Wife of American Hostage Jeffrey Ake Speaks OutThe wife of American hostage Jeffrey Ake has spoken out for the first time since her husband was taken hostage in Iraq a year ago today. Jeffrey Ake is one of two Americans still being held hostage in Iraq. Dean Sadek, also held hostage, was kidnapped in November 2004.
We applaud Liliana Ake for breaking her silence. It is difficult to go against the advice of the U.S. State Department and private 'experts' working for insurance companies who have little knowledge about how the hostage situation in Iraq is different than in other areas of the world.
Many of Jeffrey Ake's friends and family have dropped comments or e-mails to me thanking The Jawa Report for keeping Jeffrey's memory alive. Now that Liliana has given us the green light, let us never let a day pass without mentioning Jeffrey Ake publicly.
As former hostage Terry Anderson once said, "The tragic thing is that the torment is as much from the outside by countries and people indifferent to their fate as on the inside by their captors."
We demand the immediate and unconditional release of Jeffrey Ake and Dean Sadek. No politcal cause can ever justify the taking of civilians hostage. It is a form of barbarity with no excuse.
We can only hope that the media, Muslims, and Leftist organizations will begin to pay attention to the plight of hostages who may not be one of their political allies.
Posted by: Jaybreak at April 11, 2006 09:19 PM (5SH/0)
2
How sobering it is to go through that hostage archive.
Posted by: Vinnie at April 11, 2006 09:33 PM (/qy9A)
3
I think the reason Jill Carroll got so much attention was frankly because she is a journalist, and that made the media sit up and take notice. I've found that the international media -- particularly the British press -- paid far more attention to the CPT hostages than did the U.S. press. In fact, after the first few dramatic hostage takings, starting with Nick Berg and Danny Pearl, then ultimately really fizzling out with Keith Maupin, I have found the media pretty much asleep on this story. And I really haven't seen too much excitement, even about the "peace protester" hostages, on the left.
I think the left mainly caught onto the Carroll story because of the negative reaction she got.
That said, this is an important story that all Americans should be following, and it's great that you keep up with it. I'm sure the families appreciate the effort.
Posted by: JoyReid at April 11, 2006 10:47 PM (o1EiK)
4
media, muslims, and leftys,
yep, thats the problem right there.
Posted by: Rubin at April 12, 2006 04:11 AM (AYuS7)
5
RELEASE JEFF AKE - How else can we make a difference? War or not - Iraq needs clean water and other bottled items. Releasing him would be what God wants.
Islamists Post Hit List of 'Apostates'
An Egyptian group calling itself the "al-JamaÂ’ah Consultative Council" has sent an e-mail hit list to people deemed 'apostates' yesterday. The group warned that those people on the list who had left the faith would have three days (as of yesterday) to repent or they would be killed. The group also warned that the wives and children of the Muslim apostates were being followed & would be killed.
Under Islamic Law, the maximum penalty for apostasy is death.
The list includes prominent Muslims living in the West who have spoken out against violent Islamic extremism and intolerance, some still living in Muslim countries, as well as Coptic Christians who have advocated equal treatment in Egypt.
According to Copts-United (hat tip: Clarity and Resolve) the group issued the following threat if the 'apostates' did not publicly repent:
we will follow them everywhere they go and at anytime; and they can never be far from the swords of truth, and they are closer to us that our shoelaces.
They are monitored day and night. We are fully aware of their hiding places, their houses, their childrenÂ’s schools, and the times when their wives are alone at home.
We gave our rules to the soldiers of God to execute the rule of God so that their blood can become close to God [to kill them] and burn their houses.
And we thank God that many of those infidels and atheists do not exist in the land of Islam, so that they do not defile the Islamic land with their rotten blood. They are in the land of infidelity, the land of idols, pagans, and Cross worshippers: in America, Canada, Switzerland, and Italy.
If they existed on a spot in the Islamic land, let us wash the places of their slaughter and beheading seven times to purify the Islamic land of the impurity of their blood. And let us captivate their women and enslave their children loot them. Let us apply the Islamic rule to them; and whoever kills one of them, will get his loot.
The fatwa was signed by Abu Dhur Al-Maqdishi, media commander in Al-JamaÂ’ah.
The list includes:
Wafa Sultan -- American Muslim psychologist who has spoken out against jihad, the silence of mainstream Muslims over terrorism, and the treatment of women in Islam. Sultan lives in the Los Angeles area.
Ahmad Subhi Mansur (Mansour)--a liberal Egyptian theologian condemned as an 'apostate' because he accepts only the Quran as authentic and rejects the sunnas. Mansur argues in his book "The Punishment of Apostasy" (out of print) that religious liberty is fundamental to Islam. Mansur's wife and children are also specifically threatened. Mansur live in the Virginia.
Adly Abadir -- Egyptian born Christian Coptic priest, exiled from Egypt and now living in Switzerland. Abadir is an outspoken advocate against the subjegation of Christians in Egypt and has testified before the U.S. Congress on the plight of Coptic minorities living under the thumb of Muslims.
Jamal Al-Banna-- moderate Egyptian theologian & brother of the founder of the Muslim Bortherhood who publicly disputes traditional Islamic teachings about the treatment of women & jihad, but like most Muslims justifies aggressiona against Jews. Al-Banna is probably under condemnation for his firm stance against dhimmitude and for freedom of religion and for his creation of the "Committee for the Defense of Victims of Terror-Fatwas"
Majdi Khalil-- American Muslim who has spoken out against terrorism and those that justify it in the Islamic world.
Hasan Ahmad Umar-- former President of the Egyptian Court of Appeals.
Muhammad ShaÂ’lan--- possibly the same Dr. Muhammed Sha'lan who is a professor of psychology at the oldest and most prestigious Islamic universty in the world, al Azhar.
Father Zakarias Butros-- Coptic priest living in Holland who runs a website devoted to standing up for Christians in Egypt, against attrocities committed by Muslims against Christians, and which invites Muslims to engage in dialogue.
SaÂ’d Al-Din Ibrahim-- liberal Egyptian human rights activist , board member of the Ibn Khaldun Center, and Professor of Sociology at the American University in Cairo. Ibrahim is a leading human rights activists who was arrested by the Egyptian government in 2000 to the applause of Islamists around the world. He is accused by Islamists of being a 'Zionist'.
Dr. Shakir Al-Nabulsi -- a Jordanian born liberal Muslim, chairman of the American Academic Association in Jordan, and co-signer of an anti-Islamist petition to the U.N calling for an end to the preaching of violence against apostates. Nabulsi now lives in Denver.
Al-Afif al-Akhdar--72 year old Tunisian born French secular Muslim. The Tunisian Islamic movement Al-Nahdha, issued a death fatwa against the him for his book "The Unknown in the Prophet's Life". In addition to exposing the hypocrisy of Muslims on terrorism, Akhdar has also been at the forefront of exposing the political motivations behind Muslim regimes using the Danish Mohammed cartoons to drum up anti-Western sentiment. More on Akhdar here.
Unknown targets-- if you know who these individuals are, please warn them that they may be the target of Muslim extremists!
America -- Nidal NaÂ’isah, Fatin Nur
Canada-- Uthman Muhammad Ali & his family.
Holland-- Nahid Mitwali
Italy--Khalid Hilal
Jordan--Umar Abu Rassa, Ramadan Abd AlRahman Ali
Syria--Samir Hasan Ibrahim
Egypt--Abd al Fattah Asakir, Muhammad Shibl, Muhammad Said al Mushtahari, Abd al-Latif SaÂ’id, Ayman Muhammad Abd Al Rahman, Walid Muhammad Abd al-Rahman, Taha Hilal, Isam Nafi, Ahmad ShaÂ’ban, Amru Ismail, Abd-Al-Karim Sulayman
If you know any of the above individuals, they should be immediately warned. We hope that law enforcement officials are already aware of the danger posed to these people and pray for their safety.
UPDATE:Patrick from Clarity and Resolve in an e-mail points me to this story. Apparently, the threat was e-mailed directly to those who have been targetted, so I was wrong when I earlier stated that the threat had been posted on the internet.
Dr. Wafa Sultan, who lives in California , pointed out that the source of the latest threat differed from the dozens she had previously received because it was made by a group and not an individual. She expressed fear for her life as the message included personal information about the recipients, as well as the names of some of their spouses and children. Sultan vowed to inform the U.S authorities of the email and seek their protection.
For his part, Dr, Shakir Nabulsi, a resident of Denver, Colorado, said he was not afraid of the threat as he had received several others before and refused to be frightened by terrorists.
Refusing to bow to the demands of terrorists, Dr. Ahmad Subhi Mansour, who lives I Virginia, said he would take the threat seriously and indicated the message was probably originated in Egypt .
The Islamic thinker Jamal al Banna, brother of the Hssan al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Bortherhood, denied any knowledge of the organization calling itself “Supporters of God’s Messenger”, which included his name in a list of 31 supporters. He described its threat as “nonsense” and said the authors were “Satan’s soldiers”.
Posted by: jonathan riley at April 11, 2006 07:19 PM (jADvF)
2
Such a peaceful religion. I wish peace upon them all; the perfect peace of the grave.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 11, 2006 07:27 PM (0yYS2)
3
Crazy ass Islam. What a load of religious crap! I really hate this false religion. I really do!
Posted by: Leatherneck at April 11, 2006 07:28 PM (D2g/j)
4
"America -- Nidal NaÂ’isah, Fatin Nur"
Fatin Nur... Baha'u'llah's family name was al-Nuri, "of the Light"
Fatin Nur MAY (possibly) be a Baha'i, but there was official notification Monday that the Baha'is of Egypt had been 'granted' freedom of religion, freedom to worship as they choose!
So I wouldn't be surprised if there were an official 'freedom to worship' smile pasted over this murderous reality underneath!
Posted by: Karridine at April 11, 2006 07:53 PM (PjKwr)
5
Yeah, and you thought the little goth kids who sacrificed the neighbor's cat so that Satan would make them cool at school were freaks...
Posted by: w3 at April 11, 2006 08:02 PM (DRifx)
6
Islam IS a religion of peace and we will kill anyone of you who deny that fundamental truth!
Posted by: abu abibi at April 11, 2006 08:04 PM (wg7K+)
7
@ jonathan riley
If they existed on a spot in the Islamic land, let us wash the places of their slaughter and beheading seven times to purify the Islamic land of the impurity of their blood
*******************************************
that is wash the place where they are
beheaded 7 times the
proscribed number of times a devout Muslim
must wash if they touch a dog, for a pig
it's only one time.
Posted by: Dan Kauffman at April 11, 2006 08:09 PM (hxRR8)
8
Khalid Hilal could be two people that I know of. One is the interior minister for Oman who developed their voting process.
The other is a professor in Montreal who has developed, among other things, a way to adapt advertising to reach potential customers in Morocco.
Posted by: Don Meaker at April 11, 2006 08:35 PM (hZT0l)
9
Karradine,
Good point. The name sounded Bahai, but I didn't know about the freedom of religion thing.
Posted by: Rusty at April 11, 2006 08:36 PM (JQjhA)
10
I think it's time to put a wanted dead or alive (preferrably dead) poster on the "al-JamaÂ’ah Consultative Council"and their wives and children immediately. Not as a joke. Let them feel a little fear also.
Posted by: ebbe at April 11, 2006 09:27 PM (AEZv0)
11
We should turn the tables on them. MEMRI airs the Friday sermons of many radical imams. They should be duly noted and assassinated. Every time one of their leaders calls for the assassination of apostates and infidels, we should assassinate him first. We should be infiltrating their mosques, recording their henchmen....illegally, if we have to. We certainly cannot seem to count on law enforcement. See europe and weep at the pussification of the police. We should hit them hard, in the mosques, in the prisons, everywhere they are. This is, after all, a war of atrition. We must think creatively, counterintuitively. Damn the presses, damn public opinion...what would Pershing do? Let this be our motto for the war we find ourselves in: "What Would General Pershing Do?" Sell those bracelets and get the conversation flowing...and then the blood.
15
Oh, come on! In the 20th century U.S. civil rights activists experienced similar threats from the Ku Klux Klan. They were protected by non-racist whites who opposed the racists vigorously in print and otherwise, sometimes even by serving as human shields to those who were threatened.
Surely similar impulses, initiative, and courage exists today in the Muslim World.
Right?
Posted by: Solomon2 at April 11, 2006 10:17 PM (NmTp3)
16
I'll believe that when I hear of Muslims attempting to protect non-Muslims from the attempted attacks of other Muslims.
anyway, while all this holy lopping off of heads as prescribed in texts thousands of years old is going on, many of the rest of us are steadily walking away from the stone age rather than walking toward it.
Posted by: jonathan riley at April 12, 2006 01:02 AM (WoorE)
19
Oddly enough, I don't think that a lot of these people qualify for the charge of apostasy as I understand it. At least one wasn't Muslim to begin with, and the rest are merely heretics.
Posted by: Vol Abroad at April 12, 2006 01:33 AM (xUoeg)
20
I wish westerners would begin to unite against these savages! Divided we fall, there are a multitude of individual rational voices but not one unshakeable organised voice that wont cowtow to western PC cretins or the threats and posturing of the muslim savages.
I look forward to the day when the west finally
kicks these backward terrorists into shap and stands firm.
Posted by: Just another voice at April 12, 2006 03:43 AM (9L+3V)
21
Dr. Wafa Sultan is a national treasure. We can't lose her to these thugs.
Posted by: Oyster at April 12, 2006 04:01 AM (YudAC)
22
The only answer is to start slaughtering them wherever we find them.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 12, 2006 05:39 AM (0yYS2)
23
@jonathon riley You are welcome it just touched on something I wrote about during the Piglet controversy at the time I wondered why a devout Muslim was complaining about pig figures and there was a total silence about dog figures, It just showed how bogus the complaints were.
Dogs being 7 times more unclean than pigs but as PC as some British Politicians might be NO WAY was there going to be any appeasement on Man's Best Friend quite a few Brits idolise their pets. ;-)
The best way to re-introduce that thread is to give the Cox and Forkrum URL that was kind enough to link to me, ;-)
Perils Before Swine
and my 15 minute of fame
UDPATE -- Oct. 5: Committees of Correspondence says it may be worse for .Lassie
Posted by: Dan Kauffman at April 12, 2006 06:42 AM (AoL8x)
24
Nice comment Abu. Way to show your true RoP colors champ. It just goes to show while you and your co-followers will continue to remain at the bottom of the human food chain.
Posted by: Kyle at April 12, 2006 08:47 AM (JiJgi)
25
Kyle,
I would like to think Abu's comment is a joke. If it isn't then he is the joke..
Posted by: Don at April 12, 2006 09:13 AM (cpZ7+)
26
Fuck Muhammed and Fuck Allah. These cockroaches will be buried.
Any idea how I can get on the list
Posted by: Andrew at April 12, 2006 09:28 AM (DwHGO)
27
ItÂ’s time to issue a reverse-fatwa. HereÂ’s how it would work. Anyone who issues a fatwa mandating the killing of an American or guest in America (i.e. a contract in Mafia terminology) is automatically marked as an appropriate target for assignation. Letters of Marque should be automatically issued for the death of the fatwa-issuing person.
By this automatic process every fatwa will be a death warrant for the issuing cleric.
Posted by: Jason Pappas at April 12, 2006 09:30 AM (0GdHJ)
28
Jesus is the only one that can help these deluded people. God created every human being. I don't believe any Muslim can be trusted on any level and our government should stop helping them.
Posted by: Dave Stone at April 12, 2006 10:41 AM (1L04C)
Posted by: jonathan riley at April 12, 2006 12:35 PM (jADvF)
30
Don,
I hope it is too, good point.
Abu, I apologize if I have misunderstood your statement. Could you clarify your position? I hope, like Don does, that it is a joke. If so, good one, it just sounds like much of the rhetoric coming from that region of the world.
Posted by: Kyle at April 12, 2006 02:07 PM (7AHZs)
31
These days it seems many people on both sides of the ongoing conflict really want a full-blown war, even considering the risk of nuclear weapons being used. Throughout the nuclear age this is the first time a nuclear war is being wished for by a significant number of people. The Islamic world would be totally annihilated, is this really what we want to achieve?
Posted by: Wonder at April 12, 2006 03:53 PM (ARNVd)
32
What, there were no apostates in Australia?
