landed at Tripoli. More warm welcomes may follow: When an al-Megrahi co-defendant was acquitted in 2001, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi sacrificed a camel in his honor. MacAskill's stated excuse for freeing al-Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, is compassion. That, regrettably, was a gift al-Megrahi's victims didn't receive two decades ago.
Pan American Flight 103, a Boeing 747 christened Clipper Maid of the Seas, was cruising at 31,000 feet on its Frankfurt-London- New York route. Detonation of a bomb concealed in a cassette player sent tornado-force winds roaring through the fuselage. A Scottish air traffic controller watched from Prestwick Airport below as the plane's image on his screen disintegrated into dozens of bright green squares. Debris would scatter over 845 square miles -- but most of the 259 passengers and crew survived the 46.5 seconds until impact. A large section of the fuselage, including the plane's wings and 200,000 pounds of aviation fuel, screamed at more than 500 m.p.h. into the market town of Lockerbie. The resulting fireball vaporized several homes -- plus most of the 11 victims on the ground -- then turned to burn cars passing on a motorway.
MacAskill's self-praising paean to his own mercy -- "In Scotland, we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity ..." -- mocked victims in the air and on the ground. Mocked what we know of those 46.5 seconds as living people and scorched plane parts rained down. From a Newsweek reconstruction based on testimony at al-Megrahi's trial and interviews in Scotland:
No one had more reason to remember the night of Dec. 21, 1988, than Steven Flannigan. Christmas was only four days away, so Steve, then 14, had slipped next door with a present for his 10-year-old sister, Joanne. It was a new bike, and he wanted to set it up for her. Steve was in the neighbor's garage when one of the jet engines and a chunk of wing from Pan Am Flight 103 slammed into his house on Sherwood Crescent in the Scottish village of Lockerbie. He ran out to see an orange fireball where his three-bedroom home had just been. Where Joanne and his parents, Katherine, 41, and Thomas, 43, had just been....
Halfway up a wee hill, the fuselage had landed in the backyards of Rosebank Crescent. Bob Edgar ... counted 18 bodies in his own backyard, many still in their seats. But the detail that will forever remain in his mind is how most of the passengers had crossed their fingers -- and died that way.
Nearly 21 years later, we're not sure which is more feckless -- Gaddafi's lobbying to secure the release of al-Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence officer, or Scotland's surrender in the name of kindness.
Gaddafi has tried to please his critics since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, aggravated tensions between the West and regimes that tolerated terrorism. He dismantled his nuclear program, confessed his government's responsibility for Lockerbie and paid compensation to victims' survivors. None of which justifies MacAskill's decision to overrule a crucial provision of al-Megrahi's sentencing back in 2001: that the bomber serve at least 27 years in prison for Britain's deadliest terror attack. We find no footnote saying that sentence meant 27 years unless the convict is dying, in which case eight will do just fine. People serving life sentences do tend to die in prison. Al-Megrahi? He'll die with his family.
On Thursday, President Barack Obama called MacAskill's invocation of a Scottish compassion statute "a mistake." Obama might have added that appeasement doesn't deter terrorists and their enablers. It reminds them that many of their enemies are weak.
#1
We're going to give control of the reserves to China. Right. How about something neutral. Not controlled by politicians. Something that would be the Gold Standard of currency reserves. What could it be?
#2
Any country can have any reserve system they want -- the U.S. is not going to dictate it must be in US dollars. If the the Chinese currency really was safer, countries would already be using it. Perhaps there is something, like China's internal debt situation perhaps, that makes international treasury official make a choice inexplicable to the good professor despite his Nobel prize.
#3
A reserve currency is one that is safe and transferable. Right now there are no safe currencies because of global dependencies. So, the fall back is one that is safer. Or in parable terms, the one that is faster than someone else in the group the [financial] bear is chasing.
#1
All these would-be Hari Seldons need to consider that there may be at least two Mules out there. One, impatient jihadists may pull off a completely unignorable atrocity that leads to presently unthinkable responses. Two, how many old, tired, grey-haired Europeans does it take to counter a young vigorous Islamic population? Just one, if he's a molecular biologist. And the West has a lot of these.
Whilst launching his attack on Hamas by declaring the establishment of an Islamic Emirate in Rafah, the head of the Jund Ansar Allah Group, Dr. Abdul Latif Moussa, AKA Abu Noor Al Maqdisi, compared Hamas to the Turkish Justice and Development Party. Al Maqdisi said that if Hamas carried on the way it is going, then it would be nothing more than a secular party "affiliated to fake Islam like the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan."
Is the honeymoon between Mr. Erdogan and Arab Islamist parties over? What was interesting whilst carrying out research for this article was that most Arab media ignored al Maqdisi's comparison between Hamas and secular Turkey. Through Google News, [it was apparent that] nobody published al Maqdisi's quote except Asharq Al-Awsat and the Egyptian Television and Radio Union, even though whoever listens to the entire speech can obviously see that al Maqdisi's comments on Hamas and attacks on Mr. Erdogan were clear and direct!
