mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

April 24, 2006

Carnival of RINOÂ’s

And also why were doing Carnivals see Carnival Of Liberty XLI that I missed last Tuesday. Sorry Left Brain Female.

Carnival Of Liberty XLII tomorrow at Cape Cod Porcupine.

Posted by: Howie at 08:49 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

April 23, 2006

Yale Looking For Face-Saving Way to Oust Talibani Student

Evidently Yale doesn't like the negative publicity it's received since welcoming Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, the unreconstructed Taliban knuckle-dragger admitted under their non-traditional student program. Writing in the WSJ Opinion Journal, John Fund reports that Yale plans to toughen up admission standards for non-traditional degree students, which currently accept three quarters of applicants (compared to the 10% of applying high school students).

This will allow Yale to reject Hashemi's application to a degree program without admitting that they were utterly stupid and morally bankrupt for admitting him in the first place. Or maybe they're just afraid they'll be beheaded.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, Stop the ACLU, and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:53 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

1 >>>they were utterly stupid and morally bankrupt They are morally bankrupt. They're only concerned about the bad publicity. That's what relativism does to people. Take the exact same guy, but with white skin, and suddenly Libs see him as evil. But if he's brown, his deeds are irrelevant. Brown people are like monkeys to Libs. Pets. Monkeys can do no wrong because they don't know any better. That's why a fascist like Rahmatullah Hashemi can be invited to their institutions of higher indoctrination with no moral qualms whatsoever. That's why Arabs are good and Israelis are bad. Monkeys. That's how Libs see their Arab pets.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 23, 2006 11:03 PM (8e/V4)

2 Yep. And I think it also has to do with politcal corretness. People want to be sure to be seen as "tolerant" and "open-minded" above all else. Somehow it's seen as a virtue to be able to say, "Who are we to judge?" It's almost as if the more heinous the act that one is able to tolerate, the more enlightened that person is seen as being. It's absolutely crazy.

Posted by: Richard at April 23, 2006 11:24 PM (7KF8r)

3 I think that the more important question is "How did he get a visa to enter the country ?" I would have thought that he would have been laughed ot of the embassy for even applying for one. It is not Yale that issues student visas.

Posted by: john Ryan at April 23, 2006 11:36 PM (TcoRJ)

4 I hate to be uncharitable, and this probably won't say much about me as a christian, but this problem could be solved with 158 grains of jacketed hollowpoint....

Posted by: Lonevoice at April 24, 2006 12:44 AM (QnxoD)

5 john ryan, you make a very valid point. Isn't it the job of the State Department and their consuls to issue such visas? State is infested with these Libs.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 24, 2006 01:03 AM (8e/V4)

6 I want to know which Yale alumni or board member pulled what strings at the State Department to get this cretin admitted into our country to even breathe our air let alone take up a space that a more deserving student was refused. This is more than just liberalism. This is a profound debasement. I found a link in the comments section to this story about Yale at Clint Taylors blog at Townhall.com a while back. Yale is riddled with backstabbing, self-aggrandizing ego-maniacs as well as intellectually bankrupt elitists and I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find they have their own dupes in the State Department.

Posted by: Oyster at April 24, 2006 04:45 AM (YudAC)

7 John Ryan Yes, State does issue the visas ... but Oyster zeros in on the point. Someone(s) pulled strings and used powerful influence on State to pull this off - and no one's talking on the details. This has become an embarrassment for Yale - and someone(s) else. I am curious who.

Posted by: hondo at April 24, 2006 05:47 AM (gdxQ2)

8 One Yale dumps Hashemi his student visa would no longer be valid and he'll have to leave the country. Hopefully some agency is gearing up to ensure that he does so and that he ends up in Gitmo after all. Or can we expect to see him at the next illegal immigrant rights march? How Yale ever expected this to go unchallenged is beyond me.

Posted by: Graeme at April 24, 2006 07:00 AM (nCrWY)

9 If it was a mistake by the State Department than his visa should be withdrawn and he should be deported. How this man could not be considered a security risk is incredible, to me. As for the Stae Department being infested with libs I think it is more properly discribed as being infested with idiots. Condoleeza Rice is the Secretary of State she should simply revoke his visa. My sister has been teaching law in Cambodia for 10 years. The only student visas she can get for her students are for 20 or so Fulbright scholars that she has each year.

Posted by: john Ryan at April 24, 2006 07:23 AM (TcoRJ)

10 The State Department is a side issue. I'm more concerned about the culture of contempt for America indicated by Yale's eagerness to accept Hashemi.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 24, 2006 07:59 AM (RHG+K)

11 Greetings, hondo, and it looks like you're going to get your Egg McMuffins after all, but I still have Moon's boy in the runoff. A very small chance, indeed. Now, back to the topic at hand. Oyster, I am very much interested in the same questions as you, and one would think an enterprising newspaper might seek the truth behind these shenanigans. But most of them are too busy leaking classified information to be concerned about this very much more important story. What happened here when an enemy of the US and civilization period gained entry to not only the US, but one of the most prestigious institutions of learning in America is symbolic of the problem we have. Who let this guy in? Why? How? If we do not put a stop to this, in twenty years or less we will be exactly where France is right now. There is a mentality in the State Department that is anti-American, and they are doing everything they can in their little way to Balkinize the US. They see this as being cosmopolitan. Liberalism sees the US as the enemy of the world, and it is doing everything possible to destroy the US, hence its support of illegal immigration.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 24, 2006 08:18 AM (rUyw4)

12 I am more concerned over the security issuses involved in allowing one of our (ex?)sworn enemies entry into the country. I do not financially suport Yale. I have higher expectations for my government than I do forn some private institution. His visa should be withdrawn immediately by the State Departmentr. Wait maybe that is too harsh lol we should perhaps keep him out AT LEAST UNTIL THE WAR AGAINST THE TALIBAN IS OVER l

Posted by: john Ryan at April 24, 2006 08:35 AM (TcoRJ)

13 If you pay taxes, John Ryan, you support Yale, whether you know it or not. It would be interesting to know how much government aid Yale receives in a year, and I include government student loans and grants as being supportive of an institution, whether public or private. The money still goes to the institution and helps support it.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 24, 2006 09:48 AM (rUyw4)

14 john ryan: They're not idiots. It's too easy to just write them off as idiots or say, "What were they thinking?" It was not idiocy. They knew what they were doing. And I want to know who it was. Bluot: You're right, but this "culture of contempt" has bled over into our government by elite college graduates who adopt government careers and those who get in cahoots with government employees through professional connections. We know that some turd out west (I don't have time to look him up) took on this idea of getting Hashemi in on a student visa. So he uses his connections to ask around for help and someone tells him, "Hey, I have a connection at the State Department," and bingo! favors are done and everyone's on the hush-hush. We've been asleep at the wheel for far too long and now we're seeing the bitter fruits of it.

Posted by: Oyster at April 24, 2006 10:16 AM (f70+e)

15 Bluot? er... Bluto.

Posted by: Oyster at April 24, 2006 10:31 AM (f70+e)

16 Not sure if anyone caught this but it seems perfectly inline that the Chinese pres wrapped up his trip with a tour of Yale as well. Yale spreading the love around to terrorist and commies!

Posted by: tomb at April 24, 2006 09:00 PM (FqhsP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Top Democrat Leaves House Ethics Committee.

Yes itÂ’s just the Republicans who are crooked.

CNN :The top Democrat on the House ethics committee, Alan Mollohan, will leave the panel -- at least temporarily -- while he defends his own financial conduct, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said Friday.
Mollohan's decision comes in an election year when his party is accusing majority Republicans of allowing a "culture of corruption" in Congress.
Mollohan, of West Virginia, will be replaced by Rep. Howard Berman of California, a former ranking Democrat on the panel. Mollohan has denied any wrongdoing.
The Wall Street Journal reported two weeks ago that Mollohan steered millions of dollars to nonprofit groups in his district -- with much of the money going to organizations run by people who contribute to the lawmaker's campaigns.
Also, a conservative group filed a complaint with federal prosecutors this year questioning whether Mollohan correctly reported his assets on financial disclosure forms.

Hmm guess not. More to this than we now see, methinks.

Posted by: Howie at 05:38 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

1 This actually happened 3 (three) days ago. Amazing how it has *not* been covered by the MSM/DNC. The above is a snide remark for anyone not familiar with me. The MSM/DNC has tried to hide Democrtatic corruption for 76 years. Talk Radio threw a monkey wrench into the machinery 28 years ago.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at April 23, 2006 07:41 PM (8/W4F)

2 Yeah I had this Friday but just got around to posting it.

Posted by: Howie at April 23, 2006 07:46 PM (D3+20)

3 I think it has more to do with teh word politcian than Republican or Democrat.

Posted by: Howie at April 23, 2006 07:48 PM (D3+20)

4 Hmm gunshot. Heard that twice while blogging now to give yuo and idea of where I'm at. No it's not dangerous or frequent. Something may be dead though not a person. Some times people hit deer too and a bystander or a policeman has to you know. Kill it.

Posted by: Howie at April 23, 2006 08:25 PM (D3+20)

5 Every time you hear a gunshot, an angel gets its wings.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 23, 2006 08:47 PM (0yYS2)

6 And all these years I thought it was a bell. Now where did I get that idea, Clarence, uh, I mean IM? But if it is gunshots, I've sure caused a lot of angels to get their wings. About 25,000 or so, I guess.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 23, 2006 10:17 PM (rUyw4)

7 Not to post on topic or anything, but to have a dhimmicrap on an ethics committee is like Libya chairing the UN Human Rights Commission.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 24, 2006 04:57 AM (0yYS2)

8 This was in our local Saturday paper on page three. If it makes page three in our paper it'll be damn lucky to appear on page 16 in the NYT.

Posted by: Oyster at April 24, 2006 05:33 AM (YudAC)

9 I'm reminded of the late great LBJ - a man from very humble beginnings who committed his entire life to public service - and died with an estate worth in excess of 40 million (then dollars).

Posted by: hondo at April 24, 2006 05:55 AM (gdxQ2)

10 You folks are right, when a Democrat sinks to the criminal behavior of a Republican, that is news, kind of like dog bites man! But here's the thing: this very report stated the Wall Street Journal reported on this matter two weeks ago, as did the Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times and the Washington Post among others. I'd say these sources are about as MSM as you get. So where do the MSM drop a ball the blogosphere had to pick up?

Posted by: Eddie V at April 24, 2006 11:55 AM (UHKaK)

11 Oh wow Eddie, that stung! Boy, you really showed us that time, you did.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 24, 2006 02:34 PM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

New Bin Laden Audiotape Whines About 'Crusader War'

Al-Jazeera, the terrorists' voice of choice, has broadcast a new audiotape, purportedly from Osama bin Laden, in which the Saudi terrorist complains about the West's treatment of Palestinian terrorist government Hamas:

In the recording, aired on Sunday, the al-Qaeda leader said the isolation and cutting off of aid to the Hamas-led Palestinian government reaffirmed that the West was at war with the Islamic nation.
"The blockade which the West is imposing on the government of Hamas proves that there is a Zionist crusaders war on Islam," he said.