I would have to agree with all above who said that there should be a reverse fatwa on those who have issued these death threats.
These people are lunatics and they are definitely agents of Satan, not of God.
If any of you are at all familiar with the Scriptures you will see that God does not call for the blood of any person, especially not since the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. When we interpret some of the things in the ancient texts that seem to be bloodthirsty we need to apply those things in light of the society of the time.
Our problem happens to be that we do not have enough faith in God to pray that there will be an end to the violence. In the meantime all of the people who have been threatened need to be protected, especially Wafah Sultan (Sp mistake sorry).
It is time to round up the militant Muslims and ship them out of our countries. They belong in a country where their backward thinking will be appreciated.
A pox on all of them.
Posted by: OzMaggie at April 12, 2006 04:15 PM (nnWqv)
Posted by: Ion picasso at April 12, 2006 04:31 PM (Ryhya)
34
Where's Ali Sina? Guess they knew they can never get him not knowing his real name, location etc.
Long live the religion of peace
Posted by: infidHell at April 12, 2006 10:31 PM (pltah)
35
To Andrew who is dying to get on the hit list but has no clue how to. Here's my suggestion
Go stand in front of a mosque on a friday afternoon and shout abscenities against the one and only Allah. Don't forget to leave your name.
PS : Do this when the scums are all inside the mosque praying. Otherwise you will get one way ticket to 'Hell' immediately without getting onto the list in the first place.
Posted by: infidHell at April 12, 2006 10:37 PM (pltah)
36
"Islam is a pissfool religion" President G.W.Bush
Posted by: Peter at April 13, 2006 12:26 AM (FK5qI)
37
Leatherneck, Improbulous, Abu Abibi, whoever...
Many of the people on that list are Muslims themselves. So, does anyone care about the actual people on that list, or do you just want to equate the killers with their victims?
Posted by: andrew r at April 13, 2006 01:49 AM (JyedY)
38
Jason has a good idea here:
ItÂ’s time to issue a reverse-fatwa. HereÂ’s how it would work. Anyone who issues a fatwa mandating the killing of an American or guest in America (i.e. a contract in Mafia terminology) is automatically marked as an appropriate target for assignation. Letters of Marque should be automatically issued for the death of the fatwa-issuing person. By this automatic process every fatwa will be a death warrant for the issuing cleric.
Posted by: Always On Watch at April 13, 2006 06:23 AM (Ffvoi)
39
Hitler had the right idea, but the wrong People. This is a despicable religion that needs to be wiped out in a final solution.
Posted by: Slice at April 13, 2006 06:59 AM (ZSDaZ)
40
From
Islam IS a religion of peace and we will kill anyone of you who deny that fundamental truth!
Posted by: abu abibi at April 11, 2006 08:04 PM
@Stupid abu ABIBI
Islam is the Devils Religion and you are one of his Demons the Name of the devil is ALLAH , because you argue like a cold blooded murder.
There will be a peace after the Problem of Islam had been solved by the free west.
We have enough of your 14XX years of bloody behavior and murder.
THE END FOR ISLAM, IS COMING SOON
CA = Crusader America
Posted by: CA at April 13, 2006 08:26 AM (mfjNk)
41
You know, a while ago I just watched this video on the MEMRI website about an Arab lady who protested openly against various sexist practices in Islam and even pedophilism. "God will decide if I go to Hell," she said. What the poster Solomon2 said somewhere above may be right after all -- there are examples of courage and initiaive in the Muslim world.
What makes me so sad and afraid after watching this video is how it reminds me that many of those Muslims -- such as that brave lady -- are after all good human beings just like the rest of us. Honestly, I admire her but also fear for her life (given the kind of shit you find in Islam). And if a war really broke out between Islam and the rest of the world, does that mean those good people would have to be the casualties of war, too? I can hardly bear to think of it.
Why did such a thing as Islam EVER come into existence?? It's a sorry world we live in...
Posted by: K T at April 13, 2006 09:14 AM (dK5Q2)
42
The bible prophecied about Ishmael (father of the Arab people) and his descendents "your hand will be against every man and every man's hand will be against you" (constant fighting and bloodshed).
The bible also prophecied about Ishmael "you will inherit the fat places of the earth" (oil).
Posted by: Ribi Menahim Rahman bin Rahman at April 13, 2006 09:33 AM (wZLWV)
43
And why would a merciful and compassionate God ever want to divide His children into different groups and make them claw away at each other's throats?? And for that matter, why would a merciful and compassionate God ever want to create things like tsunamis and cancer??
If there's a God, it's plain that He has done a very poor job.
Posted by: K T at April 13, 2006 09:46 AM (a6M9b)
44
Islam would be a reasonable religion, were it not for the fact that it lacks one small thing.
There are four magic words missing from the Koran:
THOU SHALT NOT KILL!
Posted by: Baba Danny at April 13, 2006 01:14 PM (GiV59)
45
We turned our backs on G-d first. Now we pay.
andrew r, I wrote Islam is a load of religious crap. I still believe that. I did not write kill all muslims. However, a great many mood god worshippers will have to die before they get the hint that they finally pissed off the wrong nation. Oh well.
Posted by: Leatherneck at April 13, 2006 04:56 PM (D2g/j)
46
The problem of extreme Islam is a problem of Mafia style criminality which in both cases makes leaving the criminal organization dangerous.
The logical step is to make both death threats and sharia human rights abuse extra-national crimes against humanity requiring extraorinary rendition even within so-called Islamic states and the re-mandating of the said states governments and mineral resources in reparation to victims of Islamic amputation and gender apartied.Any resistance by the native sex abuser population must be met by ethnic cleansing and replacement by aryan men and women to dilute the dysgenic disaster that the Islamic experiment has become.In reality the West knows that such a policy,though overdue against this monsterous creed would result in terrible Western casualties, so we,the Quantum Avengers have developed pre-crime technology to allow justice to be achieved without any fear of IslamoMafia retribution.If western governments are still too cowardly we will soon have the resources to carry out this policy ourselves-however I think we can use the threat of withdrawal of our technology as a stick to force both Western and Middle Eastern governments to do the right thing.
Posted by: The Quantum Avengers at April 13, 2006 10:07 PM (g+cJq)
47
Could ISLAM be the ANTICHRIST, [part of the SATANIC TRINITY] that the Bible prophesied would come to the world in THE LAST DAYS?
Posted by: Barry Banfield at April 14, 2006 10:50 AM (5QLS7)
48
http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/images/jesus-with-rifle.jpg
Now we gonna fight back
CA
49
Islam is a peaceful religion. Once you submit to their rule that is. Until they decide you are a heretic.
Ask the Balkan peoples how they feel about Islamic rule (The Turks)
So let me see if I get this straight: The The Crusades, which offends Muslims, took place after Islam had advanced militarily steadily into Christian lands for 400 years...and for another 400 AFTER they ended
So it all comes down to this: They are really sore losers
Posted by: GW Crawford at April 14, 2006 04:02 PM (Jfign)
50
The best way to destroy Islam is to provoke all the muslim women. The whole world knows that women are treated as animals in Islam. Once the muslim women start revolting the religion will crumble.
Women like the Bahraini, Wafa Sultan etc. let the ball roll.
Posted by: infidHell at April 14, 2006 09:15 PM (pltah)
51
Naw! Muslim women enjoy too much churning out little tit sucking suicide bombers!
Posted by: Last word Larry at April 18, 2006 11:50 AM (FCC6c)
52
Islam is a peaceful religion. Christianity is a peaceful religion. Yeah, yeah yeah...
Religion seems to be the problem. Belief in supernatural solutions to man-made problems is a formula for disaster, and look around - here it comes...
Only a new secular rational intelligent viewpoint can help us now, discarding our little religious prejudices that serve only to divide us, and divinity that serves only to inspire us to kill each other. But with the preponderance of narrow minded ignorance in the world, I seriously don't think we have a chance...
Posted by: Jimbo at April 20, 2006 12:44 PM (lsfgB)
Jawa vs. Schlussel
Sources tell me that I'll be on the radio in a few minutes to challenge Debbie Schlussel. While I cannot reveal to you my sources, they seem pretty reliable. You can listen to Hoist the Black Flag here.
In case I'm incoherent, my main point is not that Jill Carroll was a saint or that she wasn't against the war, but only that she was a victim. Hostages are the victim and terrorists are the bad guys. In the middle of a crime, one does not attack the victim, you go after the criminal. That's all.
UPDATE: So, during the break, Schlussel says she doesn't want to talk with me and that had she known I was going to confront her that she wouldn't have agreed to the interview. She also had the audacity to call me a "nut". Me. The nut. Right Debbie, right. I'm a "nut" for saying it's not good manners to attack a woman who is being held hostage. You, on the other hand, are the voice of reason.
I won't be on. The offer was retracted after Schlussel threw a fit. I'm not blaming Ace or Goldstein. They were just trying to be good hosts and have some class since Debbie Schlussel was the original guest & I was kind of an afterthought.
Another update: I'm not even sure Ace knew I was calling in, but Jeff thought it would be good radio.
Oh, ye of little faith and reading comprehension skills. I never mentioned the video, only these facts, which remain the same. http:/(no link whoring for you! -Vinnie) Jill Carroll's an extremist. And you apparently have a problem with premature articulation. Next time, read first. You got something wrong, though. More than thirty seconds in a room with you, and I think I'd have to kill you. Debbie Schlussel
Don’t expect “journalist” Jillie to “investigate” that one. But hey, she says her Islamic terrorist captors treated her “very well,” and she talked about the nice shower and bathroom they gave her.
Since things were so great in captivity, maybe she should have remained at Terrorist Day Spa. And maybe they should change the name from “Stockholm Syndrome” to “Baghdad Syndrome.”
That is what Debbie Schlussel wrote after watching Jill Carroll's last two videos which were obviously coerced. Yes, Debbie, I'm the nut.
Another update: Ace has a post about it here. Like I said before, I don't blame Ace. Okay, I do blame Ace. But not for dropping my call. For dropping a Patrick Swayze reference into an e-mail conversation we just had. Now that, my friend, is out of bounds. No need to bring Patrick Swayze into the conversation.
The real problem we (and there are a lot people in that we) have with Schlussel is that when some of us pointed out that we disagreed with her, she responded by leaving some pretty inflammatory comments on our blogs. Then, after some of us called her on it, she played the part of victim.
See how that works, you leave nasty comments on our blogs, and then we we say nasty things back and you claim to be the victim.
And it's not just a few people. This has happened over and over again with Debbie who has either left nasty comments or written fairly nasty e-mails.
Now, she claims that she was really trying to point out that the Left supported Jill Carroll because she was one of them--a form of hypocrisy. Fair enough, and true enough, but in the process she also claimed Jill Carroll wasn't faking it when her terrorist captors forces her to say the most vile things about America. That, I think, is just stupid and, to be fair to Debbie, something I might have said at one time--and in fact, have said. But since I've actually been in contact with the families of hostages, since it's become somewhat of my cause, I've decided that such criticisms are usually out of bounds.
Again, my problem was in Debbie's reading of Jill Carroll's motivations, not in pointing out the dispicable way in which the Left often vocally supports the release of Leftist hostages but are silent when the hostage has no connection to the anti-war movement. But that's just the point: we should be against hostage taking because it is a barbaric practice, not be vocal only when it suits our political agenda.
Seriously, and I do mean to brag a bit, if you want to know anything about hostages in Iraq, this is the place and I am the go-to guy in the blogosphere. Check out our hostage archives for some evidence.
So, it's not that I disagree with Schlussel--I think you'll find I linked to her several times in the past, all positive--it's just that I (shall I say we?) don't like Schlussel.
Thanks again to Ace for offering to have me on the show next week. I dunno, though. I'm just not sure that Schlussel and myself have a real bone to pick and the only reason this has escalated the way it has is because some people are rather thin-skinnied, an attribute not well suited to the blogosphere.
Posted by: Howie at April 11, 2006 02:26 PM (D3+20)
3
All I got was a, "We'll get to you in a minute Rusty" during the commercial break. The bastages.
Posted by: Howie at April 11, 2006 02:43 PM (D3+20)
4
Well the big chicken legged chicken beotch. I have to register to call her chickenshit. Never!
Posted by: Howie at April 11, 2006 02:46 PM (D3+20)
5
Rusty, you are in good company. Debbie has threatened to call the FBI on me, she threatened Misha with a lawsuit and just out and out insulted my husband, John Donovan.
You are absolutely right about being kind to a victim - I was disappointed in Jeff and Ace - they both seemed to be saying that everything Debbie writes is okay with them.
Posted by: Beth Donovan at April 11, 2006 04:31 PM (9FPYz)
6
In this battle, you are on the side of the angels. She's someone who believes that death is all too good for someone who criticizes Israel in any way. You are, I believe, a very very strong supporter of Israel who just thinks that no one taken by terrorists should be judged worthy of death, or unworthy of rescue, or unworthy, at the least, of our sympathy, and our restraint from mockery.
Incidentally, a recent column of hers has a howler of an error--she says that JFK voted against the Civil Rights Act...uh...no way.
Posted by: Jane at April 11, 2006 05:31 PM (y6n8O)
8
jd, jfk was dead when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, so obviously he couldn't vote for or against it.
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 11, 2006 07:06 PM (rUyw4)
9
I can't imagine why you wouldn't like someone as charming as Death Threat Debbie. What's not to like? By the way, is "Schlussel" german for "Cupid Stunt?"
Posted by: w3 at April 11, 2006 08:09 PM (DRifx)
10
schullesel is German for ass hole,
Well maybe not but close enough..
Posted by: Lc NeilV at April 11, 2006 08:26 PM (v5cxG)
11
Schlussel is a whack-job. I have a hilarious ranting e-mail string from her from a couple months back when I embarrassed her on her blog. Anyone interested, shoot me an e-mail and I'll forward it.
Posted by: big picture guy at April 11, 2006 08:42 PM (OIqYV)
12
Is there anybody Schlussel doesn't hate, or want to sue?
Posted by: Oyster at April 12, 2006 04:08 AM (YudAC)
13
Schlüssel is German for "key." Unfortunately, while I'm rarely at a loss for snarky remarkies, I can't think of anything clever to say about keys.
Posted by: Xrlq at April 12, 2006 07:48 AM (WBDk4)
14
I believe that was my point, Jesus land joe. Although, there were civil rights acts in 1957 and 1960. JFK voted for both. What she may be thinking of is that in 57 JFK was part of a key group of liberal and moderate northerners who voted with the South on the jury trial amendment to the 57 CRA. To many liberals, that defanged the act, since at the time, no southern jury would convict a white man, regardless of the evidence, of a crime against black voting rights or civil rights. But JFK ultimately voted for the 57 CRA, so she's still dead wrong.
I'm sure she will correct the error soon....
Posted by: jd at April 12, 2006 08:43 AM (aqTJB)
15
Actually, arschloch is German for asshole. And see this.
Posted by: rightwingprof at April 12, 2006 10:08 AM (hj1Wx)
16
Damn, Oyster. You took the words right out of my mouth.
Posted by: Don Miguel at April 12, 2006 06:15 PM (UAn5X)
Google News Promoting Terrorist Media
Al Manor is designated by the U.S. Treasury Department as a terrorist organization. Why then does Google News use al Manor as a "news" source? If al Qaeda had a "news" arm, would Google News carry that as well? And by promoting al Manor on their website, isn't Google in violation of federal law?
Reasonable minds can differ about the relative merits of MichelleMalkin.com, Little Green Footballs and Democratic Underground for inclusion in Google News [and I would add, The Jawa Report]. But the inclusion of al-Manar -- itself a Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity, and known for its unrelenting support of terror against Americans and Israelis -- is simply indefensible.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 11, 2006 02:00 PM (0yYS2)
2
Guys...
Google used to post DemocraticUnderground on their "News" site as well.
Its no mystery that Google employees have a leftward slant. We all know the "Miserable Failure" GoogleTrick.
Posted by: mrclark at April 11, 2006 08:49 PM (3dlFp)
3
Mr Clark. You can still type in "failure" and Google's first return is GWB's biography. You can't tell me there is anything in their "pecking order" that would do that. It's hard coded. The only good thing is that the sub-return under that is Carter's bio and then we have the slob Michael Moore. I would venture to guess those were thrown in there for the sake of plausible deniability. Google has proven to be far too willing to control information.