With regards to ties between the Islamists and Turkey, a prominent researcher and intellect told me -- based on what he had heard from symbols of Islamist movements -- that there are two points in summarizing the perspective of Islamist movements towards the Turkish Justice and Development Party.
There are the Salafists who do not hide their anger for Mr. Erdogan's actions even if they do not declare this publicly. They see Erdogan as an Islamist merely by name, and as someone who does not care about fundamental issues. In their opinion, he only cares about the Hijab issue, even if a woman goes around wearing a short skirt, and that is because Hijab is a popular issue that concerns the masses in Turkey and is a dream that has lasted fifty years.
They also use Erdogan's relationship with Israel against him -- despite the stand he took [at the World Economic Forum] in Davos after the war on Gaza when he stormed out of the room in protest against the Israeli President's comments -- as nothing has changed on the ground with regards to Turkish-Israeli ties, especially as Netanyahu's office announced that Turkey is the legitimate mediator in negotiations with Syria.
According to the Islamist intellectual, the symbols of the Muslim Brotherhood [MB], particularly the MB movement in Egypt, believe that Erdogan is providing a great service to Islamists, as he is improving their image in the West and in Washington especially. They also believe that he is taking initiatives in the interest of their political influence by bringing the views of the MB and Syria closer together for example, or by opening channels of communication between the MB and the West behind the scenes.
Therefore, the MB does not see any harm in what Mr. Erdogan is doing. Rather, MB members believe that there is more benefit to it than harm by serving their bigger interests. For that reason they believe that it is wrong to criticize Erdogan even if Turkey does have good ties with Israel. This, of course, contradicts the MB's position on peaceful ties between Israel on the one hand and Egypt and Jordan on the other -- two countries that had their territories occupied by Israel returned to them whilst the Turks have no territories occupied by Israel at all!
Therefore, al Maqdisi's comment might be an indication that the honeymoon between Islamist movements and Turkey is over, inasmuch as it is a major indication that what happened in Gaza is just the tip of the iceberg, as it is clear that fundamentalist extremism there has spread to a large degree and has begun to threaten the Palestinians themselves.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/21/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Erdogan and the Islamists: Is the Honeymoon Over?
If you don't see a $100 on the nightstand, I'd say it is over.
Among the most powerful psychological tools available to political strategists and commentators is the well-known Upchuck Factor. Never heard of it? I'm surprised.
The Upchuck Factor is, quite simply, the length of time it takes the US voter to decide that s/he's "had enough" of the Democrats. And it looks like this year it is hitting a new record.
You may have been taught in school, for instance, that the American people loved Franklin Delano Roosevelt so much that they would have gone on voting for him forever. In fact the American people demonstrated in the mid-term election of 1938 that they were ready to upchuck him and all his works. The 1938 elections featured an 81-seat gain in the House of Representatives for the Republicans. Figure that FDR's Upchuck Factor was 6.
What was the problem in 1938? It wasn't that complicated. After six years of political bombast and war on the private sector -- and after FDR gunned the economy into the red zone in 1936 with unprecedented stimulus -- the economy collapsed in 1937 and the American people decided that they had had enough. They determined to upchuck the New York machine politics of FDR. But then along came World War II and saved his political skin.
The 1960s is another era in which we are taught that Americans loved their government. They basked in the sun of JFK and LBJ, and loved the exciting space programs and wars on poverty. But in fact, the American people decided they had had enough after six years of it. In 1966, well before the Summer of Love, American voters upchucked and gave the Republicans 47 additional seats in the House. Two years later they sent the very un-sunny Richard Nixon to the White House. Give the JFK/LBJ Democrats an Upchuck Factor of 6.
In the late 1970s President Jimmy Carter came into office promising that he'd never lie to the American people. Maybe he didn't, but he wrecked the economy and this time the American people didn't wait six or eight years before upchucking. Not to mention the hostage thingy and the fostering of radical Islam...but minor points eh?
It was then that the voters' digestion really started to go south. They vomited up Carter and the Democrats after four years in 1980 and elected a man that "everyone" agreed was little more than an amiable dunce. Things must have been really bad for the American people to go to that extreme. President Carter moved the Upchuck Factor to 4. Only for lefties..my factor was a -1...I knew he was a tool before he got in..
Now we come to the modern era. After twelve years of Reagan and Bush, Bill Clinton won the 1992 election for the Democrats, with the help of Ross Perot. Democrats thought that with Bill Clinton that they were really on their way. But they were wrong. The Upchuck Factor was getting stronger, and the American voters in 1994 recorded an Upchuck Factor of 2. They vomited up the Democrats in the first off-year election after 1992 and sent 54 new Republicans to the House. The distress among Democratic voters must have been extreme, but Post-election Stress Disorder hadn't been invented yet, so the mental health problems of the liberal community went undiagnosed and unfunded.
Bill Clinton was the best gut politician of his time, so he managed to avoid defeat in 1996 by passing welfare reform and seducing naïve young soccer moms into supporting him for another term. But he didn't do his party much good. An unimpressive George W. Bush managed to eke out wins against an angry, but unfocused Democratic Party in 2000 and 2004.