This is the sort of twisted logic that appeals to the average ignorant Muslim on the street and in the terrorist-breeding madrassas, aided and abetted by "media outlets" like al-Jazeera. After whining about aid being cut off to the Hamas government, bin Laden then whines piteously about Western people supporting the War on Terror:

"They send their sons to armies to fight us and they continue their financial and moral support while our countries are burned and our houses are bombed and our people are killed."

The only people indiscriminately burning mosques and murdering civilians are his own supporters, but many, if not most, Muslims are either deliberately misinformed by Arab media or too intellectually dishonest to admit the truth.

The rationalizations in Osama's comments may be a signal that a new terrorist attack is planned, which he is trying to justify in advance.

Bin Laden also railed about the Danish Mohammed cartoons and urged Islamist terrorists to help out their buddies in Sudan.

Al-Jazeera, of course, is careful not to mention the words "terrorist" or "terrorism", referring to the world's most notorious terrorist as "the al Qaeda leader".

Via the Stop the ACLU.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 05:14 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

Osama Speaks Again Finally

As reported earlier (so i'll make his post come first even though it looks like later) on this blog by our co-blogger The Dread Pundit Bluto, Osama Bin Laden has issued a new video. I have just few things to add.

Today we get more jew hating blah blah blah from the increasingly Irrelevant Osama Bin Laden

MSNBC via NBC News and News Services : In his first new message in three months, bin Laden said the WestÂ’s decision to cut off funds to the Palestinians because their Hamas leaders refuse to recognize Israel proved that the United States and Europe were conducting Â“a Zionist crusader war on Islam.Â”
Â“The blockade which the West is imposing on the government of Hamas proves that there is a Zionist crusader war on Islam,Â” said the speaker on the tape broadcast by the Al-Jazeera network.

Al Jazeera? Err, who else.

Israeli government spokesman Raanan Gissin said bin Laden had decided to attack Israel to deflect growing Arab animosity toward al-Qaida.
Â“When he attacks Israel, this is something the Arab world can agree upon,Â” Gissin said. Â“He has been criticized for the destruction and carnage heÂ’s causing the Muslim nation. HeÂ’s looking for another justification ... Criticizing Israel sounds more politically correct.Â”
Al-Qaida is believed to have no direct links to Hamas, which is an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, but they share an anti-Israel ideology that calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.

I thought you picked a fight with America? Now you are after the joooos again? What happened to crushing the infidels in the land of two rivers? What, do you fear what may happen if the majority of the Arabs get sick of your doctrine of hate and murder? You should be! You should also fear that we already have gotten sick of it. Really you can see this coming for 60 years. Nut's like him have been blowing up this or that consistantly for decades. Stop or be stopped!

Just one more thing. It looks like RustyÂ’s speculation that Bin Laden is in Africa may be right on target as Bin Laden was, Â“calling on his followers to go to Sudan to fight a proposed U.N. force.Â” The stench rising from the genocide in Darfur smells of Al-Qaeda more each day.

Others Dr Sanity And Tigerhawk.

Updated: Full English translation here and also in the extended entry. more...

Posted by: Howie at 05:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2094 words, total size 14 kb.

Hilton to Screw Hundreds at Friday Night Bash in DC!

An update on the Hilton Hotel corporation failure to make help make new arrangements for a group of disabled veterans about to be displaced by a remodeling. If you do help out these vets I think It would be a very nice gustier if Paris and Nikki came down and helped feed a few vets. Also it would be nice if they came by our place in bikinis and personally thanked Howie & 8ackgr0und N015e for pointing out the errors of their ways with a big smooch on the cheek for each of us. Then take us out to party. IÂ’m old and there is not much party left in me but IÂ’ll try.

Via 8ackgr0und N015e who Also included is this quote from Republican Abraham Lincoln::"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

I really want to thank Howie for the support here. This is not a matter of Right v. Left, it is Right v. Wrong.

You are quite welcome. IÂ’ll place my rants and most of the stuff 8ackgr0und N015e sent in us in the extended entry along with more Hilton chick pics like this one.

Sign Petition to help these vets here. more...

Posted by: Howie at 04:12 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1929 words, total size 13 kb.

ABC's Contribution to McCarthy Whitewash

As Kim Priestap, writing for Wizbang! notes, the American mainstream media are regaining their footing and circling the wagons to rally to the defense of Mary McCarthy, the CIA analyst fired for leaking information to the press.

ABC News is answering the partisan call. In a Saturday story on their website ABC manages to put together a remarkably dishonest piece of "journalism" predicting the fall of the Republic if leaking classified information remains a crime.

Not only did ABC fail to mention McCarthy's political leanings (she contributed $2000 to John Kerry's unsuccessful 2004 bid for the Presidency), there is also this:

"This a matter of principle," said Ray McGovern, a former fellow CIA analyst, "where she said my oath, my promise not to reveal secrets is superceded by my oath to defend the constitution of the U.S."

ABC leaves out the inconvenient, but telling, fact that Ray McGovern is one of the lunatic fringe who now makes his living calling for the impeachment of President Bush.

Prepare for much more dishonesty from the media, especially now that European investigators have found no trace of the CIA renditions that McCarthy whispered of to Dana Priest at the Washington Post.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, Stop the ACLU, and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:20 AM | Comments (62) | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

April 22, 2006

WaPo Editor Offers Idiotic Defense For Treason

While Dana Priest, the Washington Post post reporter at the center of the Mary O. McCarthy CIA leak scandal refused to comment to her own newspaper about the story, one of the Post's executive editors offered this remarkably obtuse excuse for McCarthy's partisan:

Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. said people who provide citizens the information they need to hold their government accountable should not "come to harm for that."

Now, think about that. Downie is actually advocating trying to run a government in which not a single bit of data can reasonably be expected to remain confidential. Downie doesn't explain what disclosures match his criteria for "holding their government accountable". Evidently, those determinations are up to any of the hundreds of thousands of government employees who are privy to classified information.

Presumably, based on the WaPo's history, any revelation that can be used to damage a Republican administration is "sharing information" and holding the government accountable. Revelations that damage Democratic politicians or support Republicans are "leaks" that are betrayals of public trust.

Are you a CIA officer pissed off because the candidate you donated $2000 to lost the Presidential election? Disregard your oath, your secrecy agreement, and the law, and hold the government accountable by leaking classified information! Leonard Downie Jr. has given his okay.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, Vince Aut Morire, and Stop the ACLU.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:37 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

1 This poor excuse for an American is guilty of treason. They should be swiftly put to death for all the public to witness. Also every member of their family must also be executed including all children so that no future traitors can harm our great nation again.

Posted by: Unashamed Patriot at April 22, 2006 01:27 PM (y+196)

2 Both the White House and the MSM admit that they talked about this over a year ago. Why has it taken so long to get the first of the fifth columnists? Why has no one been arrested and charged yet?!@#%?! It seems Alberto and Porter are not up to the job! Do any of Bush's folk want to win the War on Terror or is it all doubletalk?

Posted by: Rod Stanton at April 22, 2006 01:30 PM (YT0Dl)

3 The morality of leaking information is completely dependent on what that information is. While it would be completely moral (in fact, morally required) to leak actual bad things - such as, say, holding US citizens without charges for months or years at a time (I say this as an example of what would be bad enough to report, not as an accusation.) To liberals, however, it is permissable to leak anything that would harm Bushco, as it would help the liberals get back into power. "The ends justify the means" has been a longstanding leftist rationalization from everything from theivery to outright terrorism. This is just another example of that principle coming to the fore.

Posted by: MiB at April 22, 2006 02:45 PM (GtZpY)

4 It's not $2,000. It's close to $10,000. She (and her husband) are pretty generous with their money. I wonder it they are equally generous to real charities too!

Posted by: Fred Fry at April 22, 2006 03:46 PM (HJnrm)

5 Does anyone find it funny now that the story is apparenlty false -- there weren's any secret prisons? Most excellent sting operation.

Posted by: bill at April 22, 2006 04:37 PM (7evkT)

6 Unashamed: The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. -Article 3 section 3 We don't do "sins of the father(/mother)" crap. That's more of a muslim thing.

Posted by: MegaTroopX at April 22, 2006 06:04 PM (yT/Rw)

7 I've a sneaky suspicion that Unashamed Patriot and Victory for the USA are one and the same.

Posted by: Oyster at April 23, 2006 05:41 AM (YudAC)

8 These rotten liberal left-wing journalists would offer any excuses ever for BENIDICT ARNOLD

Posted by: sandpiper at April 23, 2006 01:32 PM (gJhPg)

9 I heard that John Kerry came to her defense as well. Interesting, considering his own meetings in Paris. This country has the intelligence community the party in control for several decades wanted and fomented; under Clinton it was emaciated and flogged to perfect ineffectivness and then blamed for its own dysfunction. If you have ever watched the remake of The Three Musketeers with Kiefer Sutherland, you're tracking this... I personally think all this manipulation of the intelligence community and the immigration has not be stupidity, but sly like a fox from the inside. Its all been a set-up to destabilize and make us vulnerable, seductively, over time with acquiesence to fall asleep. Why else would every initiative under Clinton be labeled as totalitarian? Fired for compromises my ass, it should be considered to prosecutive merit by the AUSA and prosecuted. The media in this country loves to publish crap and has the audacity to call it classified or secret in its reporting. Nothing like saving the adversary millions of dollars to try and defeat the secret, eh? But that isn't treason?

Posted by: vincenzo4 at April 23, 2006 06:23 PM (vh604)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 21, 2006

No Proof of CIA Renditions in Europe

I'm convinced this report will not get much exposure by the mainstream media.

From SeattleTimes.com:

(Brussels, Belgium) Investigations into reports that U.S. agents shipped prisoners through European airports to secret detention centers have produced no evidence of illegal CIA activities, the European Union's anti-terror coordinator said Thursday.
The investigations also have not turned up any proof of secret renditions of terror suspects on EU territory, Gijs de Vries told a European Parliament committee investigating the allegations.
The European Parliament's inquiry and a similar one by the continent's leading human-rights watchdog are looking into whether U.S. intelligence agents interrogated al-Qaida suspects at secret prisons in Eastern Europe and transported some on secret flights through Europe.

The left will likely experience chafing. Of course, the seriousness of the charges always trumps their veracity.

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 04:59 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

1 >>>No Proof of CIA Renditions in Europe They don't need no stinkin proof for what they already know to be true.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 05:52 PM (8e/V4)

2 Gee, didn't hear about this on the evening news... I guess they don't want to mess with their coverage not too long ago about these non-existent prisons.