Try typing in "flip flop" You'd think you would get at least one hit on John Kerry on the first page. But no. You get three on Bush. I tried at one time to search "bush gear" to see what kind of Bush paraphernalia or GOP paraphernalia was out there and every return for five pages was all anti-Bush. Every.single.one.
Google is a monster.
Posted by: Oyster at April 12, 2006 06:16 AM (YudAC)
1
Those are the brave...
Michael Yon has started his dispatches from afghanistan.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
Posted by: Dan at April 12, 2006 05:52 AM (Z2OsI)
2
Chuck Norris does not go to the floating fortress. The floating fortress comes to Chuck Norris.
Posted by: Flea at April 12, 2006 07:04 AM (MfE/m)
3
I will take about 1 hour and 20 minutes. It will go well at first Chuck will kick som heads off and make it in easily. But an ambuch will result in his capture after a long fought battle resulting in many broken necks (not Chuck his neck is made of titanium steel). Afterward while taking trash to the "villian" with steely eyes he will slip one arm out of bondage and hey thats all Chuck needs.
Posted by: Howie at April 12, 2006 08:02 AM (D3+20)
4
Good articles, looking forward to part 4. Man, I wish I could travel more. If it werenÂ’t for these kids ,bills, wifeÂ…Â….
BTW: Chuck Norris recently had the idea to sell his urine as a canned beverage. We know this beverage as Red Bull.
Posted by: Brad at April 12, 2006 10:22 AM (3OPZt)
Wild Bill Designs New Flag
Bill sends along his new flag for Amerexanada and a new National Anthem too.
Wild Bill : It looks like our government is not going to do anything about illegal aliens, so we should start calling North America what it really is, Amerexanada (or like some like to call it Mexamericanada). Here is my idea for our new flag.
Posted by: splashtc at April 11, 2006 01:35 PM (zlay8)
2
You have a small typo in the link you posted. There's an extra "/" after the http:
Thanks for the link.
Posted by: Strick at April 11, 2006 02:25 PM (PGzrn)
3
Hey at least one of the links worked. Thanks I'll fix that.
Posted by: Howie at April 11, 2006 02:32 PM (D3+20)
4
Howie, thanks for the link. I've got the Amerexanada t shirt too.
Posted by: Wild Bill at April 11, 2006 02:59 PM (zMfCX)
5
Kind of looks like the last flag of the Austro-Hungarian Empire....and we know how that multi-culti experiment worked.
Posted by: CDR Salamander at April 11, 2006 04:00 PM (oUZag)
6
We will be one of seven, or ten global economic regions soon. What, you do not want that? Well, you are not part of the solution to world hunger, and world peace. You will have to go to compassion training with Leatherneck.
Posted by: Leatherneck at April 11, 2006 05:46 PM (D2g/j)
7
Leatherneck, may I take my Socom II to compassion training?
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 12, 2006 09:17 AM (rUyw4)
8
We first have to defeat the libturds, then we can play Socom 11, and drink a few beers. If it is late in the day, I will have to have wine, as I'm getting older.
Posted by: Leatherneck at April 12, 2006 01:40 PM (D2g/j)
Reformist Muslim Found
While tooling around on the internet I ran across this post at The Anchoress. I upset several people with this post a while back. When confronted on the comments I challenged Muslims to take care of the “radicals”. I got some good responses but I also got the standard “it’s happening” slogan. Remember that one website that was used to herald the 9/11 attacks and warn us of our impending subjugation. I think we have to change Islam by our pressure but too often Muslims either ignore the problem or attribute it to radicals. They are in denial that their own house is dirty and needs a good cleaning! Muslims have the power to change Islam from the inside so when we find reformers I feel we should give them all the support we can. The Anchoress, Captain’s Quarters and Jihad Watch are all involved in this ongoing conversation so join them.
The Anchoress : Instapundit linked to Clifford May asking, Where are the Moderate Muslims. Well, I’ve been lucky enough to be able to correspond with a “reformist” Muslim named Ali, who is very careful with his words - which is wise, in my opinion - but also very eager to dialogue. Bear in mind that there is a distinction, naturally, between a “moderate” and a “reformist.”
This will be a long post, but if weÂ’re really interested in dialoguing instead of demagoguing, I hope some will plow through it.
Zarqawi Fired From al Qaeda?
Has the leader of al Qaeda's branch in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, been fired by Ayman al-Zawahiri? Very interesting, indeed. Not nearly as interesting, though, as it would be to hear that he's dead.
I heard about this while I was gone, but had not time to blog it. From the Globabl Terrorism Analysis desk of the Jamestown Foundation:
Media reports during the past week have announced that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi—al-Qaeda's chief in Iraq—has been "replaced" or "demoted" from the leadership of Iraq's Sunni resistance coalition (Daily Star, April 3; al-Bawaba, April 2). The stories have said that al-Zarqawi was removed as "the result of several mistakes he made," including for taking "the liberty of speaking in the name of the Iraqi people" and for "targeting the Islamic states neighboring Iraq, particularly Jordan" [1]. On April 2, Jordan-based Sunni cleric Sheikh Hudayf Azzam—the son of the famous cleric, mujahideen leader, and Osama bin Laden-mentor Abdullah Azzam—told the journal al-Bawaba that "al-Zarqawi bowed to the orders two weeks ago [March 15-18] and was replaced by Iraqi national Abdullah bin Rashed al-Baghdadi." Azzam said that al-Zarqawi's "role has been limited to military action," but stressed that al-Zarqawi approved the change in his status and "has returned to where he should be as a man who came to champion the Iraqi cause" (al-Bawaba, April 2; al-Arabiyah, April 2)....
This week's reports that al-Zarqawi has been "demoted" likewise squares perfectly with the intimations al-Zawahiri sent him that there may be debilitating "sensitivities" over a non-Iraqi's leadership of the Iraqi resistance. Without even a whimper, al-Zarqawi allowed himself to be publicly rebuked—"he made many political mistakes"—moved to a lesser post, and was chastised for "speaking in the name of the Iraqi resistance and people." The manner in which al-Zarqawi's change in status was handled left the clear impression—as al-Zawahiri said would be desirable—that the resistance movement is an Iraqi insurgency, headed by Iraqis, and conducted in Iraqi interests. Foreign mujahideen are welcomed to support the Iraqi insurgents, but al-Zarqawi, by "bowing" to Iraqi wishes, publicly proved that they are playing a subordinate role....
While it is too soon to know how al-Zarqawi's new status "as a soldier of the resistance" will impact the Iraq insurgency, a strong argument can be made that Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have reached out and persuaded al-Zarqawi to change his behavior in a way that will benefit al-Qaeda (al-Quds al-Arabi, April 4). Historically, al-Qaeda has been welcomed in Islamic insurgencies around the world precisely because it wanted to contribute force multipliers—military cadre, media and financial expertise, materiel, logistics assistance—and did not try to supplant local leadership. Based on the foregoing, al-Zarqawi now seems ready to play this traditional al-Qaeda role, which is likely to bring greater unity to Iraq's Sunni resistance. The foregoing also ought to give pause to those Western analysts who have concluded that bin laden and al-Qaeda are largely yesterday's news, an isolated, cowering organization unable to influence—let alone direct—the affairs of the many fronts of the worldwide anti-U.S. Islamic insurgency.
The only good Zarqawi is a dead Zarqawi. Hat tip: Professor Chaos who is no longer blogging.
1
IÂ’m not one to believe that Zarqawi was fired as a leader... but would think more to be true of him being moved to set up house... somewhere else so as to be able to launch more attacks on another part of the world...
Israel and the Gaza Strip come to mind... Africa... Afghanistan maybe... Then you never know... The boss, Ayman al-Zawahiri, could have had him killed for not following his orders.
In other words... when is the last time we have heard the voice of Zarqawi himself???
Great post Dr....
AubreyJ.........
Posted by: AubreyJ at April 11, 2006 11:27 AM (84Xxa)
2
The only good Zarqawi is a dead Zarqawi, Amen brotha.
Posted by: Howie at April 11, 2006 11:28 AM (D3+20)
Posted by: Leopold Stotch at April 19, 2006 08:41 AM (S9DER)
4
I would like to post the topic of discussion that Dr. Zawahiri is not evil but just misunderstood or maybe ignorant. Just an idea. Thansk and regards. RL
Posted by: Ray Lopez at May 02, 2006 02:41 AM (/AbvZ)
Infidel QueenIslamist fools have forced out cool hot blonde Tamar Goregian due to the death Fatwa issued on her hot blonde self. The first and second runner up both Muslim women also declined the title due to threats of violence. The Brave Miss Teen Iraq, Silva Shahakian, has accepted the title-- but I thought the blonde infidel chick was much hotter.
ABCNEWS : Iraq's newly crowned beauty queen, Tamar Goregian, has decided to step down — just four days after her election, making this the shortest reign in the pageant's 60-year history.
On April 9, the 23-year-old, who was the first Armenian Iraqi to win the Miss Iraq pageant, announced her resignation after receiving threats by a group of religious extremists who referred to her as "the queen of infidels" for participating in the contest.
Miss Teen Iraq, Silva Shahakian, a Christian, accepted the title(pic below).
Google Hosts Pedophile Websites
No, we're not talking about the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes, we're talking about the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Blogspot, as you may already know, is a fully owned subsidiary of Google. This is the same company that warns people against seeing my Flush the Koran parody blog by giving a content warning, yet no warning for those entering a website advocating child molestation. Way to go Google!
Here is the disgusting website. I hate to even link it, but there it is. According to this WND article forwarded to my by Jay at Stop the ACLU, the site recently removed a bunch of offensive posts advocating child molestation after a Christian therapist exposed it on her radio talk show.
But, thanks to the Google cache, we've been able to see what some of those posts were that were taken down--ironical that Google, the company empowering these pedophiles is also empowering us with the tools to expose them . All the April posts are now gone, but the Google cache does have several March posts which have been removed. I've archived the cache of these pedophile bastards' webpage here just in case law enforcement needs it in the future. And I certainly hope some one gets nailed for this.
As of today, the webpage features a prominent 'code of ethics' at the top of it's page, but that wasn't true last March. For instance, the March 21st entry features links to a podcast which was once up (now gone--the link is actually to this website which claims to be an 'open roundtable childlove discussion') and describes it this way:
This episode is an intimate interview with Technea, a long-standing boylover in the community. He's an extraordinary person with a resounding understanding of life. We hear about his life, hardships, accomplishments and philosophies....
"I am a human being." Thoughts of boylove.
How about this from the comments section:
Seriously though, Thankyou Jayden
and this just proves another point. Pedophiles/Pederasts/etc... have greater self-control and LOVE than some individuals in the world.
We are ONLY here for the ONEs WE LOVE! To care for them and their interests!
REMEMBER to LOVE your boy, YF and SYF...and others Remember to LOVE your wives, children, neighbors
Disgusting. It gets worse. The poster, Ashleigh, also contributes to another Google operated blog here. One of the posts, by another pedophile named 'Little Boy' links to a Canadian child actor's website, in which he says:
I think Daniel is a real cutie!
Daniel is 8 years old. Another post wonders whether or not Amazon.com can figure out a pedophile's identity if too many movies featuring young boys are bought. One of the movies mentioned features Billy Gilman. I've cached the site here .
Another related blogspot pedophile blog is here. It's called Modern Boylove. You're telling me that Google was unaware that a blog named 'Modern Boylove' wasn't run by pedophiles? The website glorifies the rape of a seven year old boy. Seven. Years. Old. I've cached it here
Some of the authors of both of the above blogs have pictures of very young children on their blogger profile pages. Here & Here.
1
There are uncounted millions of blogs on Blogger. I can't imagine Google could devote time to reading every last one of them. That said, I did hit the nice Flag button on each of those blogs, which if enough people do that the blogs will get pulled out of the directory, or even yanked off the net entirely.
Posted by: Michael Hampton at April 11, 2006 08:53 AM (FVbj6)
Posted by: Howie at April 11, 2006 09:15 AM (D3+20)
3
Well, Michael, someone has to see these blogs before they are approved. Who the hell is it? And he or she should be fired. And these pedophile bastards should be jailed, or worse. I've got an 11-year old daughter, and frankly, I'm tired of this crap. An example needs to be made. But everyone is too damn busy worried about the rights of illegal aliens to care. That's what this country has turned into. Pathetic!
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 11, 2006 09:18 AM (rUyw4)
4
Huh? Nobody approves blogs before they go online. If there were a blog censor, I don't think they WOULD approve my blog. I use the word "stupid" in combination with "socialist" too much.
Posted by: Michael Hampton at April 11, 2006 09:47 AM (FVbj6)
5
Isn't Google's motto Do No Evil? They can throw resources behind censoring search results in China, but not behind keeping the NAMBLA and the like away.
Posted by: Graeme at April 11, 2006 09:56 AM (NpmQL)
6
No, no one approves the blogs, but how come MY blog gets the warning page and not a NAMBLA blog?
Posted by: Rusty at April 11, 2006 09:58 AM (JQjhA)
7
ALL pedophiles should either have it chopped the f*** off OR hung by the balls and used for a pinyotta by their victims.
Posted by: memphis761 at April 11, 2006 10:00 AM (D3+20)
8
Thank you so much for picking up this story, I know if we could get more bloggers involved in exposing this trash, we could make the blogosphere safer for everyone!
I do have a podcast that you may also listen to if you're interested. I'm going to be following this, as well as what's happening on My Space.
http://sharp.libsyn.com
You guys rock!
Posted by: Stacy L. Harp at April 11, 2006 11:07 AM (7o0bi)
9
Rusty, beware caching these pages, you could be classed as a pedophile as well when somone investigates them.
I also agree that this is something that should not be on the web but that is what you get for freedom of expression sadly... somone somewhere always exploits the freedoms given them.
Posted by: RobC at April 11, 2006 11:25 AM (KsjKj)
10
I was just about to post what Rob said. Remember, when they arrested Pete Townsend, he was just investigating this. That usually is a lie, but when they searched his home and computer, it turned out to be true. But I wouldn't want any of those sites in my computer's memory. I also don't think it is impossible (and may even be a good idea) that some of those sites are monitored by the FBI. So many childkillers surf first, kill later, that it wouldn't be a bad tactic.
Posted by: jd at April 11, 2006 12:04 PM (aqTJB)
11
Thanks for the warning guys about caching the web page. I want it cached to show the world what these people say when they think no one is looking, as well as to help law enforcement should the need arise. Google's cache is purged and updated periodically, so there is more than a fair chance that if some one were to investigate these pervs in the future that they would have no online evidence. Anyway, the cache of the online perversions isn't on my computer, it's on our webserver.
Posted by: Rusty at April 11, 2006 12:47 PM (JQjhA)
12
Rusty, the MAMBLA is part of the global agenda. For example, homo sex, and marriage is OK, but if you say it is bad behavior, that would be hate speech. Whatever feels good is OK, but if you set limits, or place morality into the argument, then you will be marginalized. We are under attack on all fronts.
Child sex offenders should be killed, and dumped into the river, so turtles, and fish can eat.
Posted by: Leatherneck at April 11, 2006 01:58 PM (D2g/j)
13
Leatherneck, I was thinking that buzzards need to eat, too.
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 11, 2006 04:35 PM (rUyw4)
14
J.J.,
You're right. I forgot about the buzzards. Perhaps, sometimes a body will wash up on a sand bank, and the buzzards can get a little.
Posted by: Leatherneck at April 11, 2006 07:52 PM (D2g/j)
15
You might have linked it, and I just missed it, but another one of the lil sickos has this profile, he's a member of one multimember blog
Notice the young boy in his profile pic...
Posted by: Lilo at April 11, 2006 09:20 PM (V8C2g)
16
You might have linked it, and I just missed it, but another one of the lil sickos has this profile, he's a member of one multimember blog
Notice the young boy in his profile pic... http://www.blogger.com/profile/14823928
Posted by: Lilo at April 11, 2006 09:20 PM (V8C2g)
17
J.J., Leatherneck,
We propose the the use of the Humane Society of Humane Relocation of NAMBLA and Similar Organizations and Persons™. HSHRNSOP™ for short.
The goal of this organization is to recognize the level of humanity of these people and provide them a place to be free of repression and societal prejudice. We will humanely provide them transport to our humane heavy lift vehicles (bought for cheap from humane former GLORIOUS MOTHERLAND). The heavy lift vehicles will then lift off, in the most humane and environmentally friendly way possible, beginning their humane trip to freedom.