But now, after the solid Democratic win of 2008, it looks like the Upchuck Factor has shortened again. Now it is pegging at 6 months! Again a lot of folks in negative numbers with this maroon
The ominous thing is that Americans are not expressing their indigestion at the ballot box in a mid-term election in their usual sensible way. Their gastric reaction to a single dose of Obama's Chicago politics is so extreme that they are heading to the nation's vomitoria already. They are spewing out their rage at politicians' town halls and even in the street.
Let's stop right there and clear away all the fun and frivolity.
This is the first time that the American middle class has taken to the streets in living memory.
Back in the 1930s street politics featured the workers in the Battle of the Overpass between Ford's striking workers and its security guards. In the 1960s it was African American marchers being set upon by Bull Connor and the KKK. In the late 1960s and early 1970s it was elite liberal youths refusing to go to war. Now all of a sudden average middle-class Americans are organizing Tea Parties and street protests. The old politics of the liberal "teach-in" has been replaced by the new politics of the town-hall "shout-in."
Liberals are beside themselves with rage. So basically Status Quo for them
They are recounting how their parents lost their jobs during the McCarthy period, and telling each other that opposition to the president's program is all about racism.
You can tell the Democrats are in trouble when a naïve Naive like a fox (which she is BTW)
hockey mom from Alaska can appear out of nowhere and wrestle the entire Democratic Party to the ground. After all, when it comes to "death panels" for grandma you have the American people on one side and you have "comparative effectiveness research" professionals and rational ethicists on the other. How come Sarah Palin could see that and the intelligent President Obama could not? "But,But I'm the One...I don't get it...this always worked in Chicago?"
These things are clear. I understand them. You understand them. The president's health-care plan is not clear, and I mean that not only in the sense of "he hasn't told us his plan." I mean it in terms of the voodoo phrases, this gobbledygook, this secret language of government that no one understands"single payer," "public option," "insurance marketplace exchange." No one understands what this stuff means, nobody normal.
And when normal people don't know what the words mean, they don't say to themselves, "I may not understand, but my trusty government surely does, and will treat me and mine with respect." They think, "I can't get what these people are talking about. They must be trying to get one past me. So I'll vote no."
Posted by: Mike ||
08/21/2009 11:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And when normal people don't know what the words mean, they don't say to themselves, "I may not understand, but my trusty government surely does, and will treat me and mine with respect." They think, "I can't get what these people are talking about. They must be trying to get one past me. So I'll vote no."
I am sure the bailouts and the economic stumblebums running things out of Washington, along with 401K and job losses, have done a great deal to sour the electorate's attitude & given them cause to believe some other foolishness is also being pushed on them by the Best and the Brightest.
By Mshari Al-Zaydi
It was a surprise hearing the Defence Minister of Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed's government in Somalia and the Spokesman for the Hamas Interior Ministry in Gaza calling for people to embrace "moderate" Islam and branding those who fight against their governments as ideologically deviant and far away from understanding real Islam. They are also described as "brainwashed," a western term that is used excessively insinuating that they themselves are pure!
After the outbreak of clashes between the Jihadist Salafist group, Jund Ansar Allah, and Hamas in Gaza, Hamas no longer has exclusive monopoly over Islamic purity. There is now another party that is more pure than it and more likely to comply with a strict adherence to Islamic Shariaa law and to the Muslim Brotherhood slogan "Islam is the solution."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
08/21/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
ION FREEREPUBLIC > JIHADIS TURN THEIR EYES ON SYRIA FOR POST-IRAQ THEATER OF OPERATIONS.
...President Barack Obama gave some theological weight to his health care plan during a phone call to a group of Rabbis the other day. Referring to the belief that God decides during the Jewish New Year who shall live and who shall die, Obama told the rebs, We are Gods partners in matters of life and death.
In response to this statement I would like to make a subtle theological point: No, were not. For those of you who arent versed in the finer points of theology, let me try to simplify that for you: No. Were not. Or to put it even more simply: No. We. Are. Not.
Now, Im not a big Bible quoter. I understand its not everyones book of choice and doesnt constitute proof of anything to non-believers. But since the president is talking to Rabbis here and presumably referring to a God they would recognize, lets go the source and see what the big book has to say....
When facing death himself, Jesus a talented Rabbi in his own right asked God to get him out of his perilous situation, but then added, Not as I will, but as you will, which suggests to me that even Jesus didnt expect to partner with his father in these matters. Oh, but I forgot that was only Jesus. This is Barack Obama were talking about. Maybe I missed the Biblical exception
At another moment, when Jesus stilled the stormy sea, his disciples asked each other, What manner of man is this? I would like to ask the same question about Gods partner in life and death Barack Obama: What manner of man is THIS? Somehow, I dont think Ill get the same answer as Jesus disciples.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/21/2009 15:21 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't really expect politicians to be good at theology. Or science. Or medicine. Or running the country. Getting elected and trading favors, yes.
Posted by: James ||
08/21/2009 15:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"What manner of man is THIS?"
You will find slightly withdrawn and clutching a small bag of coins in da Vinci's L'Ultima Cena.
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.