Posted by: Ariya at April 22, 2006 01:59 AM (yHb0A)

3 I never understood how they thought they could get people in an uproar over this. Honestly, who besides the global leftard community cares if terrorists are getting flown from place to place? Liberals are too stupid to be allowed to live.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 22, 2006 05:04 AM (0yYS2)

4 IM, good point.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 22, 2006 07:34 AM (8e/V4)

5 >>> "There is so much circumstantial evidence, you can't close your eyes from the fact that this is probably happening," Dutch deputy Kathalijne Buitenweg said. If she loses her job she could easily find new work as a paranormal investigator - it doesn't matter who the testimony comes from or the possible motives behind it, simply because there's alot of it means the events really happened.

Posted by: Graeme at April 22, 2006 07:37 AM (XOxqV)

6 It will probibly be big healdlines in all the liberal left-wing birdcage linners like the New York Times

Posted by: sandpiper at April 22, 2006 07:37 AM (uo3LX)

7 The liberal mantra for today: Please repeat after me one thousand times: 1. there are no weapons of mass destruction....... 2. The C.I.A. had illegal prisons all over Europe

Posted by: n.a. palm at April 22, 2006 09:03 AM (3+Jow)

8 Isn't this the information, secret prisons and extraordinary renditions, that was leaked by the person that was just fired by the CIA ? Did she leak something that wasn't true ?

Posted by: john Ryan at April 22, 2006 12:06 PM (TcoRJ)

9 The simple solution is that all of our arab prisoners should simply be executed. No more stories of torture or abuse, these filthy subhuman animals have all been sent to Allah courtesy of the USA.

Posted by: Unashamed Patriot at April 22, 2006 01:29 PM (y+196)

10 Unashamed Patriot, changing your handle can't hide who you are.

Posted by: Oyster at April 22, 2006 02:26 PM (YudAC)

11 who is hiding? my handle reflects my feeling at the time.

Posted by: Unashamed Patriot at April 22, 2006 03:06 PM (y+196)

12 N.A. Palm, The US has been in Iraq for several years. Where are the weapons? If the proof is so solid, Where the hell are they? You really think the CIA hasn't devised ways to torture its prisoners? Tweak the law? Wake up, the war is about money, not bombs. Prisoners are tortured. . . .look at what our friend Unashamed Patriot has to say.

Posted by: Garner at April 22, 2006 03:16 PM (x7v0S)

13 >>> the war is about money, not bombs. There were terrorist attacks happening long before 9-11. Terrorists require weapons, food, clothing, training, lodging and transportation. These services are provided by people who make money. In Iraq and Afghanistan we've seen hostages being released after large ransoms were paid. Therefore I see no reason why Garner can't go over to the jihadi websites and complain about war profiteering.

Posted by: Graeme at April 22, 2006 03:54 PM (XOxqV)

14 Graeme Cracker misses the point, Our Texan president is a doink. He manages the war like the businesses he squandered. The republican View= Get behind the President because he must be right and someone else is wrong. The Democrats= Question authority because those in authority likely got there simply by knowing someone. If you don't ask questions, you end up with a Vietnam on your hands. War profiteering? Is it any coincidence that Bush, an oil man, sits on the greatest oil concerns ever? He doesn't care about the environment, so why no oil wells in Alaska to loosen the burden on us? His buddies over in the Saudi Arabia must love America right now. Bush the oil man preserved their interests. Bush the president "seeks" stability in rival oil market Iraq. Gee, what a pal. Last I heard, Osama was in Pakistan or Afghanistan, and Bush himself said the evidence for weapons in Iraq was weak. Why aren't you asking questions?

Posted by: Graeme at April 22, 2006 04:51 PM (x7v0S)

15 Garner: You can't be serious....... Your mind must be blind. I don't think there is anything as bad as a fool who is willfully foolish. But you have lots of company. I just pray America can survive this attack from within of the wilfull fools. You can't all hate America this much can you?

Posted by: n.a. palm at April 22, 2006 04:58 PM (3+Jow)

16 Who said I hated America? All terrorists should die. I favor lower gas prices. I happen to appeciate a president who is capable of forming a complete, rational thought. Oh by the way, I was in Iraq working for the State Department. What have you done for the war effort?

Posted by: Garner at April 22, 2006 05:11 PM (x7v0S)

17 Anyone else here go over to Iraq for the military? the government? Seems like the crazy liberal is only one who had the balls to put his ass on the line for his country. C'mon righties. I know someone in here can back up this crap with some action. . .

Posted by: Garner at April 22, 2006 05:20 PM (x7v0S)

18 Maybe Garner is right; aluminum stocks have really gone up under Bush's presidency...

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 22, 2006 05:37 PM (0yYS2)

19 Once again, no solutions. How about bringing something useful to the table. Were you smart enough to buy those stocks? Or were you too busy watching CNN?

Posted by: Garner at April 22, 2006 05:47 PM (x7v0S)

20 Garner, The State Department is populated by Libs, and you got SENT to Iraq, that's all. That's nothing to go around boasting about. I'm going to Iraq for KBR in August-- by choice. And most troops serving in Iraq ARE righties, so there's plenty of us backing our shit up. Not that any of this is relevant. This isn't Starship Troopers where only the military gets a say so.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 22, 2006 06:53 PM (8e/V4)

21 Working for State, eh Garner? Wow, I bet that was hellish, what with all those air conditioned hotel rooms, luxury SUV's etc.. It's a good thing our troops had you there to protect them. I went to Iraq the first time around, but to actually do something, not ride around in SUV's, and if we'd been allowed to finish the job the first time, we wouldn't be there now, but then as now, all the leftards were crying and screaming to get out as soon as possible. I'd go back in a hearbeat if the Army would take me, but I got too banged up serving my country, so now I must content myself with irritating nutcases like you, and dream of the day your precious revolution finally gets started.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 22, 2006 06:58 PM (0yYS2)

22 A striped pants liberal from foggy bottom? And you've to Iraq? Every redblooded American knows that the US State Dept is full of lying liberal cowards like Joseph Wilson. You guys don't give a rat's ass about America and our countrie's secure future. All you care about is stopping W anyway you can, even if it means bad things happen to America. I wouldn't brag about your service if I were you. It defines you precisely.

Posted by: n.a. palm at April 22, 2006 07:10 PM (3+Jow)

23 Last I heard, ANWR was torpedoed by Congress. Unless somehow Bush = Hitler = Congress. But anyhow, sticking for the moment on the subject of oil and the evil oil men who love the Saudis, on March 16 this year, the Senate voted on the 2007 Senate Budget Resolution including a provision for revenue from lease sales from the 10-02 Area of ANWR, which is regarded as the first of 4 steps to open up ANWR for drilling. It barely passed, 51 - 49. Looking at the 'nay' votes, the composition is overwelmingly Democratic. I guess we can blame Bush for that too. You say: "how about bringing something useful to the table". Since the start of the Iraq war, conservatives have been bringing useful stuff to the table, like: -regardless of the wisdom of starting the war in Iraq, pulling out the military now would be catastrophic. -putting pressure on neighbouring countries to stop the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq. -support the new Iraqi government and gain the trust of the Iraqi people by helping to rebuild the country and improve social and economic conditions. -put pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear program To date, here's what the liberals have suggested: - Bring the troops home now - Give special care to battlefield detainees - Let the UN decided US foreign policy - Let Iran have their nuclear program because they ain't so bad. So how about YOU GUYS bringing something useful to the table for once.

Posted by: Graeme at April 22, 2006 07:11 PM (XOxqV)

24 According to our president, the State department is vital to success in Iraq. (of course, he often lies, so who knows?) Garner should be applauded for serving. Most State Dept. employees have the option of getting out of an Iraq posting. So unlike many in our military, we can assume that he chose to go. And those of you who think that State service in Iraq is all limos and caviar are revealing your utter ignorance. In fact, state is trying hard to open up centers outside the green zone to aid civilian reconstruction. DOD has been putting up roadblocks to providing security. Another thing--if you hate the State department, explain why INR's analysis of WMD and of Iraq reconstruction was so much more accurate than any other member of the intel community. If you read the prewar NIE (unclassified), it is the INR's caveats and questions and claims that come out looking MOST accurate. guess those chardonnay sipping liberals are simply smarter than the beer chuggers at DIA, NSA, NGA, CIA, etc etc. Facts really are troublesome things...

Posted by: jd at April 23, 2006 09:38 AM (uT71O)

25 So unlike many in our military, we can assume that he chose to go. Except that every single person serving in the military is a volunteer, and most have joined since 9/11. Yes, facts are indeed troubling, but only if one is a leftard.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 23, 2006 03:05 PM (0yYS2)

26 Right, IM. My point was that many in the military (not a majority, perhaps, but a bunch of people, some known to me personally) did not want to go to IRAQ, and don't want to go back. Also, thousands of people in the ready reserve were activated, long after they had LEFT the service, and didn't want to go back. The difference is, you volunteer for both state and military, but once you are in the military, they send you where they need you. State has a little more choice, at least about war zones. So, duh, I was aware that it is a volunteer service. Did you know about activating people against their will? Your answer suggests not. But then, your answers often suggest merely the tip of the iceberg of your ignorance.

Posted by: jd at April 23, 2006 03:53 PM (uT71O)

27 Dude, it's called the IRR, and it's part of the contract that every service member signs. We all know about it, so STFU idiot.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 23, 2006 05:37 PM (0yYS2)

28 So, my point was that you could be in the IRR, and in the midst of civilian life, and not want to go to war. several dozens have filed appeals, and others have gone to court. So your initial posting, that everyone in the military in Iraq volunteered to go there, looks pretty stupid now, doesn't it? Volunteering for the military does not equal being happy about being sent to Iraq. I know nuance and complexity is hard for you, but put your thinking cap on, and give it a try.

Posted by: jd at April 23, 2006 08:28 PM (uT71O)

29 Don't be too hard on Garner, He could have been attached to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, with the State Department and that is a very dangerous job in it's own right. They're unsung hero's for sure. http://www.state.gov/m/ds/rls/53693.htm http://www.state.gov/m/ds/rls/37422.htm http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2005/53878.htm http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/39974.htm http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/37131.htm

Posted by: davec at April 23, 2006 11:20 PM (CcXvt)

30 I doubt it Dave, because they only let real men in the BDS.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 26, 2006 03:18 PM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Danish Supermodel Arrested

Danish supermodel May Andersen has been arrested for assaulting a flight attendant. Fox News:

Danish supermodel May Andersen has been arrested for hitting a flight attendant on a flight from Amsterdam to Miami, police said.
Airport police arrested the woman when the flight landed. She continued her unruly behavior with officers, police said.

Obviously, Andersen can be dangerous, but the mug shot below isn't a particularly good likeness. Therefore, as a public service, The Jawa Report has uncovered some other pictures of Andersen to aid concerned citizens in identifying her and taking appropriate precautions.

more...