These colonists will enjoy their new lives; forging bold new frontiers and societies as they head coreward in the Sol sytem. They will enjoying long and fruitful lives cultivating the surface of the sun.
You can tell we are completely seriou sand really do care because of how many times we said "humane".
Sincerely,
Borad of Directors HSHRNSOP™
Posted by: Ranba Ral at April 11, 2006 11:22 PM (GyNTD)
18
Is this something we should tell the FBI about? Maybe they can investigate and prosecute these evil people.
Posted by: Beth Donovan at April 12, 2006 10:15 AM (9FPYz)
19----Some of the authors of both of the above blogs have pictures of very young children on their blogger profile pages. Here & Here.
Oh, forgive me for interrupting this almighty hysterical dance my friends. A Blogger has face pictures of young children on his Blog? Shock horror. Let's arrest half the Blogging world, who have pictures of Babys on their photo Blog. So a Blogger has pictures of Young Boys on their Blog? That is a crime now is it? Infact, if you look closer and actually "read" these Blogs (something which few people are doing) the Blonde Boy on the first link, is the Blogger "Himself" as a Boy. Instead, people are just going to these Blogs in frenzied outrage, and commenting on what they've been "told" the Blogs are all about. So far, not one person (out of countless I have asked) has been able to show me any evidence of the accusations thrown against these Bloggers and their Blogs. All I see, is a campaign led by right wing Christian fundamentalists who hate homosexuality (and openly admit it) throwing accusations of "Molestation", "Rape", and "Predators" at these Bloggers, and asking Google to seriously listen to demands they are shut down,when there is no proof to back them up. Anyone who is honest, will find this smear campaign laughable, and capitalizing on the genuine fears that protective parents have of "actual" sexual criminals. All I see so far, is a smear campaign. A pack of lies designed to erase people who have thoughts and ideas that happen to "morally" objectionable to the vast majority. By all means despise their views, and tell them so. When you seek the erasure of their views though, all you do is show facist intolerant behaviour, and total disregard for the freedoms so many of you claim to cherish.
Posted by: Freedom at April 13, 2006 10:50 AM (T5Ah0)
20
Uh.....are you stupid? These sites advocate sex with children.
Sex. With. Children.
Then, they have links to sites with images with children and use images of children as their own avatar.
Idiot.
Posted by: Rusty at April 13, 2006 12:40 PM (JQjhA)
21
Thank you for exposing these scumbag child molesters. Many of your links, a few of us bloggers also discovered from the original blog. This is more than disgusting, like you said...this will make you freakin speechless.
I linked your blog via Jay's, I hope you do not mind.
Hopefully these bastards will be shutdown soon. We even discovered where they are connected to a chat room...from all the links listed above. BC Boy Chat. It is extremely disturbing!!
22
The blog has been removed!
I do not know if it was Google or the perps that did it, but it is gone.
Chalk another one up for the blogosphere!
Posted by: Stacy L. Harp at April 17, 2006 07:57 AM (7o0bi)
23
LOL! This is rich! You go on harping about how evil pedophiles are on a blog that features a quote by Thomas Mann, author of one of the best-known pedophile novellas -- Death in Venice -- of all time!
Lindsay Ashford
Posted by: Lindsay Ashford at April 21, 2006 06:25 AM (W3S/u)
24
Excuse me, Rusty. There's something I'm a little confused with in regards to your blog.
You link to Modern Boylove and you claim the site is glorifying the rape of a 7yo. I had a good look, and all that I could find anything to do with a 7yo was about a boy the man seemed to have a friendship with.
Could you point out an example where this blogger's glorifying rape?
Lest you be seen as being sensationalistic, much like 'blogs'' enemy at essence, mainstream media.
Thanks
Posted by: Adrian Garcia at April 21, 2006 08:01 AM (8ZPYI)
25
hey guess what. i love children in so many ways, including sexually.
and guess what--i don't rape or molest.
you ARE ALL BRAINWASHED MORONS and you are HURTING INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS.
please open your mind and get a f*cking clue.
and yeah, you totally misrepresented that 7yo raped boy thing. no mention of any kind of rape, you IDIOT.
Posted by: anonymous at April 21, 2006 09:36 AM (z1siU)
26
COMMON PROBLEMS OF SEX WITH CHILDREN -- A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE G.N.A.A. (Gay Nigger Association of America)
A practical problem of sex with children is physical. It is very important to understand that adults are much bigger than kids. Obviously commmon sense must be used. The size differences CAN be dealt with and sex can be accomplished without harming a child physically. This mostly applies to sex with very young girls. It is probably not advisable for adult male pedophiles to even attempt vaginal penetration with a girl until at least age 9. A girl much below that age is not able in many cases able to handle an adult penis (especially if one has a large penis) being inserted in her vagina. She is often simply too small to take it all the way in easily without pain. The girl may not enjoy full-insertion intercourse no matter how gentle, as she simply is too small & cannot handle the sensation of the penis being fully inserted and withdrawn repeatedly as an adult female can easily allow. Your erect penis may also look HUGE to her, causing apprehension. She may also have an intact hymen, & dealing with this is tricky. You should proceed with intercourse VERY carefully or not at all since you can hurt her quite easily even if you are extra gentle-she is NOT a woman-remember that! In any case, if she becomes familiar with the concept of intercourse, she may ask you to do it. I advise you to not give into her pleading or if so use judgement and proceed VERY carefully and GENTLY. You may have to settle for partial insertion to satisfy her wishes without actually having real intercourse. This way is a safer compromise and with it she can see what it is like sort of without injuring her.
Posted by: popeye at April 21, 2006 10:21 AM (+K/WF)
27
Heh, what would a gay nigger know about having sex with little girls?
Posted by: Olive at April 21, 2006 10:57 AM (W3S/u)
28
I once found it ironic that the vast majority of people who espouse hatred identify as conservative Christians. No more. I've realized that it is in keeping with the fundamentalist agenda to create stark lines between good and evil and to perpetuate the 'us and them' mentality.
Jesus preached love for all mankind, but few of his followers adhere to this teaching these days. Not surprising--the lifestyle Jesus advocated was one humility, something few conservatives understand.
I am not a religious person, but I think Jesus is onto something there. In fact, every major religion under the sun has some version of the Kant's Categorical Imperative (i.e. the Golden Rule)--Do unto others . . .
Hmm, there's a thought.
What I would do is have people explain their position calmly and logically, something ped-haters seem incapable of. Again, not surprising--realizing they have no real argument, ped-haters resort to fear-mongering, lies, and hatred. It's an old story--Jews, blacks, gays, have all been persecuted in their time simply for existing, whether they've done anything wrong or not.
I am a pedophile (meaning I am attracted to children, period); this says nothing about whether I am or am not inclined to molest a child . . . or even have any sexual contact with them whatsoever. The media purposely confuses the terms 'pedophile' and 'child molester' and blatantly distorts the reality--I know, because I have a degree in journalism.
In the media biz, we have a term for this 'us and them' approach to reporting--its called the game schema, and it serves the bottom line very well.
So, I am a ped, or girl lover, as we prefer to be called. I have never molested and never will. I have outed myself to the world to prove this point, as, if I had any intention of molesting a child, I have only made it 100 times harder to do so by stepping out of the shadows.
I do not adhere to any of the stereotypes about 'our kind'--I don't collect child porn, I don't hang out at parks or playgrounds or around schoolyards, I don't seek children out in any way, shape or form. The only children I'm really around on a regular basis are relatives, and even then rarely.
I don't fear intimacy with women--I'm simply not attracted to them. Never have been. I knew in 6th grade what my orientation was, or strongly suspected it. By high school I was absolutely certain. I was around many children in those years, babysitting more than a few, but never once felt the urge to molest or rape any of them. Many of them I am still friends with.
If you want to report me, feel free. I'm not a criminal. Nor am I a coward. If you want to come take me out of the world, feel free to try. I'll give you my home address if you ask for it. But I promise I won't make it easy for you. Even so, I don't hate you any more than I fear you. I only pity you--hate is far more destructive to the hater in the long run than to the object of that hatred. ;-)
Posted by: Todd Nickerson at April 21, 2006 11:39 AM (/PYgY)
29
Okay, I've decided to do my job as the Idiot-to-English translator.
----------------------------------
“This is my trying to be really witty, and failing. I’m upset that Google is intolerant to my one-person hate group, and tolerant to people who espouse love.
I hate to link to this site because I hate people who think love is a good thing. According to this article, the site removed a bunch of posts advocating love after a pseudo-Christian idiot blasted them for the very thing her religion supposedly supports: love.
Funny how I somehow think I’m “exposing” stuff that’s been online all along, isn’t it? Even though people who post things on the internet kinda do so for the very purpose of other people seeing it, I want to feel like a private investigator or something, because I think I’m way more clever than I actually am and it’s hard for me to believe that every-freakin-one can already find such things easily if they just use a search engine.
Love is sooo disgusting! Ewwww! Everyone who thinks love is the ultimate good should die! What kind of idiot would come up with something like that?? Jesus is horrible, and so is Martin Luther King, those freaksÂ… Love sucks!
“If anyone thinks somebody is hot, and I don’t, they must be wrong, and they must be sickos. If I’m straight, this means gays. If I’m gay, this means straight folks. If I’m only attracted to people near my age, this means everyone who isn’t. Everyone should be attracted to adults! Except kids. If kids are attracted to adults, they’re sickos. Why, you ask? That’s just how it is… don’t ask because I don’t have a good enough grasp on logic to explain.”
These bloggers here advocate child rape! And by “rape” I mean “hanging out without any sexual interaction”. I think it’s way fun to call everyone I don’t like a rapist, regardless of whether or not they actually are.”
And when anyone does something I don’t like, I also compare them to mass murderers. Dude, did you know that this one murderer was a nurse? And she poisoned people? So all nurses are probably serial killers who want to poison people… and all teachers are probably child-rapists… and all farmers probably want to rape the sheep…”
PS: I just love it when people who claim to care about civil rights are actually hypocritical lying agenda pushers.”
-----------------------------------------
There ya goÂ… Now itÂ’s all in perfectly clear English.
And while I had a very fun time doing the translationÂ… I urge everyone else to be equally critical of what this person is saying. Take a look at the links he provides and youÂ’ll see heÂ’s a one-man hate group trashing on people who simply believe love=good and that children are fully formed human beings with their own sexuality.
By the way - IÂ’m a sixteen-year-old girl. I have always been a sexual being, and dislike it when people try to tell me I donÂ’t have the right to my own body. I felt this way when I was nine, and I feel this way now. If you think you have a right to tell me or anyone else underage that we shouldnÂ’t be with someone older, even if they are caring, intelligent, and all-around good people, then the world would truly be a better place without you.
Posted by: Ella at April 21, 2006 01:47 PM (QXn47)
30
Quoting Thomas Mann? Try reading 'Death in Venince'.
NAMBLA is a nearly defunct and ineffective organization. Very few self identifying pedophiles have anything whatsoever to do with them, yet their name is raised to produce to fear of some sort of organized, monolithic threat.
Posted by: Mann at April 21, 2006 03:02 PM (Ugjrf)
31
I was a child abuse investigator for years. I've seen what can happen to children in the shadows and in the light of day. I say let's make as much room for the pedophiles as they think they want. Let's bring them out into the daylight...let them identify themselves...we need to know who they are so the kids will know to avoid them.
There are child advocates who follow the pedophile message boards and thus keep up with the newest ideas and MO's. Sometimes the pedophiles slip up and give one too many clues about themselves and they're caught but generally they travel under the cloak of anonymizers and nicknames and are very difficult to ID. The law enforcement agents assigned to child sex crimes will tell you that tracking pedophiles on the web, on boards or blogs, is not only tedious, it's generally fruitless. Their time is better spent somewhere else. I don't doubt these assertions. The really sleazy stuff...the child porn and personal meetings between pedophiles...is done so far under the radar, it's extremely difficult to detect and invade.
So let's encourage these folks to come out into the light and fly where they can be detected, identified, and protected against. Driving them further underground isn't the answer...it just makes them more difficult to find, ID and take action against if necessary. Give them their voice...give them a T-shirt...give them a cap with a big purple "P" on it. Turning on the lights always wins against the monsters in the closet.
Posted by: Lysi at April 21, 2006 06:18 PM (To2hS)
32
Lysi,
The problem is coerced and non-consentual sex. Adult-child sex is not necessarily coercive or non-consentual. Some pedophiles sexually abuse children. On the other hand, some Christians sexually abuse children. That does not mean that there is something about Christians or pedophiles that makes them a danger to children. Let's be against coercive sex in general instead of ragging on pedophiles, most of whom have no intention of sexually abusing kids. Pedophiles are not monsters, they are humans. They need respect and love like everyone else.
Posted by: Bill O'reilly at April 21, 2006 08:39 PM (wdJrQ)
33
Lysi, I'm interested to know if you have control over everyone elses actions. For you to allow pedophiles to out themselves in a safe environment, but to enforce every pedo-hating individual out there would be another entirely almost impossibly difficult thing to do. I'm sorry, that's just not a valid option. That would be like just telling all the gays in the 1950s to just 'come out' and get it off their chest. Or the nazis telling a family of hiding Jews to just come out and everything will be fine.
'Sometimes the pedophiles slip up and give one too many clues about themselves and they're caught but generally they travel under the cloak of anonymizers and nicknames and are very difficult to ID'
You say this, but you make the somewhat incorrect assumption that every pedophile is somehow guilty. Almost as if pedophilia itself is a crime, when at this point in time at least it is the action or collection of pornography that would get him/her in trouble. A number of these people on the known websites are absolutely law-abiding. If there's any reason to believe there's anything illegal going on, and the police don't think they'll be able to make any individual arrests, they'll simply shut down the site.
You also make the incorrect assumption that every pedophile needs protecting against, as if each one intends to hurt children. Also, how do you intend to protect people from these pedophiles? You say you would like to see them given the societal freedom of being able to integrate publicly into the community, but how are you going to protect people from them, and how are you going to protect them from people?
Posted by: Adrian Garcia at April 21, 2006 08:40 PM (8ZPYI)
34
If a pedophile gives away too much info and gets caught, he's getting caught doing something illegal. There's no sense in catching someone who's not, is there? The "too much info" includes descriptions of illegal acts and comes from a long period of observation and evidence-gathering. It's not a snap decision based only on the proclamation that someone is a pedophile.
We all know that not all pedophiles actually harm children. We also know that pedophiles, by their own admission, are sexually attracted to children, many, if not most, exclusively, and I'd say that warrants watching. A child is more likely to be harmed by someone who is exclusively sexually attracted to children than someone who's exclusively sexually attracted to adults. Duh.
Why not invite the pedophiles to come on out? The tide has turned quite positively toward GLBTs in the last several years. Would it have turned the same way in the 50's? I don't know but I sure wouldn't have encouraged anyone to stay in the closet any more then than I would now. I've got several friends who are out in varying degrees, and I don't think there was ever a date set in the 50's for the outing to begin...like on June 2, 1972 the tide's going to turn and we're going to come out in order of north to south and east to west. The movement formed and did what movements do over time.
The pedophiles say, in more than one place on the web, that they're ready to be a public movement. I'd say they're making the choice to come out. They're saying they want recognition...rights...respect. Fine! But don't forget that with the recognition, rights and respect, there comes responsibility, a great deal of responsibility. I don't know how they'll protect themselves. I'm sure that as with every social movement there will be casualties...martyrs if you will. But since they're the ones insisting that they want their place in society, I guess you need to ask them how then intend to protect themselves. They can ask the GLBT activists, the civil rights activists, activists from any social movement and learn from them. Perhaps the law will give them "protected class" status although that seems unlikely given the conservative leanings of the US Supreme Ct. but we're all going to be forced to give up more rights with the Roberts court. Perhaps we need more liberals in the legislature.
I'm just saying that wanting to jerk every pedophile board and blog off the net isn't necessarily a smart idea. Forcing the movement further underground isn't going to benefit anyone. But this silly sh*t of acting like pets running in and out of the house through the pet door makes me want to say, "Come out or stay in...take your pick. You can't have it both ways." With pets, the humans get to make the ultimate decision. But pedophiles aren't pets...they're people too. So they can decide to come out or not...they can't have it both ways but it's their choice.
Posted by: Lysi at April 21, 2006 09:57 PM (To2hS)
35
"A child is more likely to be harmed by someone who is exclusively sexually attracted to children than someone who's exclusively sexualy attracted to adults. Duh."
Ironically, this is an astoundingly untrue statement.
The truth is over 80% of child molesters are NOT primarily attracted to children.
It's true!
Posted by: Febri-chan at April 21, 2006 11:22 PM (BJYNn)
36
I think the statement that I made, the one that you've quoted accurately, said "exclusively attracted to adults."
Posted by: Lysi at April 22, 2006 03:20 AM (FCLSo)
37
Child more likely to be harmed by those with sexual attraction to them? Most of the children I hear of being harmed are victims of physical abuse, neglect, drugs, etc. Children are most likely to be harmed by people with no sexual motivation toward them at all.
Even sexual abuse is often commited by those with no sexual attraction toward children.
"1. Child sexual offenders must be differentiated from pedophiles.
a. A child sexual offender has committed a criminal act. He may or may or may not be a pedophile. It is adult/child sexual contact that is against the law.
b. A pedophile has an anomalous sexual preference. If a pedophile never acts on his impulses, he is not a sex offender."
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/library/hungary7.htm
Posted by: Bll at April 22, 2006 11:39 AM (Ugjrf)
38
I am having trouble posting a reply because it is said to have questionable content every time I hit "post". It has no curse words - it is simply an opinion. For all those reading this blog: see what sort of censorship is taking place. You are not hearing both sides accurately because much of what needs to be said is being blocked.
Posted by: Ella at April 22, 2006 07:54 PM (lz6YZ)
39
Lysi,
I tried to post a reply to you, but all replies with certain words are being blocked now. Please follow the link and you may read my response:
Posted by: Todd Nickerson at April 22, 2006 11:54 PM (KzU7D)
40
Oops, here's the URL:
http://www.blogger.com/publish-comment.do?blogID=26682638&postID=114564522859059258&r=ok
Posted by: Todd Nickerson at April 22, 2006 11:56 PM (KzU7D)
41
"We are ONLY here for the ONEs WE LOVE! To care for them and their interests!"
"REMEMBER to LOVE your boy, YF and SYF...and others Remember to LOVE your wives, children, neighbors"
and...
"These bloggers here advocate child rape!"
I'm sorry, is it just me, or do I not see a connection between "we are here to take care of them and their interests"... and "love your special young friends, your wives, children, neighbors..."... and "they support child rape!"
Who's really talking about rape here? The so-called "Child molestors" or the so called "child protectors"...
Advocating child rape would sound like this: "We are boylovers and we advocate the rape of children." It sounds more like they are advocating LOVE.
Posted by: Crake at April 27, 2006 11:31 AM (pDE/r)
42
It appears the anti-pedo firestorm is over and people couldn't care less about "protecting kids" anymore...
Shows how much these blogging PURITANS really want to protect kids... sounds more like they just want to torch someone.
You've all got your priorities backwards!
Posted by: Crake at April 28, 2006 08:13 PM (pDE/r)
43
What is it with all you? You can't really decide what's right or wrong because you don't know. All you know is what you find "disgusting" or distasteful and act as though you never entertained a similar emotion or attraction yourselves, ever. Liars.
Just because you find boylove distasteful doesn't make it wrong. Why? Because it's only logical. Even "weird" isn't wrong. In fact you have to go pretty far in the realm of sex to actually do anything wrong because lets remember, sex is good. Sex is about affection and good things. And if you think it's "dirty" you're probably one of those swaggering apes that think the more sex a guy has the more of a man he is and a woman is a slut and a whore if she isn't chaste are "pure".
Power imbalance my ass. Is the man in Venezuela who cut his girlfriends little boys penis off because she wouldn't give him some of her paycheck money so he could buy a motorcycle a saint because he's straight?
Go to Hell all of you straight assholes, you make me sick.
44
This is for all the UNeducated, UNinformed and brainwashed posters above (you know who are):
There are no absolute definitions of what is right and what is wrong...societies and individuals are constantly changing and reviewing what they deem to be right or wrong...even laws cannot be held to be absolute measures of something being right or wrong...later generations often repeal laws held sacrosanct in earlier times.
Just because something is deemed illegal does not mean it is inherently wrong or even 'bad/evil' in and of itself. Slavery has been legal in societies throughout history and many at the time deemed it right, even ethically right! Even Jesus, supposedly the greatest teacher of all time told slaves to keep their place (lest they upset the balance of society and possibly bring about a greater suffering for all?) If the slaves are housed, fed, clothed and not beaten and the alternative is living on the street...which case is more right, more wrong, even on ethical grounds? Sorry...I digress...
Thus it is pointless to debate about the rightness or wrongness of an action...ethical arguments would be more interesting (but probably also server little purpose in the debate over adult/child sex).
Here are some prime examples of how "views" and "laws" have changed over time:
Orthodox Jews permit a girl to be married at age 3, but consummation awaits her having two pubic hairs or attaining age 12. Roman and Byzantine law permitted marriage to girls at 12 and boys at 14 (Lascaratos & Poulakou-Rebelakou, 2000). Old English law recognized consent to sex with the opposite sex by a girl of 10 or a boy of 13, and the 1900 U.S. Census had a married and working category for girls aged 10-15. Surely, all the men who lived under these laws and had sex with girls that we consider underage, did not have a 'disorder' of 'pedophilia.' Those who violate their society's age of consent laws are engaging in criminality, but the proportion of these criminals who have a 'disorder' is questionable.
from a report by the Family Research Institute.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_SPECRPT_foster-parent-molestation.html
In conclusion, the only logical debate over the issue must be over one of consent...and how does one determine that? Age of consent laws have varied enormously over time and even today vary enormously across the world...they are merely an attemp to protect children from exploitation in whatever form. Who can truly determine whether an experience is right or wrong for one individual other than that individual...and even then, that individual may indeed change their opinion at a later date in either direction. And who can say when a child has the ability to assert their human rights as an individual when we all mature at different rates?
There are no easy answers. The debate will contine, as it has for thousands of years.
If you know anything about history you should know that adult/child sex is as prevalent now as it has ever been. It has manifested itself in virtually every society we have any knowledge about...does that mean its normal? 'Normal' is only what society deems acceptable at the time for its members and that is in constant change. Thus, the only measurement you can truly apply to adult/child sex is whether it is good or bad for the individuals involved - but how do you apply such an 'evaluation' to something as complex as human relationships...even adult-adult relationships can be seen as hugely beneficial to one partner and not the other, when viewed by outsiders...but if both partners say they are gaining from the relationship, and feel loved, cherished and are growing as human beings...then it's no business to outsiders. The problem is basically one of consent, and when does a human have the ability to grant consent to another human. Surely that can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. Or one could argue that if you have started puberty, then by definition you are able to have sex and therefore have the right to choose who you have sex with. Who knows? I certainly don't.
I do know one thing though: hatred has never contributed anything constructive to human societies, individuals or the progress of the human race towards greater understanding of one another; hatred only adds to the total sum of human suffering...and there has been way to much of that already.
Posted by: Informed at May 13, 2006 03:04 AM (TgsVg)
45
I blogged about this awhile ago. I have yet to follow up with Stacy, but am I understanding right that blogger removed the page?
This is the first time the Carnival has been here at Homeland Stupidity, and I have to say that the hardest part of hosting the Carnival was keeping all of these excellent posts hidden away until Tuesday. And now that theyÂ’re here, come one, come all, and enjoy the Carnival!
Next weekÂ’s Carnival will be brought to you by Left Brain Female. See the schedule to follow the Carnival of Liberty or if youÂ’re interested in hosting the Carnival.
Posted by: Michael Hampton at April 11, 2006 01:45 PM (FVbj6)
3
Below The Beltway was down for about 12 hours today thanks to server issues. I'm sure all 3 of my daily readers missed it.
Seriously, thanks for posting a link to this week's carnival.
Posted by: Doug at April 11, 2006 03:46 PM (t0f22)
4
I figured y'all would be back soon so I left the linky linky.
Posted by: Howie at April 11, 2006 04:09 PM (D3+20)
Wait 'Til Your Blogfather Gets Home, Young Man (Updated with response from Rusty)
I must disagree with the good Dr. Shackleford on his assessment of the importance of the cyber-jihad.
While I have no issue with American hackers being paid to take down jihadist sites and forums, I don't believe that it's an imperative to winning this war. I did a post back during the Cartoon Jihad wherein I pooh-poohed the reaction of people to the MSM's failure to print them, because all of us had already seen them. By us I meant blogs, and those who frequent them. A nice commenter reminded me of the total number of people who don't get news from blogs. Healthy slap in the face, that was.
Yes, the internet is a tool used to recruit terrorists, but it's just a tool. Recruitment of Islamic terrorists was going along just fine before the internet became a household tool. The Marine barracks in Beirut was bombed when the internet was in its infancy.
If we cannot win the cyber war, we cannot win our war against Muslim ideologues bent on creating the Islamic utopia by any means necessary.
We've defeated [insert utopian ideology here] bent on creating their visions of our world by any means necessary, all long before the internet was created.
Mohammed had no internet, and now 1.2 billion people on this Earth are forbidden to gaze upon his visage. Saladin had no internet, and it didn't stop him from kicking Crusader ass. The mujahadeen in Afghanistan had no internet, and they stomped the Soviets.
Hacking jihadi websites doesn't stop madrassas being built in Eastern Europe. Hacking jihadi websites doesn't stop imams preaching on Fridays. Hacking jihadi websites doesn't do any more good than jihadis hacking our websites. They, like us, will just put them up somewhere else.
Hacking sites may even be counter-productive. We, the great unwashed, have no true idea of what our government's capabilities are. Most of that stuff is classified. If hackers start disabling jihad sites, who knows what information they would be depriving us of.
So I disagree with my blogfather. The best way to deal with jihadis is not to hack their websites, it's far more simple than that.
Kill them all, let Allah sort 'em out. It's hard to access Ummah.com when you're dead.
And before you spit in my face in the comments, "Kill them all" does not refer to all Muslims, just the jihadis. And yes, Improbulus Maximus, "Kill them all" does refer to all Muslims, not just jihadis. And no, Background Noise, I really don't mean all Muslims, just jihadis. There, have I covered my ass?
Rusty responds--the bitch slap! Ahhh, finally a debate! A debate, a debate, my kingdom for a debate!
Okay, how to respond? Since most of my posts are tongue in cheek, focus on lipstick lesbians, or are devoted to calling people names, it isn't easy slamming on the brakes and putting on the academic helmut so quickly. But here goes.
What Vinnie has just done is a classic example of not understanding two very important points and because he misses those points, is arguing against a straw man.
1) Probabalistic relationships are different than cause-effect relationships.
Contrary to what you were taught in both physics and logic, not all cause-effect relationships are direct. No one is arguing here that the internet causes terror, only that the increase in jihadi activity online has led to an increase in a) sympathy for terrorists which gives them room to hide among the civilian populations of the world b) recruitment of terrorists.
Thus, decreasing online terror activity will certainly decrease support for terrorism worldwide and therefore terrorist acts worldwide.
2) An effect often has multiple causes.
Before the internet there was jihad and after the internet there will be jihad, thus jihad must not be caused by internet. True enough, but the internet is a cause today if not the cause.
Wars are fought on many fronts and in many different ways simultaneously. So far, we have not even begun to fight the front that is cyberspace. My argument has never been that if we win this front we will win the war on terror, my argument is that if we wish to win the war on terror we must also win the cyber war.
Winning the cyber war will not mean we will win the war on terror, but it will certainly help. However, if we do not win the cyber war we cannot win the war on terror. It is a necessary condition for winning, but not the only condition.
Why? Wars are won when the enemy believes there is no hope for victory. When fighting an army, a nation, or even an organized resistance group, killing/capturing most of them or taking control of key physical territory usually serves as sufficient grounds for resistance to fall. But because in assymetrical and decentralized warfare beating individual cells is not enough to win, an atmosphere must be created in which enemy combatants have no hope of winning and therefore lay down their arms.
There are several other erroneous points Vinnie makes--such as not understanding the differences between Saladin's or Mohammed's very centralized armies and decentralized cells of terrorists--but I'll skip to the most important one.
The argument, if I understand it correctly, is that taking down terror websites is impossible since terrorists will just find new web space and new sites will pop up. That is, we should not wage war against the cyber jihadis because we cannot win it.
I'm sorry, but that just doesn't fly. How do we know we can't win it if we've never even attempted to fight it? Further, I would argue, effectively fighting the cyber war is actually much simpler than most understand. Since the vast majority of cyber jihadi activity only come from a handful of websites, taking out the most popular ones will drastically reduce the power of terrorists to shape the opinions of Muslims around the world.
We do not need to take down every jihadi website, we only need to take down the most popular ones. This could be accomplished today if we put our mind to it. That's right, today.
And, when the jihadis move to another website, we can follow them. Then take down that website. And the next. And the next.
Last, if you think taking down a few hundred websites is hard, how hard do you think it will be to find and kill a few hundred thousand jihadis? Impossible.
Vinnie:
I still don't see how this is a necessary condition to winning the war. To me, a necessary condition would be, say, removing the mullahs from power in Iran.
Hacking jihad websites is more like H/I fire in my opinion.
1
I think rusty misses out that in the war of ideas, we've disarmed ourselves.
Unless you count "democracy" as a good idea. Palestine et al I think is a good example of how great an idea that one is.
Posted by: MiB at April 11, 2006 01:28 AM (2hPsb)
2
Have we? Really disarmed ourselves in the war of ideas?
So "democracy" is a bad idea? What do you propose in its stead?
Posted by: Vinnie at April 11, 2006 01:40 AM (/qy9A)
Posted by: Oyster at April 11, 2006 03:54 AM (YudAC)
4
The only hacking that will work is the kind that removes muslims' heads from their shoulders. Give the lowlifes a taste of their own medicine and see how they like it.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 11, 2006 05:20 AM (0yYS2)
5
It's rather to put their heads back on their shoulders that would help.
Take the koran, online, copy the whole thing in a word processor, read it and highlight the hate mongering passages, what says that non Muslims are scum, doomed to burn, etc. Then youÂ’ll know why they are such a pain in the ass.
It's not that much work, it took me a day to do it in French, including commentaries:
http://www.ajm.ch/liberty/plainte_18.3.06.pdf
6
AJM, you could just go to: www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
As long as we remain squeamish about fighting our enemies, or keep trying to choose which is an acceptable enemy and which is not, we will continue to lose ground. He who is not attacking is not winning. A good muslim is a dead muslim.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 11, 2006 06:34 AM (0yYS2)
7
The muhajadin in Afghanistan kicked ass in large part thanks to US stinger missles that started taking the Soviet Hind attack choppers down and in part because of WW2 tactics employed by the Soviets.
Posted by: goesh at April 11, 2006 06:48 AM (vX0fY)
8
Improbulus Maximus: the skepticsÂ’ job is okay, it shows that the Koran is the lowest thing that ever got confused with religion. But the hate-mongering factor helps better to understand why Muslims are acting as they do.
We have to defeat them, not obligatorily kill them. And although I sure wouldnÂ’t regret the death of any one who is able to take Islamic scriptures as a guide in life, I also see that most of them, today, are just kids. And without real parents (after how many kids can you look as a father?). Many things can happen in the course of one manÂ’s life. I say letÂ’s bet on life.
9
One sided propaganda
ITs really amazing how you hate mongers just sit there and point at other people s religion and pick out what suits your agenda ,out of context and completely ignore the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes. The so called “God” of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children. I have included references to the Biblical passages, so grab your Bible and follow along. You can also follow along with on-line Bibles such as BibleStudyTools.net It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not kill”. For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6). In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.
The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).
This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person. Murder, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by saying that some god says itÂ’s OK. If more people would actually sit down and read the Bible there would be no pointing at others.
Posted by: leaker-in-chief at April 11, 2006 09:41 AM (zqsRN)
10
Someone having a problem with Jewish terrorists out there?
There's a good reason for that. Jews were ordered to crush some well-defined people, whereas Muslims are ordered to crush unbelievers at large.
Jews were also ordered not to kill. Period. Muslims are only ordered not to killÂ… Muslims (except bad Muslims of course).
11
Alright, alright, so God didn't know someone was actually writing all this stuff down. You ever try to be creator of all things heaven and earth, only to have a bunch of self-righteous ingrates question your every move?