Posted by: Bluto at 04:30 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

CIA Officer Fired For Leaking to Media (Updated)

A CIA officer, not assigned to public relations, has admitted to passing classified, operational information to the media, specifically, the Washington Post. From Fox News:

WASHINGTON Â— A CIA officer has been relieved of his duty after being caught leaking classified information to the media.
One official called this a "damaging leak" that deals with operational information and said the fired officer "knowingly and willfully" leaked the information to the media and "was caught."
A second law enforcement official confirmed said the CIA officer had provided information that contributed to a Washington Post story last year saying there were secret U.S. prisons in Eastern Europe.

The CIA is expected to prosecute. Expect Leftist traitors all over the country to spring to this weasel's defense.

Via the Drudge Report.

Update: NBC News has identified Mary O. McCarthy as the CIA officer fired. Interestingly, Fundrace.org identifies a Mary O. McCarthy, with occupation listed as "Analyst" for the U.S. Government as having donated $2000 to John Kerry's 2004 Presidential campaign.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 04:14 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 2 kb.

Co-Blogger Thanks

Thanks this week to all our co-bloggers for helping out while Rusty is off doing whatever the heck he does.

Thanks to Demosophist.
Vinnie.
Mike Pechar.
See-Dubya who also posts here.
Chris Short.
Traderrob.
The Dread Pundit Bluto.
Chad Evans.
Drew.
Richard.
Jane from Armies of Liberation.
And letÂ’s not forget Wine-O-Holic and the mysterious El Guapo.

And last but not least I'm your little Paduan Beotch Howie.

Also thanks to all of you who sent links and information that was a big help. Also thanks to our regulars and new visitors for participating in the comments this week despite the difficulties. And thanks to some a$$hole for forcing me to learn at least a little perl.

If IÂ’ve left anyone out feel free to email me or update this post. If you need to read something I suggest this article via Jihadwatch.

Jihadwatch :Andrew Bostom in FrontPage reviews Efraim Karsh's Islamic Imperialism, a new book that is refreshing in acknowledging what I have been saying for years: that Islamic jihad violence and subversion is not a "hijacking" of Islam, but a recrudescence of traditions, teachings and assumptions that are deeply embedded within the religion:

We expect my master the Macktastic Rusty Wicked will return on Monday.

Posted by: Howie at 01:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.

Michael and SeanÂ’s Trip to Iraq, The End

Read how they almost became evil tobacco smugglers too. And if poor old Howie can spare some change for Michael so can you. I enjoyed the whole series. Worth every cent I reckon.

Michael Totten :Hey, Joey. Have you ever seen the inside of a Turkish prison?
I did not want to see the inside of a Turkish prison.

Himdad handed Sean five cartons of cigarettes and pointed at his backpack. Sean looked at me without a word.
Â“I donÂ’t know,Â” I said. Â“What do we do?Â”

If we didnÂ’t carry five cartons apiece Himdad would be busted for smuggling again before we even got back into Turkey. Then what? He was our ride. Would we get in trouble, as well? Aside from stupid tourists like us, who on earth goes into Iraq for six hours? Who tries to bribe his way across the border except people who are up to no good?

Posted by: Howie at 01:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

America's Sons Come Home After 62 Years

From a Department of Defense press release:

The Department of Defense POW/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO)
announced today that the remains of eleven U.S. airmen, missing in action from World War II, have been identified and are being returned to their families for burial with full military honors.
They are Capt. Thomas C. Paschal, El Monte, Calif.; 1st Lt. Frank P. Giugliano, New York, N.Y.; 1st Lt. James P. Gullion, Paris, Texas; 2nd Lt. Leland A. Rehmet, San Antonio, Texas; 2nd Lt. John A. Widsteen, Palo Alto, Calif., Staff Sgt. Richard F. King, Moultrie, Ga.; Staff Sgt. William Lowery, Republic, Pa..; Staff Sgt. Elgin J. Luckenbach, Luckenbach, Texas.; Staff Sgt. Marion B. May, Amarillo, Texas.; Sgt. Marshall P. Borofsky, Chicago, Ill.; Sgt. Walter G. Harm, Philadelphia, Penn.; all U.S. Army Air Forces.
On April 16, 1944, Paschal and Widsteen were piloting a B-24J Liberator with the other nine men aboard. The aircraft was returning to Nadzab, New Guinea after bombing enemy targets near Hollandia. The plane was last seen off the coast of the island flying into poor weather.

Most of the men will be buried today in Arlington National Cemetery. The families of three of the men have decided to bury them in their hometowns.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, Stop the ACLU, and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:39 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Dude -- you might want to check the batteries in that calculator. Its should have come up with 62 years, not 52. Or is the problem "operator error"? Regardless, it is fantastic to have these men home again. May God bless them and their families.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at April 21, 2006 01:36 PM (4nXaP)

2 Good deal.

Posted by: Howie at April 21, 2006 02:25 PM (D3+20)

3 They remain forever young.

Posted by: Dave K at April 21, 2006 03:50 PM (YaR8u)

4 I wonder if there were any leftards there to protest against our unjust war against Hitler?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 22, 2006 05:06 AM (0yYS2)

5 Actually, it was the right that opposed the war against Hitler. Don't you read history? The left wanted to take on fascism as early as 1935. It's why Hemingway went to spain to fight with the leftists against Franco's fascists, allied with Hitler. It's why FDR's big opponent in the rearmament battle of 38-41 was the right wing, led by racists like Lindbergh and isolationists of all stripes (including the pacifist left, but they were the smaller part). Try again, IM, try again. (There were even some on the right who, after Pearl Harbor, advocating only going after the Japanese, and leaving the Jews and Hitler's other victims to burn. Please get me right--I am NOT using that historical position by a minority of the Right to characterize today's conservatives. I'm saying you couldn't be more pathetic and ignorant in your attempt to compare WWII and Iraq. The "left" was far stronger in the fight against fascism than the right was, in part because many on the right had sympathized with Franco, and yes, with Hitler (and in fairness, many on the left with Stalin)

Posted by: jd at April 22, 2006 01:06 PM (ccFYg)

6 Finally JD provides us with the anicdote to all the ultra right crap spewing over this site. I await the "educated" response from Inprobulus Maximus after he picked up a history book. Thank God our founding fathers were not so close minded, otherwise we would would be in a world of . . . .

Posted by: Garner at April 22, 2006 05:05 PM (x7v0S)

7 Yes JD, I read history, and pathetic and ignorant are words that you shouldn't throw around lightly, as you have no idea how ill equipped you are to tangle with me. I know more about history than you know the inside of your house, I'll warrant, and if I feel like it, I can bury you in facts without even referencing any material. You use the term "Right" to describe anyone who isn't a piece of shit Communist, which I guess is true, but hardly accurate to describe who "we" are today, and who "they" were yesterday. The terms Right and Left originated in France, based on where the Statists and the Populists sat, and like everything else they produce, is generally useless except in a superficial sort of way. Fascists and Communists are blood brothers because both creeds are Statist in nature, and both seek to crush freedom. With rare exception, it has always been the respect for individual liberty that has motivated the people of this nation, and to try to paint it otherwise is dishonest. But then, I expect nothing else from the likes of you. The leftards also opposed our stance against Hitler, right up until he invaded Russia, then it was okay, though that didn't stop them from trying to pass military and industrial secrets to the Communists, who were also our sworn enemies, but who were less immediate a threat than the Nazi's. It was an American Communist, Ted Hall, who passed our nuclear secrets to the Russians, thus setting the stage for the Cold War and the nuclear proliferation nightmare we have today. Your party has much for which to answer, so watch where you point your fingers. Regarding Hemingway, his decision to fight in the Spanish war was based purely upon his opposition to Fascism, though your kind would like to paint him as a good Communist. Hemingway was a populist at heart, because he liked people, but he opposed Statism of any kind, even that of FDR's Great Society. To try to use him, a good example of the American spirit, to bolster your love of Communism, is the very definition of pathetic and ignorant. Leftards today are either misinformed idiots or bald-faced liars, and they oppose everything that makes this country great, and are trying to destroy it at every turn, as they have been for a hundred years now, but you and your Tvarischi will fail, because liberty will always live in the hearts of enough people to remain when your idiotic Socialism is a thing of the past.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 22, 2006 05:21 PM (0yYS2)

8 Wow, I guess being being objective and open minded really pisses people off. Funny how this liberal worked in Iraq for the State Department. I must have been secretly trying to conspire with the terrorists to attack the Us forces stationed there. Improbulus, ever go Iraq? I pray to God you don't have to.

Posted by: Garner at April 22, 2006 05:42 PM (x7v0S)

9 Yes, I did go to Iraq in 1990, and not as some government parasite, but as a soldier, which is something you don't have the balls to be. I wish to God that I could go again, but they can't use me with all my injuries that I received in the service of my country, though I'd be glad to go with my bad back, torn ligaments, and all. Don't start crowing about what you've done, because you haven't done shit.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 22, 2006 07:45 PM (0yYS2)

10 IM--you know as little about Hem, as you do about world history. Read any one of several bios of Hem to figure out some of his politics. The Kenneth Lynn was is the best, IMHO. He was a committed leftist at one time, and his anger at Dos Passos and others who moved right was real. He and his eventual third wife Martha Gellhorne fought in Spain as leftists. Having seen Batista in action in Cuba, he was also pretty ambivalent about Castro. (I don't think he was ever very sophisticated politically, but like many great writers, he assumed that brilliance in one area was transferable universally) You are correct that the Communist Party in this country briefly endorsed the Molotov-Ribbentrop peace of 39-41--but that in no way makes untrue what I said about the left and right in the 30s and their attitudes towards fascism. In fact, the Comintern's aboutface on Hitler led to massive upheavals in the far left in this country, as many finally saw that Moscow was controlling the Comm. Party USA. Most on the left remained opposed to Hitler, regardless of cynical orders from Moscow. Even rightwing histories of the American left cover this; it is not in dispute. It was one of the things that led to neo-conservatism among Jewish intellectuals---how could the communist party preach alliance with the anti-semitic Hitler? As for my use of right: I don't think it applies to everyone who isn't a communist. It is a vague term, but since you throw around "left" and of course the lovely neologism "leftard", I'm rather surprised at your hypocrisy in objecting to the term "right". Are you saying that Lindbergh and the Liberty League were not "right"? Conservatism as you articulate it briefly above sounds far more like "libertarianism" a related but distinct ideology.

Posted by: jd at April 23, 2006 07:48 AM (uT71O)

11 JD, you're obviously well-versed in propaganda, so why don't you just admit that you're a Communist? You see the world as two camps; Yours, and everyone else's, with America as the prime enemy. Do you think you're the first to come here trying to sell that shit? The way you phrase everything as Fascim vs. Communism tells us at once what you are and where your loyalties lie. Just move to France, Cuba, or North Korea or anywhere else, but please get the hell out of America; we don't need you.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 23, 2006 05:52 PM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Student Indicted in Terror Plot

(Atlanta, Georgia) A 21-year-old mechanical engineering student at Georgia Tech, Syed Ahmed, was arrested last month by FBI agents on charges related to terrorism.