Posted by: Ken at April 11, 2006 09:53 AM (UHKaK)
12
I guess we just have to trust you with what you say AJM? YEAH, RIGHT. Pull your head out, ... What's your point? What s your proof? did you do some research? your way of discussion is so one sided ,with no proof and no logic.
If you take a logic test you ll take a ZERO .All you prove is bigotry ,hate , American despotism and racism , i ll rather converse with an un flashed toilet..
Posted by: to ajm at April 11, 2006 10:37 AM (zqsRN)
13
I say: donÂ’t you trust anyone, ever, who is talking about religion. But if you feel interested, for whatever reason, do check each and every word the guy is saying, and youÂ’ll be safe.
I said: copy the koran into a word processor, read it and highlight the hate mongering stuff, when it derides, condemns, insults nonbelievers and incites to put them down, to kill them, and so on. I said that you then will know why so many Muslims have been such bad guys.
I also said that it isnÂ’t that much work; that it took me just one day (well, 24 hours), to do that job in my native language, French. ItÂ’s there: www.ajm.ch/liberty/plainte_18.3.06.pdf
Now, when youÂ’ll be done with it, imagine that each and every Muslim would be doing that dayÂ’s work, too. And many nonbelievers, as well. I say the world would be a better place, then.
14
Is it really Islamic to kill unbelievers? Should not all people be allowed to practice what they believe in?
Cher AJM ,Under Islam, all people are free to practice whatever beliefs they have. Islam does not allow Muslims to kill unbelievers who do not fight Islam. It is only when they launch an aggression against Islam or Muslims that they should fight them.
If you look at what is happening in the world today, you find that Muslims are at the receiving end of aggression in different places, particularly in Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya and Afghanistan. When Muslims fight back, they are only repelling aggression. Still, when Muslims fight, they must abide by Islamic rules, never killing anyone who is not engaged in the fight against them. Thus, they must not kill or injure innocent people or passers by.
I wonder have you ever read the ENTIRE Quran or simply verses out of context that you 've read or heard by ignorant folk ? When it comes to fighting "infidels" the Quran refers to those Arab Pagans who fought and persecuted the first generation of Muslim, furthermore it applies to those who persecute Muslims. So it doesnt apply to you and your loved ones. Have you read the parts in the Quran where it talks about relations with non-Muslims or did you conviniently skip them ? So no, neither I nor my co-religionists spend every waking fantasizing about chasing after infidels down the streets. And to correct the fallacy that most of the world sees Islam in this negative light, thats what you THINK. Infact most of the world hold Americans in contempt for their actions, and I'm not talking merely about the desecration of the Holy Quran by war criminals in the Gitmo Gulag. Anti-Americans isnt just in Islamic countries. Ever wonder why ?
YOU need to quit grovelling and show some dignity instead of pandering to malicious and ignorant fools who care nothing for facts or figures. PEACE.PAIX.
Posted by: Cher Ami ajm at April 11, 2006 12:46 PM (zqsRN)
15
Cher,
You need to take off the blinders, and smell the Coffee:
Cher AJM ,Under Islam, all people are free to practice whatever beliefs they have.
So a Muslim is free to convert, or become an atheist, what is all this talk about death for apostasy?
Still, when Muslims fight, they must abide by Islamic rules, never killing anyone who is not engaged in the fight against them.
So the Iraqi civilians killed by car bomb in Iraq, beheadings and gunshot are a myth?
How about the civilians killed on September 11th, London bus/train bombings and the Spanish train bombings? the list goes on and on.
How come Imam's around the world are not decrying the methods used by terrorists, which they say is in Allah's name? why do they push for more violence? why do they call for death for cartoonists and newspaper editors?
Problem is Islam has two faces, one that talks like you do about peace, the other that talks about killing all that do not submit to it.
Posted by: davec at April 11, 2006 12:56 PM (CcXvt)
Posted by: Oyster at April 11, 2006 01:58 PM (SlypO)
17
Well. Maybe I did. Let me try to fix that.
Yes, IÂ’ve read the entire Koran, many times. And the Hadith, and some Tafsir, and some dissertations of Islamic jurists of the four sunni madhahib and of the shia school, too, especially on jihad, dhimma, and hadd. I spent some time dreaming on the fascinating aspects of the fiqh, such concepts as shubha, diya, aqila, and qasama. And while I think that some of those things are worth being thought upon, adapted and used, IÂ’d say they are such precious exceptions that the best really is to start from scratch.
18
What a bunch of B.S. Islam is at war with the world. Saddam, (a crazy Muslim), killed a million Muslims. The United States of America made more than a few Muslim nations rich! The MSM wants everyone in the world to think America is bad, and the U.N. is good. Gitmo? Two hots, and a cot, with ocean view, and a towel for your moon god worshipping head. What do Americans get when captured by moon god worshippers? YOU GUESSED IT!
Islam makes me want to puke! The G-d I pray to does not need to be defended by that which he created.
Posted by: Leatherneck at April 11, 2006 07:12 PM (D2g/j)
ALBANY, N.Y. - A federal judge has ordered the Mexico school district to return bricks inscribed with evangelical Christian messages to a high school walkway, concluding their removal violated the free speech rights of the people who paid for them.
U.S. District Judge Norman Mordue ruled the bricks, with engravings like “Jesus Saves” and “Jesus Christ The Only Way!” didn't constitute a Mexico Academy endorsement of that religious view. The bricks containing such engravings were the only ones removed, while others also referred to God and some commemorated Methodist, Episcopal and Catholic churches.
“The undisputed evidence demonstrates that Mexico Academy engaged in viewpoint discrimination when it removed plaintiffs' bricks from the walkway,” Mordue wrote. “Further, the bricks at issue, which number 9 among 1,736, literally constitute an insignificant part of the walkway.”
Of course the Mexico Central School District only removed the bricks after being threatened by Central New York ACLU representatives. It's instructive that the ACLU, which supposedly champions civil liberties, used bullying to try to deny free speech to people because that speech was religious in nature.
3
It makes me sick to my stomach knowing the ACLU receives government funding.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 11, 2006 08:43 AM (8e/V4)
4
Carlos, the Republicans control Congress and can put a stop to it anytime they please. One wonders why Congress keeps letting these worms receive government money.
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 11, 2006 09:26 AM (rUyw4)
5
There is no Republican party, just as there is no Democratic party; both are merely arms of the same corrupt organization. If you don't vote Libertarian, you're just spinning your wheels.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 11, 2006 02:05 PM (0yYS2)
6
Voting Losertarian is spinning your wheels too. Best thing to do is try to hold Republican's feet to the fire.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 11, 2006 11:00 PM (8e/V4)
7
The Republicans have sold out, and I'm not wasting another vote or dollar on them. If don't stop banging your thumb with the hammer, it won't stop hurting.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 12, 2006 05:50 AM (0yYS2)
8
Hmm, I wonder if there were any immigration protests in Mexico, NY.
On the other hand, maybe the town wasn't named after the country of Mexico, but after "Ron Mexico."
Posted by: Joshua at April 12, 2006 12:40 PM (2c7xL)
Countering the Cyber Jihad: Cyber Privateering Part II
It's time we took the cyber jihad seriously. It has become obvious that the U.S. government is ill equippied to deal with the problem If we cannot win the cyber war, we cannot win our war against Muslim ideologues bent on creating the Islamic utopia by any means necessary.
Why is the U.S. government unable to respond adequately to the cyber jihad?
a) They are still in law enforcement mode.
Unless an internet website is breaking the law, no action is taken by the government. However, if we are in a war, then the normal rules do not apply. We cannot treat terrorist forces on the web as if they were simply exercising some Constitutional right of free speech. If this is a war, then fight it like one. If you can kill your enemies in war, then certainly censoring them is justified.
b) Intelligence agencies lack the institutional know-how to fight the online jihad.
Traditionally, intelligence agencies such as the NSA and CIA have been the information gathering arm of the U.S. government. Such intelligence is used by other agencies to act. They may monitor jihadi websites, but they obviously are not acting on their information.
Occasionally they do act, but when they do --such as with the arrest of Irhabi 007--they are in law enforcement mode. Irhabi 007 was charged with a crime, but if using the internet to wage war upon your own country is a crime, then doesn't this reveal the underlying problem of not treating this as a war?
c) The military lacks the tools to fight the internet jihad.
If this is war then it is the military--not the intelligence agencies such as the CIA and NSA, and not the law enforcement agencies such as the FBI -- that ought to be fighting it. The military is great at doing a lot of things, but taking down websites is not one of them. Even if we could identify each and every web server which hosts terror websites, the solution is not bombing the webhosts. For the most part, companies either are not aware that terrorists use their services or they do not care because there are no real consequences to doing business with the online jihadis.
The solution? There is no government solution. The only people really equipped to counter the online threat are hackers themselves. These cyber pirates have the necessary knowlege, tools, and experience in infiltrating and taking down websites. With minimum investment in equipment, with the assurance that they will not be prosecuted for activities which are normally considered illegal, and with the promise of a reward for each website taken down, these cyber pirates would be turned into cyber privateers. There skills which are normally deemed socially unacceptable, can be used to the advantage of winning the long war against militant Islam.
I will be posting on cyber-privateering from time to time. Stay tuned!
Prof. Weimann also describes various efforts by private groups or individuals to take down the web sites of terrorists –and the back and forth efforts between Israelis and Palestinians or their supporters to take down each other’s websites. He also discusses the efforts, largely futile, by governments to deprive terrorist groups of service providers because they jump to other providers or conceal their origin.
Hoffman emphasized another side of the coin—the need to take the offense as well as play defense. He said the United States and friendly governments should do more to make use of the internet get across reliable news and counter what he called the ”parallel world” in which terrorists and their supporters receive distorted perspectives and rumors on their web sites.
This may take more nimbleness and sophistication than US Government public diplomacy efforts have shown in recent years. But it is time to act and think outside the conventional box and should be given high priority. [READ THE REST]
To effectively counter the cyber jihad, it will take much more than public diplomacy. I will have more on this in the future.
1
jeez,
Just imagine if instead of learning about a terrorists by following him, photographing him, finding out who is friends, and contacts are, the CIA just walked behind them and dropped them with a nine in the skull.
Then they would be a dead terrorist -- we wouldn't know anything about them, their skills, operations, people they mixed with but he'd be dead right, and everyone can feel better.
These people talk on these boards, and they're an intelligence goldmine if not only their ability to out the extremists that visit them, and the people uploading to them. Why would you want to remove them? it's paramount to the above scenario.
I myself, am a network security analyst, and I know quite a lot of people that are involved in finding exploitable conditions in software, and publishing advisories, you'd be happy to know some of the same people that released remote exploits for Microsoft Windows, and several high profile UNIX daemons consult for several three letter agencies. if they wanted in. they'd be in, and that is all I pretty much want to discuss on that topic.
Posted by: davec at April 11, 2006 12:52 AM (CcXvt)
2
True, davec, but if we don't stop monitoring them and start killing them, we're going to be in big trouble soon. The first step should be to round up and deport every muslim in the country, and then go kill them in whatever hellhole we've deported them to.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 11, 2006 06:37 AM (0yYS2)
3
We've "monitored" Hamas since its inception. We still "monitor" Hamas. When are we going to do something about all the Hamas websites, Hamas "charities", Hamas fundraising, Hamas leaders? Now, of course, it's too late. They govern a strategically significant piece of land.
Question: When do you stop monitoring and start disrupting?
Posted by: Asgerd at April 11, 2006 07:26 AM (zGx/I)
4
Asking hackers to take down pages, they would face criminal charges for inside the United States is a stretch, especially as some of the Jihadi websites are located inside Europe, and the U.S does comply with the E.U laws. The U.S has even arrested foreign programmers on U.S soil in order to comply with the DMCA, at DefCon one of the largest gatherings of Hackers/security professionals in Vegas each year a russian programmer was arrested for violating the DMCA:
programmer arrested
This isn't an isolated event, the problem is worse, when you think that 98% of all web defacements are done by unskilled morons, using programs, who couldn't even target the right sites. A good example of this is when "WoH" defaced a anti-terrorism thinktank that lost employees in the September 11th attack, because it had the word "terrorist" in it's website domain name.
The U.S military does take cyber-warfare very seriously, just because it's not on the frontpage does not mean the U.S has neither contingency plans to thwart it, or the ability to use it:
cyber warfare
moving from monitoring to action, is a good question -- however who is to say it isn't already happening? you have already seen the arrest of the London hacker, and the person in Iraq running the media arm for Al-Qaeda. I am sure we'd like to hear how this particular battle is being fought, however I'm sure you'd have the ACLU suing to find out every ISP the U.S has tapped, compromised or attacked within a week, I personally prefer hearing no details rather than having it layed out on the front pages of the Washington Times.
Posted by: davec at April 11, 2006 10:40 AM (CcXvt)
5
davec: In other words, it might be better to leave them up and running at least long enough to trace them?
Posted by: Oyster at April 11, 2006 02:02 PM (SlypO)
6
Given the tone of my comments, I'm probably being monitored too, which, considering the government's track record of violence against its citizens, probably means they'll come after me before any muslims who are plotting death to innocent people. They apparently think that citizens won't shoot back. They're wrong in this case if that's what they think.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 11, 2006 02:10 PM (0yYS2)
7
Oyster:
hold on, I'm about to get a bit technical.
Not only are these boards a goldmine in regards to tracking, and tracing who goes there, and participates, but the servers themselves contain a lot of valuable information. if they are being penetrated there is extremely valuable intelligence upon them, from the basic: server logs, every webserver in it's default state logs connections: ip address, browser type, page names with a date and time stamp -- to the advanced: some of the terrorists are using encryption like pgp (pretty good privacy) and stenography (ability to embed messages inside pictures) which without knowning the NSA's ability to reverse -- is often estimated to take longer than the life of the universe to break.
However if I compromise the server, and create backdoors, for example replacing the pgp program with a backdoored version which logs fopen() [file open] fread() fwrite() [read/write] the jihadi's will be using their encryption with no idea their security is compromised, which would mean they are writing their messages freely, and I would be able to see everything they read or wrote that they believed to be securely encrypted.
contrast that, with taking them offline -- which lasts about 30 minutes until they find another free account to host it again -- which may take me days to find again.
This is the tip of the iceburg, and I really have not discussed the techniques in detail, nor do I have any interest in doing so.
Posted by: davec at April 11, 2006 02:50 PM (CcXvt)
8
Belive it or not, I actually followed that, Dave! Electronic trails are as abundant as paper trails if exploited correctly. The FBI caught a guy a few years ago who mailed in a clipped picture of a website's map to police pointing out where his victim's body was and they traced him through the website's recorded IPs of its visitors to where he accessed the map from, then went to his house and handcuffed him.
Posted by: Oyster at April 11, 2006 03:17 PM (SlypO)
Iraq Did Go Uranium Shopping in Niger
Bush lied, McHaliburton, Amerikkka, etc. Hitchens:
In February 1999, Zahawie left his Vatican office for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981, as confirmed in the Duelfer Report. In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein's long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious. Italian intelligence (which first noticed the Zahawie trip from Rome) found it difficult to take this view and alerted French intelligence (which has better contacts in West Africa and a stronger interest in nuclear questions). In due time, the French tipped off the British, who in their cousinly way conveyed the suggestive information to Washington. As everyone now knows, the disclosure appeared in watered-down and secondhand form in the president's State of the Union address in January 2003....
However, the waters have since become muddied, to say the least. For a start, someone produced a fake document, dated July 6, 2000, which purports to show Zahawie's signature and diplomatic seal on an actual agreement for an Iraqi uranium transaction with Niger. Almost everything was wrong with this crude forgery—it had important dates scrambled, and it misstated the offices of Niger politicians. In consequence, IAEA Chairman Mohammed ElBaradei later reported to the U.N. Security Council that the papers alleging an Iraq-Niger uranium connection had been demonstrated to be fraudulent.
But this doesn't alter the plain set of established facts in my first three paragraphs above. The European intelligence services, and the Bush administration, only ever asserted that the Iraqi regime had apparently tried to open (or rather, reopen) a yellowcake trade "in Africa." It has never been claimed that an agreement was actually reached. What motive could there be for a forgery that could be instantly detected upon cursory examination?
1
It would seem that common sense takes us further into this story than the Bush crazed media could follow. Sadam was checking out if he could again source yellow cake in Niger. What could be more natural for a killer like him.
That was the story; and yet we are still wandering in Joe Wilson fossil media wonderland about this. That is what makes it all so strange, our NYT media is still buzzing around this old ground, trying to make Bush the axis of evil here. No wonder the war on terror is so hard. These media people, living in the city where the towers fell, who should be at least nominally on our side, or at least the truth or common sense, are still spazming with Bush Derangement Syndrome. How strange. Dangerous too.
Posted by: Rob at April 10, 2006 10:44 PM (YYSLV)
2
Interesting piece, but I was thinking somehow that France was involved in producing that fake document. I suppose it's because of my innate distrust of France and their heavy presence in that part of Africa, but hey, they're so easy to blame.
Hitch is certainly right about the "interagency feuding" in the US mucking up the water. One would think that truth and justice would prevail if Bush was so damn wrong on everything, but with all the subterfuge going on, one would think that even the war opponents don't think they have a strong enough case. So much so that they (US figures and abroad) have to make stuff up. They misquote, forge documents, leave crumb trails, etc. The fact is, the truth is not enough for some. They want Bush and the US to be wrong on every count and in every detail.
Posted by: Oyster at April 11, 2006 05:04 AM (YudAC)
3
This country will never be safe until our corrupt, inept, treasonous government is overthrown and Liberty established once again.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 11, 2006 06:35 AM (0yYS2)
Five Christian Aid Workers Murdered by Taliban
Reports are that the five civilians may have been murdered by drug lords. I don't buy it for one second. The Taliban in resurgent in Afghanistan and until there is some evidence to the contrary, should be considered the prime suspects. Why kill them? Because the Rural Rehabilitation Association for Afghanistan (RRAA) is funded by Christian organizations. What more justification have the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies ever needed to kill? Notice that the aid workers were first tied up and then shot-- a sign that their murderers first gave them a Sharia kangaroo court, followed by a sentence of 'guilty' for 'apostasy' before 'executing' them.
Five medical staff working for a Christian Aid-funded organisation have been murdered in north-west Afghanistan.
The victims include a doctor, community health worker, and health educator who were part of a project run by the Rural Rehabilitation Association for Afghanistan (RRAA), in Darrah-i-Bohm, Badghis province.
It is thought that at least four gunmen broke into their clinic at around 1am today (local time). According to reports, the gunmen tied them up before shooting them.
1
Tactics and choice of targets tell the whole story! - as soft and weak as possible! See the enemy for who they are - pathetic pussies!
I'm not the only one developing greater respect and admiration for VC Charlie - now there was a true opponent worthy of respect!
The islamists aren't even attempting to challenge military forces! No one give me the BS that they would only lose - the very attempt is what legend, heros and victory is made of (go ask the NVA and VC).
I do want to stay the course and help these peoples into the future - but it is tough! 'cause I admit - I don't have a lot of respect for this overall islamic culture.
Posted by: hondo at April 10, 2006 05:06 PM (4mgfY)
2
The Taliban are strongest in the exact opposite part of Afghanistan, the southeast. At this point I would be looking more at the local narco/warlord then at the Taliban. Strategically it would not be a good omen if the Taliban were now able to operate so far from their sanctuary of Pakistan
Posted by: john Ryan at April 10, 2006 06:26 PM (TcoRJ)
3
It's not so much the actual Taliban that's the problem in this case, but their supporters and Taliban pretenders that can operate freely in any remote area where law enforcement does not have a strong presence. If it walks like a duck...
Posted by: Oyster at April 11, 2006 05:11 AM (YudAC)
4
Afghanistan has never been anything but a land of barbarians who live by the law of the jungle, and never will be anything else. Attempting to bring the principles of Liberty to muslims is like putting a dress on a pig.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 11, 2006 06:39 AM (0yYS2)
5
So typical of right wing morons who will toss reason and evidence aside and swallow whatever jizz the neocon shitheads happen to find convenient to shoot down their throats. The West fears unity of those that cross national boundaries as the potential membership would exceed any other group. The West in fact shows this fear in perpetuating negative views towards Islam. This is why fighters from muslims countries are not called soldiers but insurgents. I do not remember reading about soldiers of vietnam, japan or germany being called insurgents or terrorists. When Israeli born people return to israel to fight in the army they are not considered deviant or a terorist. However, if an iraqi or palestinian born american or uk muslim goes to fight for palestine or iraq they are considered a terrorist and a national threat. This is evidence of the double standard when it comes to Islam, and the trigger for the responses of those such as Jimmy the Dhimmi.
Posted by: leaker-in-chief at April 11, 2006 10:14 AM (zqsRN)
6
Although some Bush strategists share the Leo Straussian view that leaders must lie to mobilize popular support, they are discovering that lies often backfire. The contradictions between America's utopian image and the reality of empire will eventually become unsustainable. The United States, its power unrivaled, faces the prospect that its imperialism will become barbarism, not its alternative.
A struggle that loosens WashingtonÂ’s grip on the Middle East will save countless lives and advance the cause of a more peaceful and just world. ThatÂ’s why itÂ’s right to resist the U.S. in Iraq--and right to support all struggles against oppression.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Barbarism at April 11, 2006 10:53 AM (zqsRN)
7
Funny guys!
Must be tough being wannabe revolutionary heros - soft and secure in your comfortable playgrounds.
What a bitch! Wanting to embrace, support, and emulate the enemy - but ..... its hard - isn't it? At least Che looked good on a T-shirt.
Its not too late - join the struggle - its easy! Be like your heros - load up a car with explosives and nails - drive it into a neighborhood school or church or shopping mall. Be down with the revolutionary islamic brothers!
Hey! Its spring! See that girl with the short pants - she's a harlot! beat her to death with a brick!
Join the stuggle guys! Emulate your heros - or better - volunteer to fight oppression! They are looking for a few good western men (white would be nice) - they even have a special vest you can wear! One size fits all one time! Be a real hero! Get a pair of balls and get out there!
Posted by: hondo at April 11, 2006 01:17 PM (4mgfY)
8
Now hondo, they're doing their part in the fight against civilization from the homefront, as they collectively have a note from their doctor excusing them from having to ever actually do anything.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 11, 2006 02:07 PM (0yYS2)
9
leaker and barbarism:
hahaha! I'm sure Imams the world over are delighted with how your brainwashing has turned out. Barbarism doesn't even know what imperialism means, just heard it somewhere and it sounded good. Leaker thinks that negative views towards Islam just evolved out of thin air; the soldiers of vietnam, japan or germany didn't blow themselves up in cafes and weddings. I wonder if that might have something to do with them not being recipients of the "terrorist" label?
Posted by: Oyster at April 11, 2006 02:59 PM (SlypO)
Bilal Hussein and the Continuing Saga of Insurgent Propaganda via the Media
Remember our good friend Bilal Hussein? He's an Iraq stringer who works for the AP and who's up-close and personal photos of terrorists in Iraq helped to gain that organization last year's Pulitzer. Well, he's back in the news. This time as part of an expose of how photos are staged, faked, & doctored by pro-terrorist stringers employed by the AP, AFP, Reuters, and Getty Images.
On one forum that I frequently visit, some of these doctored photos discussed in the article have been used to justify killing American soldiers in Iraq. In all cases they are used by Islamic extremists to justify their hatred of America and recruit new jihadis. Thus, the images used by the AP & other organizations--which are often staged and sometimes fake-- lead directly to the deaths of American troops and will eventually help justify the next act of terrorism against American civilians.
Thanks to digital technology, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the most photographed in history. Photographers with digital cameras have provided, almost instantaneously, an enormous flood of accurate, dramatic, and even shocking images to people around the world. But the daily downloads of news photos include some that are staged, fake, or so lacking in context as to be meaningless, despite the Western media's best efforts to separate the factual from the fictional....
The photo editors for Time and The New York Times' Web site declined to comment. Other publications printed images of damage from the missile strike that seem entirely accurate. For example, Newsweek and The Washington Times published wide-angle photos of locals standing beside houses that had obviously been severely damaged. The New York Times print edition published the same wide-angle photo on January 18.....
The problem sharpens when no Western reporter is on the scene, but a photographer, usually an Iraqi stringer, is. Photo editors, or even local Western bureau chiefs, have trouble judging the veracity of the images that come from such an event. Last October, for example, The Washington Post printed a striking image of four caskets, purportedly containing dead women and children, and a line of mourning men on a flat desert plain outside the town of Ramadi, west of Baghdad. The photo, provided by the Associated Press, accompanied an article that began this way:
Iraqi Civilian Death Toll
Rob at Left Wing Lies has created this graphic way to keep track of the number of lives saved by the Coalition invasion of Iraq. Using figures from The Weekly Standard and Iraqibodycount.net, Rob calculates that 174 fewer Iraqis die every day since Saddam was toppled.
1
Nice try, but that's comparing apples and oranges. The civilian death count is not about deaths that result from lack of medicines, food, infrastructure--it is only an estimate of violent deaths. By contrast, the UN number on those killed by sanctions was supposed to include all those who died prematurely for lack of infant formula, medical care, etc, that could be logically attributed to the sanctions. So...if you can find some outfit that is estimating the number of Iraqis dying TODAY because of lack of medical care, etc, who would be alive under Saddam's regime, then you would have apples and apples. I don't know what the answer would be. Perhaps the decline in infrastructure would lead to higher deaths, or perhaps the freeing of markets, even amid chaos, would lead to better provisioning. But I do know this comparison is bogus in the extreme.
Posted by: jd at April 10, 2006 06:05 PM (aqTJB)
2
If you assume that the people who died under UN sanctions died due to the sanctions, then your statements are correct. However, even under sanctions, the Iraqis were allowed to sell enough oil to provide for the health and welfare of their citizens. Saddam simply chose to spend the money on shoring up his personal position as dictator instead. Those deaths are squarely on the head of the Hussein regime.
3
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. Of course, the deaths under sanctions were Saddam's responsibility. He could have ended them by complying with UN resolutions, for one thing, or not building palaces with money intended for food and medicine. I wasn't saying that Saddam wasn't to blame for those deaths.
What I'm saying is that the comparison is off. The current civilian death tally only counts violent deaths. The pre-war death toll counts those killed violently by Saddam AND those killed non-violently due to absence or shortage of medical supplies, food, etc. So, to be fair, you should compare deaths attributable to sanctions and Saddam violence to those attributable to the current shortages and sectarian violence.
Also, one might want to look at the trendlines. Iraq is on the precipice of a civil war, according to our government. Civilian death tolls are not a constant, but a moving trendline. And the trend is bad. For example: Very few people died over slavery from 1855-60, but the trendline was bad from Harper's Ferry on. And we may be looking at Iraq right about the Battle of First Manassas. At first, these things don't look that bad...
Posted by: jd at April 10, 2006 06:25 PM (aqTJB)
4
In fact, the Iraqibodycount is of "war-related deaths". They count non-violent deaths as well as violent ones.
It was chosen because it is the most liberal count. For contrast, The Lancet's count only tallies violent deaths that are reported by at least two English-speaking agencies.
Nice try.
195,113 lives saved by US intervention...and counting.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 10, 2006 07:25 PM (8e/V4)
6
Bluto--The iraqibodycount only counts violent deaths:
If you want to submit news stories that could help us confirm an incident involving civilian deaths please email news item weblinks to news@iraqbodycount.org (the more specific and detailed, the better).
If an infant dies of diarrhea in Ramadi because they didn't get medicine, they don't get counted in that tally. By contrast, the same infant death WOULD be counted in the UN count that is referenced prewar. That's why it isn't comparing apples and apples.
Do you get that?
Posted by: jd at April 10, 2006 07:53 PM (uT71O)
7
Here is proof positive, Bluto, that the Iraqibodycount ONLY counts violent deaths:
This is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the worldÂ’s only independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the USA and its allies. The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks).
It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion.
Posted by: jd at April 10, 2006 08:22 PM (uT71O)
8
We also won't get into the issue of the absence of sanctions against Iraq today, so that the humanitarian assistance shanghaied by Saddam and the UN gets used for its intended purpose.
9
And we also won't discuss your motives for wanting so very much for Americans to be seen as evil and Saddam as good. Lots of deep soul guilt there, eh, jd?
10
But, for the sake of argument, let's add another fifty per day to Iraqibodycount's already bloated tally. I think that's probably too high by at least 200 per cent, but it makes the math easier. After adding the extra fifty, America is still saving 124 people per day - all because President George W. Bush decided to act.
11
Think about it, jd, that's 124 individual souls every day (by your own biased count) who are walking around breathing...all because the administration didn't listen to people like you.
12
So why did you say they counted non-violent deaths when they manifestly do not?
It is entirely possible that Saddam caused more deaths per annum than the invasion and all repercussions, properly counted. I was just saying that THIS metric doesn't prove it, not even close.
Moreover, the number dead in a given three year period after the invasion isn't the best measure for the success of the mission. If the invasion DOUBLED the number of dead, but resulted in a peaceful, free Iraq, it would have been worth it. The question is--will it? If the invasion replaces Saddam with bloody anarchy in rising numbers, with thousands of US casualties and hundreds of billions of wasted taxdollars, and a destroyed US reputation--then it wasn't worth it even if it resulted in as many "saved" iraqis as you post here. You are falling into the same trap of the radical left you criticize--using a single measure of public policy outcome as the sole measure of success. Deaths per annum is one indicator, and a vital one, but far from the only one.
Posted by: jd at April 10, 2006 08:50 PM (uT71O)
13
[Sigh] I just knew I'd have to break it down for you. "Criminal action" includes both violent and non-violent events. An illegal immigrant in the US is a criminal, but not necessarily a violent one.
That's extremely basic stuff. I'm appalled at your pathetic reasoning abilities. I though George Mason was supposed to be a decent school. Were you a legacy freshman?
And when are you going to address the other issues I raised?
14
What's your opinion of having the extra 174 people walking around alive every day? Do you wish they were all dead because that would be more politically expedient for your Party?
16
So "criminal action" involves people killed by embezzling, jaywalking, and mail fraud. Let's just assume that's a small number, and leave it at that?
Jeez, do you find it IMPOSSIBLE to admit when you get something wrong? The prewar count includes kids and adults dying of diseases and lack of medicine, the postwar DOES NOT. That's why it is not a fair comparison. Is a disease a crime?
As for the other issues you raised--uh, they were offtopic? An attempt to change the subject when you got nailed in a misstatement? Moreover, I think I DID respond--I said that the death count is just one way to measure the success of the invasion. If we invaded Sudan tomorrow, we could cut the death rate in Darfur. Does that AUTOMATICALLY make it a good idea? I think foreign policy is a little more complicated than that. Don't you?
Posted by: jd at April 10, 2006 09:06 PM (uT71O)
17
No, you didn't respond at all. But I appreciate the projection. And I even gave you an extra fifty deaths per day for no good reason other than that you just seemed so frustrated at being wrong.
So tell me, I've co-opted your technique of making multiple posts without waiting for responses. What do you think of it as a forensic tactic?
And you still haven't said why you want the extra 124 (actually 174) Iraqis dead.
18
I don't want them to die. I don't know where you got the 50 number, you pulled it out of your ass, I think.
You have no idea how many Iraqis are dying from non-violent causes. It seems possible that if 60k a year were dying from sanctions, when electricity and sewage and clean water services were much more available, than an equivalent number might be dying now. I dunno.
But you do concede that the comparison is not accurate because one count includes non-violent deaths, and the other does not? I'm not frustrated at being wrong--I'm mystified that you can't admit that you made a mistake. Relax--most people make lots of them. You remind me of Rummy, Bush, and Cheney--they can't ever admit a mistake, and so they make more of them. Learn from their mistakes!
As for multiple posts, it doesn't bother me. Sometimes it takes more than one paragraph to make a point. Truth is not typically tidy.
Posted by: jd at April 10, 2006 09:27 PM (uT71O)
19
jd,
I don't see people getting thrown into mass graves anymore like under Saddam. Guess what that means-- innocent lives have been saved. Enough said.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 10, 2006 09:35 PM (8e/V4)
20
That's a common myth, jd.
Restoring and improving Iraq’s electricity supply has been USAID’s biggest and most costly challenge. In April 2003, Iraq’s usable electrical generation capacity was 2,500 MW — 58 percent of the pre-conflict level. Before the conflict, access to power was unreliable and varied greatly throughout the country. USAID is restoring electricity to homes, public facilities, and business throughout Iraq.