From 11Alive.com:

"Mr. Ahmed knowingly and unlawfully attempted to provide, conspired to provide materials, support, and resources, knowing the materials, support and resources were going to be used in the preparation for and the carrying out of two other federal terrorism laws," said U.S. Attorney David Nahmias.
Ahmed's family suspects a videotape of their son made of a building is what made authorities suspicious but FBI agents will not confirm that. The family reportedly allowed federal agents to take computer information from their son's room.
"Yesterday, Mr. Ahmed appeared in court for his initial appearance and arraignment in front of Judge Feldman," said Nahmias. "He entered a plea of not guilty and is presumed not guilty until the government proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

Ahmed's family came from Pakistan in 1997 and became U.S. citizens. Syed is reported to have become increasingly involved with Islam and allegedly attended a terrorist training camp in Pakistan last year. If he's guilty, it seems obvious to me that Ahmed was recruited through a mosque in the U.S.

Ahmed was taken into custody and ordered held until trial. No date has been set.

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 11:31 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Just another disgruntled yute.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 11:50 AM (8e/V4)

2 That's the moon god worshipper I was writing about. Another POS in this country. Thanks for posting this fine example of the religion of peace. ROPMA P.S. Any of you false god worshipping A-holes out there, (CAIR), want to make peace, I will cook up some pork stew. You folks are all welcome at the peace table. I will even say grace to Jesus who died for everyone's sins.

Posted by: Leatherneck at April 21, 2006 01:36 PM (D2g/j)

3 How in the world do these people immigrate to our country and become citizens so quickly? Were they covered by one of Clinton's amnesties, or can you become a citizen that quickly?

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 21, 2006 08:31 PM (rUyw4)

4 Don't you only need to be a resident for five years to apply for citizenship? I believe it is that way up here in Canada.

Posted by: LC CanForce 101 at April 21, 2006 10:03 PM (3smJS)

5 To get fast-track citizenship, one must be a turd-world piece of shit, Euroleftard, or muslim. My friends from Russia have been waiting for over a decade now, with no word. I told them they should change their names and fly to a town in northern Mexico, sneak across the border, get caught, and voila!, citizenship. Our government sucks and should be thrown out part and parcel, and all the bums hanged on the capitol steps.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 22, 2006 05:11 AM (0yYS2)

6 IM--take your medication, and step away from the keyboard...

Posted by: jd at April 23, 2006 09:24 AM (uT71O)

7 http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49865 Wonder what the DHS is up to not arresting all those morons?

Posted by: Andre at April 23, 2006 11:21 AM (/u+1F)

8 JD, if you think that one word you write is going to have any effect on me, or anyone else here, other than boredom, you're wrong, just like about everything else. You're an idiot liberal who supports terrorism by undermining the war efforts, and you don't even deserve a new rope.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 23, 2006 05:58 PM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Cologne Killing Young Saudi Men

(Jeddah, Saudi Arabia) Social science experts are calling for a national awareness campaign after a rash of deaths of young Saudi men who drank cologne containing methyl alcohol. Although alcohol is prohibited in the Kingdom, 17 young Saudis have died in the recent past believing anything that lists alcohol as an ingredient is safe to drink.

From ArabNews.com:

Al-Nadwa daily recently launched an investigation into the practice in an effort to warn young people and hopefully save lives.
"This problem started four years ago when a number of university and high school students fell victim to it," said Dr. Saleh Awad Al-Garni, an expert in Islamic studies. "At that time, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry withdrew all the cologne from the market where ethyl alcohol exceeded 90 percent and methyl alcohol exceeded 50 percent."

Unfortunately, a typical result of banning a product is the creation of a black market.

"It's very sad that these people are buying the cologne to drink it," said Dr. Muayad Al-Hashmi, a general practitioner. "The Ministry of Commerce warned us about these colognes and limited sales to spray bottles. Smugglers, on the other hand, import the dangerous colognes into the Kingdom caring only about making fast money -- not about people's health.

Experts blame a variety of causes for the behavior of the young men. These include personality disorders, social and family troubles, and satellite television. I don't know, but if I lived in a hot, desert environment, I'd want a cold beer. You could blame it on my . . . uh . . . personality disorder . . . or anything you'd like. And despite flowery-pleasant breath, I'll pass on the foo-foo.

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 11:00 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

Hamas Appointment Reaffirms Terrorist Roots

Hopes held by some that Hamas' new responsibilities as the elected government of the Palestinian Authority would civilize the terrorist organization fade a little more each day.

From Reuters:

GAZA (Reuters) - A militant leader appointed to a senior security position in the Hamas-led Palestinian government said on Friday he would not abandon the fight against Israel which has long sought to kill him.
Jamal Abu Samhadana, high on Israel's most wanted list as leader of the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC), was appointed on Thursday to supervise the Interior Ministry and set up a new police force from militants to crack down on anarchy and chaos.
"Factions and security services should unite in one trench against the daily Israeli aggression against our people," Abu Samhadana told Reuters in an interview.

In case there was any hope that high office and its responsibilities would mellow Samhadana:

"I will continue to hold the rifle and will pull the trigger whenever required to defend my people," he said.

As has become apparent from recent events, "defending" the Palestinian people still means killing Israelis in falafel houses.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, Stop the ACLU, and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 09:23 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 2 kb.

George W Bush ChinaÂ’s Beotch

Yesterday a heckler heckled Chinese President Hu Jintao. Today I read that she was not only removed she has been charged with Disorderly conduct and more serious charges of Â“annoying important peopleÂ” are being considered.

NEWS24 : Secret Service spokesperson Jim Mackin said Wang had been charged with disorderly conduct and a separate charge of intimidating or disrupting foreign officials also was being considered.

I kind of worry about being critical of W, some days it does not go over too well. But when your President has his head up the ass of a communist dictator it's pretty much required (plus It's Friday). See we are asking for China to free political prisoners like Hao Wu. Then at the slightest provocation we charge a person and are considering even harsher charges for political speech. Does any one else see the hypocrisy in this? We are falling all over ourselves to apologize for this when China deserves to be heckled on human rights.

Yahoo News : China "must know that this Bush administration is good at controlling crowds for themselves, and the fact that they couldn't control this is going to play to their worst fears and suspicions about the United States, into mistrust about American intentions toward China."

Let me translate that for you. ItÂ’s a good thing Hu Jintao was kept busy yesterday for if he ever came to a complete stop it would have taken the Surgeon General an hour to remove George W BushÂ’s head from the Chinese PresidentÂ’s rectum.

China can now say,Â” What do you mean? You hypocrite you arrested that woman in DC. You have your nuts, we have ours. Get lost!Â”

IÂ’m sorry Mr. Bush for being a troll but itÂ’s all IÂ’ve got, make a few calls and have the charges dismissed. Worse than giving China a pass, you turned right around and did the same damn thing at least in spirit. Some times I wonder just what the hell our President is thinking about besides what he is doing.

Others : Michelle Malkin who is hosting the video of the hecklingand Gateway Pundit who has a good post on China recent Human rights record.

Hey Rush translates too.

Chinese President Hu Jintao : We will bury you!

Hat Tip : Steve Keeper of the Crimson Love Monkey.

For those of you without broad band click the Fatwa below or here for Church and States transcript of Rush's translation.

Posted by: Howie at 08:35 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I'm with you Howie. What do we teach the Chinese if we punish her for shouting at leaders? Of course, the same thing happened to American citizens at Bush appearances in 2004...but....

Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 08:42 AM (uT71O)

2 Welcoming an Oppressor to the White House

Posted by: WPB at April 21, 2006 09:23 AM (uz6kb)

3 Some people try to get arrested some don't. In general I think unless they resist violently just give em the boot. Seems we are a bit uptight. The appearances you speak of I think should be handled the same boot em. There will always be some guy trying to be arrested. But most of the time let them go. There is a reason why we can drop a charge.

Posted by: Howie at April 21, 2006 09:24 AM (D3+20)

4 Yeah, I agree sometimes people try to get arrested. But removing someone from a public event for wearing a t-shirt that was anti-bush (and placing them under arrest), or removing people from the parade rout for carrying anti-bush signs, have all been documented. They even wouldn't admit people with anti-bush bumper stickers on their cars at some events. Bush's bubble was the worst since Nixon in 72, and I'm glad he's loosened up his own tolerance for dissent in the last six months. It's good for democracy here, and it's good for emerging democracies around the world to see that a strong leader doesn't fear dissent.

Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 09:54 AM (uT71O)

5 jd, I've seen film of these Leftard protesters disrupting Republican events. I have no sympathy for them. Their free speech rights doesn't give them a right to disrupt other people's free speech rights.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 11:09 AM (8e/V4)

6 Anyone disrupting an event should be removed, for the reason you give. But many of the Bush limitations on speech during the 2004 election were Orwellian, and went way beyond that standard, or any reasonable security concern. I'm glad he has relaxed about confronting people who disagree with him. It is a positive development for our democracy.

Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 11:36 AM (aqTJB)

7 Good post. ---- But I don't agree with Rush on one point. I don't think the CHICOMS knew Jack Bauer was alive.

Posted by: Oxen at April 21, 2006 11:44 AM (w9vWW)

8 Agreed Howie. I've lost a lot of respect for W. He's become an ignoramous.

Posted by: Richard at April 21, 2006 01:46 PM (U+YqD)

9 Some think the protester's free speach rights were denied. I think the protester tried to deny Mr. Hu's free speach rights. Regardless of what you think of Chineese policy, Mr. Hu had a right to speak at that assembly. He was the one invited to speak there, after all, not the protester. Had she shouted her slogans outside the assembly, no harm. If she had silenty carried a picket sign at the rear of the assembly with anti-China slogans, no harm. And some think it's the Presidents job to invite foreign guests so he can criticise and lecture them publicly. Not! Well mannered people shake hands and make nice with invited guests.

Posted by: Doug Purdie at April 21, 2006 04:13 PM (00DOn)

10 She had no RIGHT to interrupt a media event that was NOT open to the public. And the differnce between the way the US will handle this protester and the way China would, is that she will get a harmless disorderly conduct charge, which may even get quietly dropped. In China, she'd be in prison until she rotted. So please stop the hand-wringing about how we aren't being a better model for China to follow. Yeeesh!

Posted by: Craig at April 21, 2006 04:55 PM (6VSMY)

11 the chinese lady disrupts an event at the white house, she's arrested, and charged the next day. the women from georgia physically strikes a policeman performing his offical security duties and weeks later she has yet to be arrested or charged. whats up with that?