USAID has helped increase electrical generation to an average daily peak of approximately 4,500 MW. However, estimated total demand in Iraq is 8,500 MW and the looting of cables, destruction of hightension towers, and sabotage of fuel lines persist. Decades of operation without regular maintenance have resulted in increased breakdown and a need for significant rehabilitation.I know you hate to admit to being sucked in by anti-American propaganda; most youngsters hate to admit mistakes, especially foolish ones like the ones you've made here, but that's how you learn.
21
And yes, I picked 50 less than the actual number because even though it was ridiculously high, it STILL meant that 124 people per day were NOT DEAD because of the American liberation.
23
OK, looks like I was wrong on electrical production. Or maybe you are: because a more recent report than the one you cite says this (and please remember that GAO is under Republican management)
On July 28, 2005, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office issued a report entitled Rebuilding Iraq: Status of Funding and Reconstruction Efforts...Electricity: The Administration has obligated over $4.4 billion in U.S. and Iraqi funds to increase IraqÂ’s electricity production. GAO reports, however, that electricity production was lower in May 2005 than in March 2003. In March 2003, Iraq generated about 100,000 megawatt hours of electricity per day. By May 2005, electricity production levels were as low as 51,000 megawatt hours per day and never exceeded 99,800 megawatt hours per day.
So...I dunno. seems to me that there is a lot of evidence that electricity production is down. Granted, some of this is because under Saddam, Baghdad was favored, and much of the rest of the country got screwed in electricity distribution, post 1991. So, for some areas, it is BETTER, even when overall national production is down.
And to the guy who says there aren't mass graves--that seems to be true. But almost every day in Baghdad, death squads are killing men, and leaving them around. No one group has the monopoly on force that Saddam did, so they don't bury them in public and arrogant ways. They just shoot them and leave them in alleys, etc. I'm not sure this is a great improvement.
Look--if this ends well, it will all be worth it. Going from tyranny to democracy is never easy, and seldom bloodless. Even if twice as many are dying in the occupation as under Saddam, if it ends well, it will be worth it. But my only reason for pointing this out is that the comparison isn't fair. I think anyone reading this realizes that DPB said that it included non-violent deaths, and that it DOES NOT. It is hard for you to say that you got it wrong, but it isn't necessary for you to say it. Everyone can read it for themselves.
Posted by: jd at April 10, 2006 09:55 PM (uT71O)
24
If we assume that 60K a year were killed by sanctions because of lack of medicine and food (and these casualties were primarily among infants, toddlers, and the elderly) do you really think that subtracting 50 a day is at all equivalent? 50 a day is barely 15000 a year. But right now in Iraq, it is VERY hard for medicine to get from town to town. Unemployment is astronomical. Money is not easily available. Many hospitals lack even basic drugs. I don't have the foggiest if 15000 is a good guess. How do you figure it?
Posted by: jd at April 10, 2006 09:58 PM (uT71O)
25
I never said all criminal activity was violent. My only point is that the postwar count you are using counts only violent deaths, while the prewar one counts violent and nonviolent ones. The postwar ones includes people who die from criminal acts of violence, true. You say that includes non-violent crimes. You're wrong. Read the website. And--please tell me how many people you think die in Iraq from non-violent crimes. Again, jaywalking and embezzling seldom result in a high body count!
Posted by: jd at April 10, 2006 10:07 PM (uT71O)
26
I did read the website, jd. In fact, I copied and pasted the phrase "criminal activity" directly from it. Why do you think they didn't add the modifier "violent" to that phrase? I think it's because, if you read the webiste in depth, as I did, you know that it was created by self-described "peace activists" who want the "Iraqi body count" post invasion to be as high as possible.
And I think that people can die when the "criminal activity" is, say, misappropriating a shipment of medicine for sale on the black market, though I doubt very much that the deaths from this sort of thing are higher than during Saddam's rule, when such crimes were carried out in a systematic fashion.
28
Sorry, I missed out on most of this argument. I feel like I'm letting Bluto fight in the ring for me (and he's doing a fine job!)
Point 1:
"It is entirely possible that Saddam caused more deaths per annum than the invasion and all repercussions, properly counted. I was just saying that THIS metric doesn't prove it, not even close."
Entirely possible? I'd say it's an established fact, beyond argument, unless you know where about 198,000 extra casualties from the war are hidden.
That is to say, "so far". No, I can't tell you what the final tally is going to be, 10 years from now, or whenever this all shakes out. But I can tell you, with the best authority I can muster using established, reliable figures, that almost 200,000 more people are alive today in Iraq than would be if we had not invaded.
Point 2:
"The prewar count includes kids and adults dying of diseases and lack of medicine, the postwar DOES NOT. That's why it is not a fair comparison. Is a disease a crime?"
When the disease is due to a willful neglect of public health, I'd say it is a crime. Is genocide a crime? If I starve people to death (as the Soviets did in the Ukraine), is that not a crime, while if I shot them, it would be a crime? I can't believe you would argue that position.
Point 3:
"It seems possible that if 60k a year were dying from sanctions, when electricity and sewage and clean water services were much more available, than an equivalent number might be dying now. I dunno."
You "dunno"? Iraq is crawling with journalists from such anti-American organs as Al-Jazeera and CNN, they haven't found this big humanitarian catastrophe. Your argument, that people were healthier and better cared for under Hussein, is ludicrous.
29
JD, you're trying too hard by arguing semantics. Fewer are dead. Period.
If one really wants to look at the big picture - forgive me for being general - but considering the direction things were going in regards to Iraq with those nations who hold veto power in the UN rallying on their behalf, once santions were eased or lifted who knows how many more may have been saved in or out of Iraq?
Posted by: Oyster at April 11, 2006 06:28 AM (YudAC)
30
Lots of interesting points. First, Rob's point about stealing medical supplies nonviolently could result in deaths--we agree. But those deaths would NOT be counted in the post war period. They would be in the prewar. that's why the comparison is not accurate.
It would be like saying--Baltimore has a higher murder rate than New Orleans, but not counting deaths from gang violence in one city while counting them in the other.
As for Oyster's point: I am concentrating on the comparison, and thus missing the larger point. Conceded. I was trying to make a very small, factual point that this comparison was wrong. I know no one would want to put a comparison up on their web page that was in error.
And finally--there are NOT journalists crawling all over Iraq. It's too dangerous. A higher percentage of journalists have been killed than have soldiers. Unless they get an escort, they can't report much. despite this, numerous reports about unsanitary hospitals, etc, have appeared. It wouldn't be a massive humanitarian crisis. Under sanctions, the deaths were distributed throughout the population (except in Saddam's favored populations). 60,000 premature deaths in a population os over 20 million would not stand out immediately to the casual observer. This is one reason why we DON'T have a comparison number--there isn't even enough infrastructure to keep track of such deaths. It is barely possible to estimate the violent deaths. This is one time when statistics are almost worthless.
I agree that the website is antiwar, produced by people who want the death count as high as possible. But they AREN'T COUNTING PEOPLE WHO DIE FROM DISEASES AS A RESULT OF THE CONFLICT. Period, as Oyster would say. The prewar count did. Do you concede that, DPB? If you read their website indepth, you can't come to any other conclusion.
Is it that hard to acknowledge one simple factual correction? Do you have to insult my intelligence (and question GMU) on the way to simply saying--this comparison isn't accurate?
Posted by: jd at April 11, 2006 12:15 PM (aqTJB)
31
Finally, the point of my small point is this: you do your side of the argument no favors by using an obviously flawed comparison metric. Rob's counter is counting two different things--a high count prewar, and a low count post war. I don't know how a fair comparison would turn out, but anyone taking a cursory look at the way deaths are being counted realizes that this is a very biased measurement. Your side doesn't have to do that. If you are right, and Iraq will turn out to be more stable and democratic in five years, the body count doesn't matter. If you are wrong, and Iraq spirals into genocide, civil war, and a broader mideast conflict, then this comparatively small body count also doesn't matter.
I think the fairest possible comparison at this point would be to take "Iraqi deaths caused directly by Saddam" and compare it to "Iraqi deaths caused by civic conflict since the first moment of the invasion". Included in that latter death count should be all those killed by our forces, collaterally or otherwise, those killed by Zarqawi and the insurgents, those killed by death squads and militias and those killed by criminals (there was almost no violent crime under Saddam, but to be fair, you should throw those deaths in to the prewar count, if you can get the data). The reason to leave out the UN numbers is because there is no estimate that I've seen of non-violent civilian deaths resulting from the current conflict. Yet we can guess that number is non-trivial.
I didn't check out your sources on the prewar count as carefully, but one should probably also include those killed in saddam's wars against Iran and Kuwait and the US, averaged and annualized, since each of those was a war of choice waged by a dictator.
Posted by: jd at April 11, 2006 12:25 PM (aqTJB)
32
Yes, jd, those deaths ARE counted, according to Iraqbodycount's own words. Here they are, for the third time:
"It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion."
There is no reason to believe, either from the copy on their website, or their admitted Leftist ideology, that Iraqibodycount would knowingly exclude any deaths that could possibly be attributed to the occupation of Iraq.
It's always exasperating dealing with the willfully stupid and prevaricating Left. And yes, jd, everyone understands why discrediting the Lives Saved count is so important to you that you feel compelled to lie.
33
OK, let me ask you a question that should decide the issue: if I send an email to the iraq body count people, and ask them if a kid dies in Ramadi of diarrhea for lack of medicine would be counted in their tally, and they say no, would you concede the point? My strong belief is that a fair interpretation of what you have clipped above is that they are talking about people killed in robberies, revenge killings, non-political kidnappings, etc. NOT the type of deaths that were counted in the prewar sanctions count. But I'm willing to find out that I'm wrong on this point. Are you? Would you accept as proof that you are wrong an email from them saying "Hey, no, in fact, we don't count a death like that." Would that be enough for you?
Posted by: jd at April 11, 2006 02:25 PM (aqTJB)
34
Actually, Bluto, would you admit being wrong if the website flat out contradicted you? IE, if your contention that they are counting the deaths caused by non-violent crimes were disproved by their own detailed methodological explanations? Read this, and then admit you are wrong:
It is accepted that war causes many dire consequences for the civilian population even if they are not directly killed or injured in military strikes. They may suffer long-term injury or illness (as a result, for instance of radiation, post-conflict contact with unexploded munitions, pollution due to spillage of toxic materials). People may suffer deep psychological trauma, miscarriage, bereavement, dislocation, and loss of home and property. Destruction of civil infrastructure and economic systems can have effects which last for generations. These factors undoubtedly cause many further deaths. However, documenting and assigning responsibility for such effects requires long-term “on the ground” resources. Immediate deaths and injuries through the use of weaponry can be pinpointed in place and time, and responsibility straightforwardly attributed to the weapon that caused the death or injury.
THEY ONLY COUNT DEATHS CAUSED BY WEAPONRY. ARE WE CLEAR NOW?
Go on, big guy. It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong.
Posted by: jd at April 11, 2006 02:44 PM (aqTJB)
35
If you have any further doubts about this question, the website actually lists, in order, EVERY SINGLE incident in which they count an iraqi civilian death. There are NONE resulting from non-violent crimes. That number again is NONE, NADA, NIL, NULL, NEGATORY, ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO, GOOSE EGG, THE BIG ABSENCE, THE GREAT DESIDERATA....You get the picture.
Posted by: jd at April 11, 2006 02:50 PM (aqTJB)
36
Hahaha...yes, I'm VERY CLEAR that you have JUST ADMITTED that there is no way to document the hypothetical "extra" deaths that you used as the basis of your lame attack on Rob's work.
I was beginning to think I couldn't lead you to that conclusion, the text was just waiting there for you to discover... You had me worried, jd, I thought I was going to have to point that out myself. It was much more satisfying to goad you into demolishing your original argument by yourself.
Thanks for coming through, AND TACITLY ADMITTING THAT YOUR ARGUMENT ABOUT DEATHS SIMILAR TO THOSE CAUSED BY SANCTIONS IS A COMPLETE RED HERRING!
Oh, and jd? PWNED!
37
I admitted there was no way to document those extra deaths the first time I posted on it. That's why I think if you can't count them POST war, you shouldn't count them prewar if you are trying to make a fair comparison. That is the goal, right?
Just a simple question, DPB, yes or no--were you correct when you said that the IraqBodyCount included non-violent civilian deaths from disease and malnutrition resulting from the conflict?
Posted by: jd at April 11, 2006 03:05 PM (aqTJB)
38
The correct response, jd, is, "ya got me", in which case, as a gentleman, I would refrain from rubbing your nose in it.
39
Your whole case seems to be based on the minor tangent that we are not counting deaths from "diseases directly related to the conflict." I guess it depends on how far you are willing to go. We're not counting deaths from "mosquito bites directly related to the conflict" either, because the number is insignificant, and/or impossible to know.
Are there a significant number of deaths from "diseases directly related to the conflict"? That is, do you have some metric that you can refer me to, that shows how many are dying from these supposed war-related diseases? I'd like to see the sourcing on that, if you are. Otherwise, you're just arguing an unprovable point, which is meaningless.
40
Actually, I'm embarrassed to admit, we are BOTH at least partially wrong. They say, WAY down on their methodology, that they are beginning to count deaths that are indirectly caused by our weaponry. So if a bomb takes out a water treatment plant, and 30 kids die of dysentery, they WANT to count it. The catch is, they say they don't have the ability to count it well, so they only count it when it is reported in the media (this is true of all their death figures, incidentally). I've taken a spin through a substantial portion of their website, and find no such deaths reported, and one incident of 201 deaths at a hospital in which the fact that the electricity was knocked out by our bombs is counted in a few of the deaths (because the media counted them). So, while it is still the wrong comparison, they are attempting to broaden it, in ways that would make your initial statement much closer to true.
Incidentally, though, it is far more off a comparison than I first realized in another way. They are NOT counting violence done by Iraqis against Iraqis. They are ONLY counting deaths caused by Coalition troops. I think the invasion has touched off a vast round of sectarian violence, which is trending upwards. But when Shi'ite death squads dressed in uniforms we sent them using ammo we provided in cars we gave them, round up Sunni men, torture them and shoot them, that isn't counted. It should be, if we are going to make the comparison you want to make.
Now, as to being a gentleman--as you point out, a gentleman doesn't write seven synonyms for zero in crowing about a victory in a battle of facts. Particularly as in the end, the truth turns out, as it so often does, to be pretty complicated. Mea culpa. Sorry.
Posted by: jd at April 11, 2006 04:02 PM (aqTJB)
41
Rob--the reason that I think you should NOT count the UN sanctions death in your calculus is because you are not counting comparable deaths postwar. I'm not saying it is possible to count the postwar deaths--we just know they are there, in a sizable number. The reason we can count them prewar is that there was still an operating national government prewar. There isn't now. So they don't really have the ability to count the non-violent deaths, let alone many of the violent ones.
Also, as you see above, Iraqbodycount does NOT count those killed by Shi'ites, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomens, or even violent criminals. Because they are a bunch of guilt-ridden lefties, they are ONLY counting deaths that can be blamed on us. Yet I think many of the deaths by death squads, etc, are a result of our invasion (they certainly weren't happening before, and they often use equipment we gave them). So, really, there are at least two fundamental flaws in your comparison, which make it unworkable currently.
You might enjoy a book called "Damned Lies and Statistics" which explains a number of ways in which apples/oranges comparisons are done by the media, interest groups, and politicians to advocate one side or the other. It is one of the FAIREST books on the subject I've ever read. It shoots down claims by feminists, gays, conservatives--everyone who abuses numbers. Although it is written by a sociologist--it is damned fun reading.
Posted by: Oyster at April 12, 2006 04:28 AM (YudAC)
43
JD, if the number of "disease deaths caused by the invasion/occupation" is real, then this statistic must exist somewhere, right? Someone must have this number. Find it and tell us about it. If you can't do that, then your argument is specious and pointless.
44
Not really, Rob--the number could be important, and not "exist" at all. Many important numbers don't exist. Like the budget number for Iran's nuclear program. Face facts--your comparison isn't apples to apples, it is apples to oranges, and it is tilted to the side you want to win. It's misusing statistics, and has very little intellectual legitimacy.