Posted by: kepa poalima at April 22, 2006 02:22 AM (PxxMB)

12 Actually Craig, she'd most likely be shot. I used to have a page bookmarked that had lots of pics of executions of women for doing things like selling stuff without a license, so imagine what this one would get. A bullet would be merciful.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 22, 2006 05:14 AM (0yYS2)

13 The website/news agency that Dr. Wang works with posted a nice disclaimer about the incident also. http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-4-21/40651.htmlpe I applaud Dr. Wang for seizing the opportunity to speak her mind. After all, this being America, one should not fear the government when one has a grievance.. until now.

Posted by: JeepThang at April 22, 2006 08:47 AM (yZQoS)

14 So, Doug, how do well mannered people wash the blood off after that?

Posted by: Erik at April 22, 2006 11:04 AM (XHfLv)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Senior Al-Qaeda Suspect Killed

(Khar, Pakistan) There's strong indication that a close associate of Ayman al-Zawahiri was killed yesterday in a gunfight in northwestern Pakistan. As a reminder, Zawahiri is second in command of al-Qaeda after Osama bin Laden.

From Aljazeera.net:

The suspect, thought to be Saudi-born Abu Marwan al-Suri, was killed on Thursday close to the Afghan border.
Major-General Shaukat Sultan, the Pakistan army spokesman, said al-Suri was in a vehicle on the outskirts of Khar, a town near the Bajur tribal region.
Al-Suri opened fire when he was asked to stop his vehicle at a roadblock. He killed a Pakistani security official and wounded two others before he himself was killed.
His body has been transported to a hospital in the city of Peshawar for identification.

Seized from al-Suri's vehicle were a video camera, a laptop computer, hand grenades and some documents. However, according to a Pakistani intelligence officer, al-Suri is probably not the man's real name. Nonetheless, since al-Suri was so closely associated with al-Qaeda leadership, I tend toward the thought that his elimination means the perimeter around bin Laden is tightening.

From Interested-Participant. Also posted at In The Bullpen.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 04:44 AM | Comments (51) | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Wow, it's sure tough to be a leftard these days, what with all their heroes getting killed and all. With any luck, they'll join them soon.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 21, 2006 06:58 AM (0yYS2)

2 Our enemy is a "boogyman" or some such thing according to one of the unhinged who called into the Bill Bennett show this morning. I know of about 3000 or so people who would disagree with him....if they could.

Posted by: mrclark at April 21, 2006 07:28 AM (IMrft)

3 LIVE BY THE SWORD DIE BY THE SWORD nuff said

Posted by: sandpiper at April 21, 2006 07:48 AM (aTvBX)

4 "Terrorism is not a threat." ~~Michael Moore

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 07:53 AM (8e/V4)

5 Great. Another one gone............ just a billion or so more to go.

Posted by: n.a. palm at April 21, 2006 07:59 AM (XPviN)

6 Great, looks like IM has found an apostle of hate, who also wants to kill all Muslims. I doubt anyone with a moeity of his marbles thinks that the Left worships Al Qaeda terrorists. People on the left tend to want sexual equality, personal freedom, religious freedom, gay liberation, limited government...all values that are anathema to Al Qaeda. But keep it going, guys. This should do wonders for all the readers here who might believe mistakenly that the left spews more hatred than the right. Each advocate of genocide on the Muslims makes up for, oh, about 250 people who advocate abusing conservative columnists (because genocide is a little more serious). (clarification for the reading comprehension challenged--that is NOT an endorsement of leftwing haters--it is merely a comparison)

Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 08:12 AM (uT71O)

7 But jd, if the muslims take over, you will be among the first to be beheaded by the 'religion of peace' boys. If there's one group they hate worse than christians, it's agnostic liberals like you.

Posted by: n.a. palm at April 21, 2006 09:24 AM (XPviN)

8 My point exactly, Palm. That's why "leftards" don't make heroes of Al Qaeda members or supporters. Sure, some on the left ask the question--why are so many in the Muslim world ambivalent about or supportive of Al Qaeda? And some of their answers offend some on the right. But asking that question is NOT the same as supporting Al Qaeda. Also--how do you know I'm an agnostic liberal? I hold a lot of views that would disqualify me for both categories. Just because I don't want to kill a billion muslims, I'm an agnostic liberal? And are you serious about wanting to kill all the Muslims? If you are, how would you describe your "religion" or views? Peaceful? For the record, the vast majority of Muslims don't want to kill all Christians and agnostics (hell, even Al Qaeda doesn't want to kill us all--they want to kill enough of us to get us out of historically Muslim lands from India to Spain, and build a new caliphate, but after that, they're happy to let us roast our way to hell by ourselves)

Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 09:34 AM (uT71O)

9 I should note that the Islamofascists would probably kill all the Jews, Christians, wiccans, Shi'ites, Bahais, agnostics, atheists, Sufis, Buddhists, and Yazeris who remained in the caliphate lands. Luckily, there is more chance of Donald Rumsfeld winning the Democratic nomination in 2008 than this caliphate will ever be built. Ironically enough, for a movement that venerates history, this would be an act ignorant of history. Compared to Christianity, in the middle ages, the Islamic world was far more tolerant of religious diversity, at least towards Jews and Christians. They considered them "people of the book" who were almost as good as Muslims (the Muslims were much more brutal towards pagans of all kinds, at least until they conquered India). They didn't have full civic equality, they paid a higher tax for not believing, but their general status was higher than religious minorities in the West. It was a much better deal to be a Jew in Baghdad or Damascus than it was to a Jew almost anywhere in the Christian world. And, of course, several of the crusades were about massacring our own pagans in Europe, so pagans had a rough go of it wherever they were. Still, it is only in the last 100 years that Jews have been massacred or persecuted to the extent that they have been forced to emigrate from most of the Muslim world.

Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 09:50 AM (uT71O)

10 Jd: Slight correction needed: I doubt anyone with a moeity of his marbles thinks that the Left worships Al Qaeda terrorists. People on the left tend to want sexual equality, personal freedom, religious freedom, gay liberation, limited government..for the people of the United States. We know they don't want gay liberation in Iran, religious freedom in Saudi Arabia -- personal freedom? why, that is for the AMERICAN people only, pesky brown people don't deserve freedom.

Posted by: davec at April 21, 2006 09:56 AM (CcXvt)

11 >>>People on the left tend to want sexual equality, personal freedom, religious freedom, gay liberation, limited government...all values that are anathema to Al Qaeda. True dat. If anything is pissing off the terrorists it's the decadent values of the Left. Which proves Bush was right when he said the terrorists hate our freedoms. But the Left only wants the U.S. to change its foreign policies-- which they claim is pissing off the radical muslims. Is the Left similarly willing to change its own decadent values that also piss off radical muslims? Of course they aren't. Which just shows what huge hypocrites they are. The Left doesn't mind pissing off radical islam, but then they try to weaken our efforts to protect ourselves against the very terrorism which they themselves help create. Hypocrites and buffoons. That's today's Left. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 10:04 AM (8e/V4)

12 It was one week ago that operation "Mountain Lion" began with the participation of 2500 coalition troops in the Afghan province opposite Bajur. This resulted in a total of 6 casualties for the enemy, Kunar province is the home to Hektmatyar. His group claimed responsibility for shooting down the special operations helicopter in which 19 died. He was probably using one of his leftover stingers.

Posted by: john Ryan at April 21, 2006 10:05 AM (TcoRJ)

13 Amen Jesusland Carlos.

Posted by: Howie at April 21, 2006 10:07 AM (D3+20)

14 Dave--just because they do not advocate invasion of Iran, this means they don't want gay people to be free there, because they are racist? That's a long, tendentious stretch of logic. I agree that sometimes, people on the left have been torn between their egalitarian social values and their anti-colonialism. This point was made most effectively in Allan Bloom's the Closing of the American Mind. A paleo-con (also gay, but whatever), Bloom would stump liberal college students by asking them--you are a colonial administrator in India. A widow is about to be burned alive. You have the power to stop it. What should you do? Enforce your own Western values, as a colonial, or let the woman die, and tolerate male hegemony and murder? They couldn't answer. But your example is hardly as compelling. If we accept that, say, Amnesty International is a "liberal" group, they have been working against Saudi and Iranian treatment of sexual minorities for decades. And Republicans of the pro-oil variety have been tolerating those same regimes, enthusiastically. Just because someone doesn't want to invade Iran/Saudi, doesn't mean they oppose freedom there. Sometimes invasion is not the best way to bring freedom. Sometimes it is.

Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 10:07 AM (uT71O)

15 I disagree that the terrorists are pissed off most by gay liberation here, or our sexual freedoms generally. If you read the lifestories of the major terrorists, or read their writings, they are certainly critics of the decadent west (in terms that echo that of Dobson, etc). But they see these as self-correcting problems. We will become weak, and disease-ridden, through homosexuality, female sexual freedom, etc. They LIKE those things, here, because it helps them win the war. What drives them to commit acts of mass murder are the presence of foreign troops in their holiest areas, the support by the west for the most corrupt and authoritarian and often secular regimes, and our support for Israel (probably in that order). They object, of course, to Baywatch being broadcast in Qatar, but they can handle it by taking over the governments there. It is not baywatch or "our freedoms" that makes them terrorists against us. In what way is liberalism a mental disorder? At the extremes, all ideologies are populated by the unhinged, whether right or left, because at the extremes you find sociopaths, megalomaniacs, the truly paranoid, and the socially isolated. But this is no more true of the left than the right. Surely there is evidence of mental disorder among far right extremists on these very boards, right?

Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 10:14 AM (uT71O)

16 jd To be clear, I do not advocate the extermination of all muslims. That is not christian. However, it would be nice if somehow all the devil worshipping cult-like, throat- slitting, wife-beating, child-raping, mega-murdering ones would disappear from the face of the earth. And you know, they will. When God has had enough of this, He will put a stop to it.

Posted by: n.a. palm at April 21, 2006 10:17 AM (XPviN)

17 >>>I disagree that the terrorists are pissed off most by gay liberation here, or our sexual freedoms generally. Then you would be denying the obvious. If you can't acknowledge obvious facts like that, then what use is there in arguing the more debateable points with you.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 10:17 AM (8e/V4)

18 Dave--just because they do not advocate invasion of Iran, this means they don't want gay people to be free there, because they are racist? That's a long, tendentious stretch of logic. Talking about a stretch of logic, I don't believe I mentioned a military strike against Iran, perhaps you should quote me on it. I can't remember the last protest I saw, or call to disgrace Iran for hanging homosexuals, or code pink protesting women's rights in Saudi Arabia, they're only obsessed with American rights, screw everyone else.

Posted by: davec at April 21, 2006 10:26 AM (CcXvt)

19 I dunno, Jesusland. When have they attacked gays or abortionists or feminists here? Yes, they stone gays there. Yes, they put women in Burkhas there. But the reason they hate us is not because gays kiss in the streets of SF. They hate us because we have propped up Egypt, and Saudi, and those governments have imprisoned and tortured them. They disapprove of our freedoms, but they think God will punish us for them, and that will be good for them. In this, they echo the rhetoric of Falwell and Robertson. In the theocratic worldview, God helps those who resist sodomy, and punishes those who practice it. They aren't blowing us up because we tolerate homosexuality or let women parade around dressed like whores--they are blowing us up because we give 2 billion a year to Mubarak, a corrupt, authoritarian neo-socialist bastard, because we support Israel, and because we have, in their view, exploited the Arab and Muslim world for three hundred years (we, the west). I'm not AGREEING with them. I'm just saying you're wrong to think that they are angry over butt sex over here. Give them a caliphate over there, and we can have all the buttsex we want.

Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 10:29 AM (uT71O)

20 >>>I dunno, Jesusland. When have they attacked gays or abortionists or feminists here? jd, They don't go around attacking neocons here either. Which proves nothing. But they do attack homos overseas: It may be Europe's most liberal city - but if you are gay, you had best beware http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1611374,00.html

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 10:34 AM (8e/V4)

21 JD, nobody really cares what you have to say, because we all recognise you for the apologetic dhimmi sycophant that you are. This is the most ironic situation possible; you hate we evil conservatives more than anything else, and side with the terrorists against us, but if the terrorists win, you leftards will be the first to get the chop, as conservative moral values are far more compatible with those of islam than are yours. You are banking on us to lose, which would guarantee your own demise, proving that liberalism is not just a mental disorder, it is suicidal dementia.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 21, 2006 10:36 AM (0yYS2)

22 Dave--maybe you don't spend enough time on gay activist websites, but they do protest Iranian abuse of gays. http://www.sgn.org/sgnnews32/page1.cfm Code pink is an anti-Iraq war group. Asking them to work for women's rights in the Islamic world is like asking pro-life groups to support the war in Iraq. Many members may agree with that goal, but it isn't what the group is about. But be certain that if you did some research, you would find MANY liberal women's groups that have tried to bring the world's attention to the miserable status of women in many Islamic countries. One question I love to get liberals with is this: if the women of Saudi Arabia were blacks, would we be in such a tight alliance with that country? After all, by some measures it was better to be black in South Africa than to be a woman in Saudi Arabia. We seem to have, as a nation, a higher tolerance for sex discrimination than racial discrimination.

Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 10:39 AM (uT71O)

23 IM--I don't hate conservatives. I often agree with them. Our nation needs liberals, conservatives, and moderates, because truth seldom walks with one group at all times. Dhimmi? Sycophant I know, but Dhimmi? Democrat? Dimwitted? Demonic? Looks vaguely arabic, but I confess, you got me. I don't side with the terrorists. You are fond of Mannichean logic, aren't you? If I disagree with the war in Iraq, I must side with the terrorists. I can understand why that is pleasing to you, but trust me, it isn't true. (Zinni? Buckley? George Will? Do we ALL want the terrorists to win? Man, hating America must be more widespread than I thought!)

Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 10:44 AM (uT71O)

24 JD: what point does people protesting in London about Iranian's hanging homosexuals have to do with my point: ..for the people of the United States. I guess because a U.S gay newpaper carried the story? My point is that their policy is centric only to providing freedom, liberty and justice to the people of the United States, and providing their trust in the United Nations to do the rest, a very bad gamble, the United Nations is tied up by member countries self-interest financial, and political to ever get anything done anymore. Tell me if you haven't heard the following from left-leaning people: "it's not the job of America to bring freedom to Iraq, if the people wanted it, they would have overthrown Saddam Hussein" This is exactly the attitude I am addressing when I said they want these things for themselves, and screw anyone else. Actually IM summed it up much better in one of his posts the other week, where he said the Left doesn't care as long as they're not the ones doing the suffering or the dying.

Posted by: davec at April 21, 2006 11:28 AM (CcXvt)

25 Actually, Dave, if you read the article, it is about demonstrations all over the world, including here. There are many examples, if you look at Amnesty, you'll see. Also, in regards to your earlier post about muslim extremists attacking gays in Europe--I don't think that is the same as Al Qaeda targeting gays. My point is not that Muslim extremists like gays, they clearly don't. They will kill them when they control a polity, and they will kill them individually if they get power over them. I just don't think homosexuality here is a prime motivating force for their activism. Incidentally, consider this: discreet homosexuality is widely tolerated in rural Afghanistan. There is an old Pashto saying: Women for procreation, boys for pleasure. Rich men in Afghan culture sometimes "purchase" boys as companions. I'm not in favor of it, I'm just saying that the Taliban was stoning gays who sought rights, but not those who were rich and discreet. The islamicist attitude about sexual immorality is hardly as monolothic as you suppose, nor is it as large a motivating force as the others I named.

Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 11:43 AM (aqTJB)

26 Hey, Dave--do you have any problem with citing IM as an authority on anything? He has advocated the extermination of all liberals and Muslims, worldwide. I have friends in both categories, and I would not want to see them slaughtered. How do you feel about genocide, Dave?

Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 11:45 AM (aqTJB)

27 jd: You have a muslim friend? Are you sure? Do you turn your back on him? I wouldn't, because they're all only friendly until it's time to fulfill allahs will to murder.....Islam is not a religion, it is a psycho-pathology, of murder, revenge, hatred and death. I wonder why you don't know this yet.

Posted by: n.a. palm at April 21, 2006 12:01 PM (XPviN)

28 I had muslim friends back in my Lib days whom I was very fond of. I still have the best memories of them. They were elites back home-- not ignorant rubes that Libs like to claim are the radicals-- and they were charming and educated and very warm people. But in hindsight I now understand that despite their personal qualities, they were/are in bondage to a deception called islam. I got a real wake up call the day the mullahs put a hit on Salman Rusdhies head because of that novel he wrote. Guess what. My "moderate" muslim buddies were all for it. I spent hours yacking my Liberal mouth off trying to reason with them, to no avail. These so-called "moderates" turned out to be nothing of the kind when the rubber hit the road. In hindsight I can now see that Islamic radicalism is their mainstream. And it doesn't make any difference how nice and charming my muslim buddies were. It doesn't change the fact they are in bondage to a lie.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 12:45 PM (8e/V4)

29 Our freedoms are more entwined with the freedoms permitted in other countries than you may think. So railing against those who rob others of their freedoms is in our best interests. Not the "it's none of our business" attitude promoted by the far-left. "They hate us because we have propped up Egypt, and Saudi, and those governments have imprisoned and tortured them." And exactly how do they show this hatred? Oh yeah, with imprisonment, torture, beheadings, killing women and children and violating even the most basic of human rights like freedom of religion and speech. It looks pretty simple to me. They don't like that their kind have been punished by someone else, but they're not a bit concerned about others, you know, like Christians or Jews or anyone "not like them". Okay - I get it.

Posted by: Oyster at April 21, 2006 01:13 PM (okCpP)

30 Oyster--thanks for adding "far" to left. I wish more people would do that here when they make statements about the extreme fringes. Don Wildmon isn't "the Right" and neither is Ann Coulter. I agree with you that some on the far left have a neo-isolationist attitude--whatever they want to do over there is fine, just don't invade them, leave us alone. (so do some on the paleo-right, Buchanan, etc) This violates Jefferson's vision of universal human rights. Americans should not be ignorant or uncaring about the rights of others. Neither, however, should we be invading and imposing our values. It is a balance. Are you really so surprised that the Islamicists are torturing in response to torture? Palm, above, in response to anti-Christian prejudice among Muslims, now judges all Muslims as the same, and advises no one to ever be friends with one. No one to ever trust one. It is not a religion, it is a pathological illness. Jesusland had some Muslims defend the fatwa on Rushdie, and ever since, he's known that all muslims were the same. They sound exactly like islamo-fascists talking about Christianity, homosexuality, judaism, or agnosticism. We often become a mirror image of that which we loath. As Nietzsche put it: wrestle ye not with monsters, lest ye yourself become a monster. And know that when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares also into you.

Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 02:49 PM (aqTJB)

31 >>>Jesusland had some Muslims defend the fatwa on Rushdie, and ever since, he's known that all muslims were the same. jd, On the contrary, I don't believe all muslims are the same. The muslims I knew back in college were of the "moderate" variety. I don't consider all (perhaps not even most) muslims to be moderate. And if these were the moderates, then no surprise at all that islam is in conflict with its neighbors all over the globe. When the monsters wrestle us, we have to wrestle back. No choice.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 03:03 PM (8e/V4)

32 I know a few "moderate" muslims, and while they don't openly support the slaughter of all non-muslims, they still blame the Jooooooos for everything. Regardless of their particular affiliation to doctrine, I still don't trust any of them for the same reason black people don't trust David Duke.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 21, 2006 03:12 PM (0yYS2)

33 IM--how uncommonly moderate of you. You've gone from wanting to kill them all, to saying that you simply don't trust them. That's progress. I'll start the weekend hopeful for the spread of progressive ideals. As for blaming the Jews--I remember last summer, talking to some Arab students brought over here by our State Dept to teach them about the US. Really educated, elites, much like the folks Carlos is referencing. They seemed so reasonable, so smart...then it got to 9-11. And half of them were convinced that Mossad had done it, to make Muslims look bad. Arab countries have been lying to their people for so long, that such anti-semitic fictions are remarkably and depressingly common. Yet, at the same time, this was when a study of American public opinion was being released. Turns out a majority of Americans at one time (and a majority of Fox News viewers as late as 2005) thought that Iraqis had been on the planes of 9-11. That WMD had been found in Iraq. And that Saddam helped plan 9-11. Thinking that Saddam helped plan 9-11...that Iraqis were on the planes...not AS crazy/stupid/dumb as thinking Mossad planned 9-11. But still pretty crazy dumb stupid.

Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 03:23 PM (aqTJB)

34 >>>Thinking that Saddam helped plan 9-11...that Iraqis were on the planes...not AS crazy/stupid/dumb as thinking Mossad planned 9-11. But still pretty crazy dumb stupid. The former-- that Iraqis were on the planes-- is merely wrong, while the latter-- that jews and "Bush" brought down the Twin Towers-- is lunatic. There's an ocean of difference between wrong and lunatic. You think yourself subtle and "nuanced" in your little equivalency exercises (that's seems to be your gig here), but you merely exhibit a black or white thinking where, for example, being mistaken Fox viewer is no different than being a loon brainwashed by hateful ideologies inculcated over generations. They aren't the same, and you aren't nuanced for trying to make them the same. You are simplistic.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 03:49 PM (8e/V4)

35 ummmm, jd: 1. WMD have been found in Iraq. Lots of them. 2. Also former Iraqi Air force pilots said they flew many plane loads of them to Syria. 3. Saddam was in touch with al Quaida. 4. He tried to kill G.H.W Bush. 5. An Iraqi was involved in OKC bombing. Stay tuned as we translate more captured documents, we'll find more evidence of iraqs plans. Oh I forgot, you leftists don't want to know these truths. Because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.......

Posted by: n.a. palm at April 21, 2006 03:50 PM (XPviN)

36 WMD have been found in Iraq? Hmm...like the ones Powell described? Like the ones Cheney described (a "reconstituted nuclear weapons program)? UAVs capable of transporting bio weapons thousands of miles? Or some old shit from 1991, inoperable? I think you mean the latter. And I never said Saddam wasn't "in touch" with Al Qaeda. I said that at a certain point prior to March 2003, a majority of Americans thought he was involved in the planning. There was never a scintilla of evidence of this. A lot of implied statements from the WH folk, but no evidence. And you can say that I said it was the same as thinking Mossad planned 9-11, but I distinctly said that was worse.

Posted by: jd at April 21, 2006 10:55 PM (uT71O)

37 JD, Actually I don't have a problem quoting anyone who made a valid point, I'm sorry if you are shocked at his opinions on killing Muslims and/or liberals. I don't care.

Posted by: davec at April 21, 2006 11:24 PM (CcXvt)

38 >>>I distinctly said that was worse. jd, Of course it's worse. So then why are you trying to compare the two? Answer: because you want your cake and to eat it too. You want to make a stupid comparison, but sound "reasonable" doing it. lol!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 11:32 PM (8e/V4)

39 JD, can you not understand that one may dislike someone and distrust them at the same time? The two are not diametrically opposed you know, and in fact follow one another. I know you're desperately grasping at straws to find ways to excuse and apologize for terrorists, but you have to do better than that. Now go be a good dhimmi and tell them over at Kos how mean we are here.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 22, 2006 05:17 AM (0yYS2)

40 I think the essence of nuanced ratiocination is careful comparison of how various concepts and facts are similar or different. My point in making the Mossad did 9-11 to the Saddam did 9-11 stupidities is to say that one must examine one's own country's blindness and prejudices in order to comprehend another country's. The Arab paranoia and anti-Semitism do not emerge organically out of Islam; for many centuries, Islam was more tolerant than Christianity. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was not written by Arabs and did not have wide circulation in the Arab world until long after it was popular among Americans like Ford and Lindbergh and Father Coughlin. Dave--I'm shocked that you don't care about someone advocating genocide. IM's views represent a threat to the health of our democracy--a democracy that he sees as corrupt, and worthy of armed revolt. You can be silent in the face of a Tim McVeigh, if you want. Your call, man.

Posted by: jd at April 22, 2006 08:20 AM (uT71O)

41 Ok JD yo see what you just wrote. Now do you understande IM's function? Yes IM says thos things but that's his calling card and when others do the same it just ain't funny because well it's a knock off. Second note the name. Improbulus Maximus. Let me see if understand that I reckon improbulus means improbable or unlikely. Maximus means to the maximum extent possible. So if he says kell em all read that as it's damn near impossible that we will kill everyone but some days I feel like doing that and it would be easy. Also he's funny now and then. First he posts his little bait then you engage him and maybe say something good because you were motivated to by his post. I lie your comment and I dont think you would have ever written it otherwise.

Posted by: Howie at April 22, 2006 08:51 AM (D3+20)

42 So IM serves as a court jester, provoking others to rethink accepted positions? I'll grant the possibility that he really isn't serious--are you willing to grant that those on the left, who call Bush Hitler, are SOMETIMES doing the same? IE, by stating an extreme case of how they see the admin trending, they hope to provoke passion and debate? I very much doubt you would. IF you wouldn't, why not (note: I don't say I would grant them that, but then, I don't really see the utility of granting IM that privilege.) I think it equally likely that IM is tolerated around here because he voices in raw form the feelings of many, who upon further reflection would reject those expressions, but enjoy seeing their ideological id expressed in virulent and uncompromising terms--which is pretty much why many on the left tolerate "Bush is Hitler" when they should know better. Bush isn't Hitler, and anyone who sat down and thought about it for six seconds would know that. But it FEELS so good to read it, for some people, just as it FEELS so good for some people to read "Liberals are clinically insane" "All Liberals should be shot as traitors" "Kill the Muslims!!!". I'm not denying that these things can provide pleasure--but do they really lead us to discussion and debate and positive outcomes for the country as you think?

Posted by: jd at April 22, 2006 10:23 AM (ccFYg)

43 jd: sounds like a job for the Thought Police, preemptively taking a slice out of crime -- tomorrow. Have a read of the following it might help you differentiate true threats -- from thoughts -- The horror!! http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/virginiavblack.html or perhaps seek a place in "overreact anonymous", seeing as you seem to think an anonymous person's opinion on the Internet is a "true threat".

Posted by: davec at April 22, 2006 11:21 AM (CcXvt)

44 I think it equally likely that IM is tolerated around here because he voices in raw form the feelings of many, who upon further reflection would reject those expressions, but enjoy seeing their ideological id expressed in virulent and uncompromising terms lol! That was funny. I would put it differently. For instance, I've said on occassion about IM's posts that I agree with the sentiments behind his comments but I disagree with the content. When I say I agree with the sentiments I mean I understand his frustration but that doesn't mean I agree with his faux calls for genocide on a mass scale. I think I speak for everybody on this blog. Alos, IM is the exception on the Right, while the "Bush=Hitler" crowd are the mainstream of the Left.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 22, 2006 11:40 AM (8e/V4)

45 Dave--I wasn't suggesting that IM couldn't say it, or that he should face ANY criminal or civil penalties or even denial of ISP service, or banning by Jawa, or whatever. Please be assured that I would oppose any and all of those. The solution to error in speech is further debate. I was just disturbed that no one said anything when someone advocated killing all the liberals, or that liberalism is a mental illness. I don't think IM himself represents a threat. Nor do, like Bluto, think that some random internet deaththreat is dangerous. A lot of BS gets said on the web (yes, I'm evidence of that). The problem was that I actually think people LIKE IM's opinions, even if they don't cognitively admit it--like many on the left burst with happiness upon reading Bush=Hitler. Nice O'Connor opinion--I hadn't spent time with that one before. Bright gal. Almost as good as Scalia's vote in Texas v. Johnson, upholding the right to burn a US flag, for much the same reason as O'Connor articulates here. And the writer who authored the dissent in Texas? That dangerous liberal Stevens, who said it was allowable to punish someone for unpatriotic acts.

Posted by: jd at April 22, 2006 11:41 AM (ccFYg)

46 Hey, Dave--do you have any problem with citing IM as an authority on anything? He has advocated the extermination of all liberals and Muslims, worldwide. I have friends in both categories, and I would not want to see them slaughtered. How do you feel about genocide, Dave? no, what you are saying however is everything he says should be discounted because you personally do not agree with one particular view he has, and then that should also extend to me, and that I should therefore have a problem with everything he says, because you do -- and if I don't, I'm worse that mugabe because I agree with someone who makes statements that pertain to "virtual" genocide. I however am able to see it for what it is, no more than I think the show 'twenty four' is reality, do I believe IM is about to take it to the next level.

Posted by: davec at April 22, 2006 01:09 PM (CcXvt)

47 Well said, Dave. I never thought there was any danger of IM having the power to do anything, and I never meant to suggest you were worse than Mugabe. I guess I was just asking if, since he was so wrong on one point, might he not be wrong on many others? But you make a good case. I seem to be more sensitive to the advocacy of genocide than others, as well as the idea that all liberals are mentally ill and suicidal. Your mileage may, and does seem to, vary. And if you are right, that IM is just provocative and not serious, then your stance is 100% the right way to go.

Posted by: jd at April 22, 2006 04:46 PM (uT71O)

48 "Faux calls for genocide"? Where'd you get that idea Carlos? one doesn't learn to live with plague rats; one exterminates them. As for my handle, as with everything else in Latin, context is everything, but it has nothing to do with improbability. It can be translated several different ways, but applied to myself, it means the best at being bad, or the worst at being good. Take it as you will. The solution to error in speech is further debate. So when the muslims say they want to kill us and take our women as war booty, etc., that we should talk to them? They are vermin, they are scum, and they should be exterminated to the last. I said it, I mean it, and I will stand by it until they learn civility or are all dead. I know only one way to deal with an enemy; muslims are the enemies of civilization, and liberals are their brothers in arms who stand in opposition to our efforts to defend ourselves from this scourge.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 22, 2006 05:34 PM (0yYS2)

49 OK, Dave--now that IM has come out and once again reaffirmed that he is not just mouthing this stuff to provoke, that he really believes he is a lonely paladin in an existential struggle with an entire religion... Incidentally, IM, if Muslims SAY those things, yeah, I think the solution is to talk to them. If they DO those things, ie, attack us, then the solution is a military one. The Muslim world is tremendously weak. They talk a big game because that is the only game they have (other than terrorism). 400 million Arabs have been unable to defeat 5 million Jews. What does that tell you? You are preaching the unnecessary ruthless extermination of 1.2 billion people. I don't for a moment think that you yourself present a threat to liberals or Muslims. I'm quite confident your ignorant bluster (historically ignorant and politically ignorant--and my brother is a Latin-Greek scholar, so we'll soon find out if you are linguistically ignorant as well) reflects not only a lack of knowledge but also a lack of influence of a profound nature. Thank God.

Posted by: jd at April 22, 2006 05:59 PM (uT71O)

50 Oh! No! IM repeated another unspecific thought of his! Quick, someone call the Department of Homeland Security, and tell them to up the threat level to the maximum -- level Neocon. What color is threat level Neocon you ask? -- Black of course, like their damned scurvy hearts. 400 million Arabs have been unable to defeat 5 million Jews. What does that tell you? 19 Arabs killed 3,000 of your fellow countrymen in a single day...what does THAT tell you?

Posted by: davec at April 23, 2006 12:15 AM (CcXvt)

51 Oh no! JD is all over my case now! I'm doomed! Doomed! DOOOMED!!! Heh. I can just imagine him sniffing and whining to himself as he posts, and then turning to water his fern, Charles, and telling him how mean I am, and how I'm gonna get it, but then he apologizes for the negative vibes, and Charles forgives him and asks for some organic plant food. Then his mom comes in and mentions that a grown man could at least pick up his room now and then.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 23, 2006 06:03 PM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 20, 2006

Mr. Hu Jintao Free Hao Wu

Today's visit by the Chineese head of State also marks the 58th day of this bloggers captivity. According to Chineese law that's illegal.

Washington Post reporter Rebecca MacKinnon: He (Hao Wu) continues to be held -- this is the 58th day of his detention -- despite the fact that Chinese law limits the maximum detention without charge to 37 days.

Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds Via Instapundit..

Posted by: Howie at 02:16 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

225kb generated in CPU 0.069, elapsed 0.2274 seconds.
132 queries taking 0.1867 seconds, 570 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 8941
Files: 35
Bytes: 123.5M
CPU Time: 12:28
Queries: 935868

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76631

Feeds

April 24, 2006

April 23, 2006

April 22, 2006

April 21, 2006

April 20, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds