May 16, 2005
Hostage Nabil Al-Wazer...
has been released.
Posted by: Suzanne at
02:07 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Thanks VERY MUCH to everybody. I can't say it enough.
Posted by: Jane at May 17, 2005 08:52 AM (HoSBk)
2
For what? You don't actually believe that the goings on at this site influenced the outcome do you?
You guys have a Messiah complex.
Posted by: greg at May 17, 2005 09:20 AM (/+dAV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Progress in the Middle East
By
Matt from WMD:
From Reuters:
Kuwait's parliament passed a law on Monday granting women the right to vote and run in elections, for the first time in the pro-Western Gulf Arab state.
Kuwaiti women lining the podium burst into cheers when parliament speaker Jassim al-Khorafi said the legislation had been passed by a majority of the all-male parliament to grant full suffrage to women.
"We made it. This is history," said prominent activist Roula al-Dashti. "Our target is the parliamentary polls in 2007. I'm starting my campaign from today," she told reporters.
There were 35 in favor, 23 against, and one abstention on the vote that had met fierce resistance from Islamists and other MPs.
Although, apparently, it is too late for women to register and run for office in the next election.
This is a step in the right direction for the Middle East.
Does anybody think this sort of thing would be happening if Saddam were still in power?
Visit Matt's home blog: Weapons of Mass Discussion
Posted by: MattWMD at
12:41 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"Does anybody think this sort of thing would be happening if Saddam were still in power?"
Why not?
Posted by: greg at May 16, 2005 02:07 PM (/+dAV)
2
Well, Greg, I don't know if you noticed, but democracy easn't exactly flourishing over there before...and women's rights weren't exactly being championed by anybody... I'm just saying...
Posted by: Matt Hurley at May 16, 2005 02:16 PM (vQcWL)
3
I fail to see the cause and affect. Just sayin...
Posted by: greg at May 16, 2005 02:18 PM (/+dAV)
4
Let me guess, you also think that Libya would have spontaneously given up their WMD programs while Saddam was still in power too...
Reforms such as this didn't have any kind of support prior to the democratization on Iraq...now that there is a free Arab nation in the Middle East, people in surrounding countries want it too...that's about as 'cause and effect' as it gets.
Posted by: Matt Hurley at May 16, 2005 02:29 PM (vQcWL)
5
Forget Lybia Matt.
The question is how did Saddam's removal contribute to the Kuwaiti decision to allow women to run and vote for political office?
I fail to see the connection and you haven't provided one. I'll let you have a do over.
Posted by: greg at May 16, 2005 02:35 PM (/+dAV)
6
Clearly you don't believe in the transformative power of democracy. I can't make you see it, man...
Is it POSSIBLE that Kuwait would have allowed women to vote if Saddam were still in power? Sure... Is it likely? I don't think so.
But really, neither of us is going to be able to "prove" it to the other because we're engaging in speculation.
My whole point in asking the question was to see which types of people would say exactly what you said...
Posted by: Matt Hurley at May 16, 2005 02:39 PM (vQcWL)
7
Matt,
referring to Kuwaiti women's new found right to vote you made the statement, "Does anybody think this sort of thing would be happening if Saddam were still in power?".
You were given two chances to provide an argument that supports your contention. The best you can do is attriibute the affect to the "transformative power of democracy". That's baby talk Matt. Maybe one of the other readers will be kind enough to come to your rescue.
Posted by: greg at May 16, 2005 02:46 PM (/+dAV)
8
greg is at it again I see. So greg, tell us why it isn't related.
Posted by: Defense Guy at May 16, 2005 02:48 PM (jPCiN)
9
I can't help it if you lack the ability to understand me, Greg...would smaller words help you out some?
Posted by: Matt Hurley at May 16, 2005 02:50 PM (vQcWL)
10
The new guy's an Idiot.
Posted by: greg at May 16, 2005 03:02 PM (/+dAV)
11
And that makes you, what? Some kind of genius? Whatever, dude...
Posted by: Matt Hurley at May 16, 2005 03:09 PM (vQcWL)
Posted by: Pudgy at May 16, 2005 03:27 PM (xh/Qw)
13
Greg, I'll explain it for you, but I'm afraid I will have to use lots of big words, so get someone to help you if you can. First, with the establishment of parliamentary democracy in Iraq, which of course had nothing to do with the fall of Saddam, which of course was not due to the war, women are guaranteed 27% of all legislative seats. In most places, this is called "progress", except by progressives of course, who pretend it doesn't exist, as it could only be called progress if the UN was involved, in which case the female children of the country would have been introduced to the progressive notion of child prostituion, but I digress. Oh also, Afghan women have guaranteed seats in their government as well, but of course, one thing has nothing to do with the other, and the fact that both followed closely on the heels of American wars of liberation are purely coincidental, and as we all know, both wars have been double-plus-ungood for all those poor people who have had to suffer the indignities of freedom.
Second, the women of Iraq and Afghanistan no longer have as much to fear as they once did, i.e. kidnapping, rape rooms, etc.. The women of Kuwait, who have been more free up to this point than the women of Iraq and Afghanistan, don't like the fact that they're now less free. It's not a jealousy thing, they just want to be free. Imagine that, don't they know they'd be better off if Saddam was still in power? I'm not sure how they would be, but if you, the all knowing, all seeing greg say so, it must be true.
So, greg, why are you so dead set against making people free? Is it the fact that they're just "little brown people", or is it that in your heart, where you secretly admire "Uncle Joe", you think autocractic authoritarianism is better than freedom? I'm guessing the latter, since people who are free to choose and well informed rarely choose the left hand path of politics, and that just kills you.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 16, 2005 04:30 PM (0yYS2)
14
greg: "I fail to see the cause and affect. Just sayin..."
But you can't deny the timing.
Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 11:09 PM (8e/V4)
15
Granting full political rights to Kuwaiti women has nothing to do with the fact that Saddam was driven out of power. Kuwait has been known as the only democratic country in the gulf since it was established. The first sheikh Sabah the 1st was chosen by shoura (elections within the tribes of kuwait). Study Kuwait's history, and you will know for a fact that women activists were pushing for rights since the early 70's. Oh and not to forget mentioning the Amiri decree of 1999 ( the Amir granting the women full political rights before Saddam's fall , was shut down by opposing groups in the parliament).
Posted by: q8iya at May 19, 2005 03:08 PM (ZJu3S)
16
Well, Greg, I don't know if you noticed, but democracy easn't exactly flourishing over there before...and women's rights weren't exactly being championed by anybody... I'm just saying...
Posted by: Matt Hurley at May 16, 2005 02:16 PM
------------------------------------------------
In addition,
((Kuwait's organic law, with its formal commitment to equality, is a feminist mainstay, providing a normative justification for women's continuing efforts to achieve equal rights under a constitution that is widely respected by the population.))
Posted by: q8iya at May 19, 2005 03:15 PM (ZJu3S)
17
benım adım kerım hepınızı severım
Posted by: onur at June 21, 2005 08:28 PM (a2t1C)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Afghan Clerics DonÂ’t Trust Newsweek Retraction
Quite fortuitously, Chad at inTheBullPen has a post that's a good match for my previous diatribe on the Muslim culture and mindset. Chad posts that, "Despite the fact that Newsweek has said their report concerning the alleged flushing of the Koran was erroneous, the same Islamic clerics who want the interrogators shipped to an Islamic country for trial now say they do not believe NewsweekÂ’s retraction. Shocking? It shouldnÂ’t be."
“We will not be deceived by this,” Islamic cleric Mullah
Sadullah Abu Aman told Reuters in the northern Afghan province of
Badakhshan, referring to the magazineÂ’s retraction.
“This is a decision by America to save itself. It comes because of American pressure. Even an ordinary illiterate peasant understands this and
won’t accept it.”
Chad notes that "this comes not only from a group already believing the United States is in a war against Islam, something the MSM and several Left-leaning politicians and pundits advance ‘unwittingly’, but it also comes from people that only have the slightest clue of what a free press is. The lack of understanding that Newsweek is not controlled by the government is partially responsible for the same non-believing that a retraction was not pushed by the Bush administration."
Chad's take on the Muslim culture and mindset is much kinder than my own, but having previously written that the mindless, tantrum-like violence sparked by the false story has shown us the true face of the Islamic culture today - the face of a sick and violence-prone society, enveloped and characterized more by hate than by love of God and humanity, and badly in need of reform, I'll just leave it at that. If the entire situation wasn't so damned dangerous and have such grave repercussions, the Muslims as a people and their reactions to the non-event would be laughable.
Cross posted at Hyscience
Posted by: Richard@hyscience at
11:10 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Newsweek Got Gitmo Right
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=5959
“Contrary to White House spin, the allegations of religious desecration at Guantanamo published by Newsweek on May 9, 2005, are common among ex-prisoners and have been widely reported outside the United States. Several former detainees at the Guantanamo and Bagram prisons have reported instances of their handlers sitting or standing on the Koran, throwing or kicking it in toilets, and urinating on it. Prior to the Newsweek article, the New York Times reported a Guantanamo insider asserting that the commander of the facility was compelled by prisoner protests to address the problem and issue an apology.”
Posted by: greg at May 16, 2005 11:39 AM (/+dAV)
2
I really think Holy Quran novelty toilet paper would sell big right now...man if I just had some money...should it be soft or kinda rough?
Posted by: Mr. K at May 16, 2005 11:49 AM (9XmE5)
3
Afghan clerics only trust Newsweek when it makes the U.S. look bad, just like Liberals.
Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 12:37 PM (8e/V4)
4
I'll use the toilet paper if it's got quotes on it from Greg, too.
Posted by: Editor at May 16, 2005 12:41 PM (adpJH)
5
You should tamp your mouth with it, shit for brains.
Posted by: greg at May 16, 2005 01:57 PM (/+dAV)
6
That's the ticket, Greg. I'm going to put that one right in the suggestion box. Perfet!
Posted by: Editor at May 16, 2005 03:00 PM (adpJH)
7
Since the Afghan clerics didn't call for the death penalty for the Taliban who destroyed two millenia old sculptures of Buddha, they can all go stuff themselves as hypocrites like Greg.
The muslim world has an ugly history of desecration. When they grow up, people might pay attention to them. Again, like greg.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 16, 2005 03:06 PM (xauGB)
8
I was thinking of some ad themes, maybe calling it "Jihad" and maybe have a slogan like "extra soft for those times when its Allah uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Ahkbar!" and you can wipe your old Mo with your favorite verse from the Quran!
Posted by: Mr. K at May 16, 2005 03:07 PM (9XmE5)
9
I know it' juvenile, but I'm going to express it anyway. Fuck all you muslims.
Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 03:33 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: a Muslim at May 16, 2005 03:47 PM (/+dAV)
11
here's why they hate us so badly...
http://roomforrant.blogspot.com/2005/05/why-they-hate-us-reason-no-1.html
Posted by: Mr. K at May 16, 2005 04:25 PM (9XmE5)
12
Mr. K! Dude! A little warning would have been in order. Ewww!
Posted by: Oyster at May 16, 2005 06:16 PM (YudAC)
13
The Koran belongs in the toilet, toss it in there take a dump and flush.
Muslims are subanimals, killing them should be depenalized.
Posted by: nukemeccanow at May 16, 2005 06:26 PM (lhxhb)
14
I just want the Islamic world to know that the Americans who desecrated the Koran represent only a small part of of the American population, and that they should not judge us all by the actions of a few. (sarcasm by the way)
Posted by: REMF at May 17, 2005 07:34 AM (aLiCo)
15
"The Koran belongs in the toilet, toss it in there take a dump and flush.
Muslims are subanimals, killing them should be depenalized. "-nukemeccanow
Does anyone doubt that the Koran has been desecrated on many occasions by our military in full view of prisoners?
NukeMeccaNow shows the true heart of you Zionazis. You believe that brown people are not only subhuman but subanimal. This is a racist war and yet you take advantage of your own Hispanic and Black soldiers. Secretly you feel them to be subhuman too. Filthy White Bitches! Guess what! From a Darwinian perspective they are the fitter segment of the gene pool as they are out breeding us by leaps and bounds.
Posted by: greg at May 17, 2005 09:03 AM (/+dAV)
16
Greg's copying out from KKK pamphlets again, I see.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 17, 2005 09:17 AM (xauGB)
17
Robin has totally lost her ability to reason if she equates my prior post to something a Klansman would say. It was quite to the contrary.
Posted by: greg at May 17, 2005 09:23 AM (/+dAV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Islamic Tantrums, Etc.: Newsweek one-line error sparks world-wide riots and violence throughout Muslim world
I've waited several days to post on this, hoping someone else would comment on it - but I guess I'm the only one that considered what has happened across the Muslim world over the past few days as the tantrums of a sick culture. Sure, Newsweek did what the mainstream media does best in a world that places more importance on getting the story out first than on getting the story out right; they researched, wrote a piece, trashed the administration and our country, trashed the reputation of our military, and got the story out to the world - wrongly. Subsequently, sparked by a single paragraph in Newsweek alleging that US military interrogators had desecrated the Koran, a wave of anti-American demonstrations swept the Islamic world from the Gaza Strip to the Java Sea. In the past week it was condemned in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and by the Arab League, and on Sunday, Afghan Muslim clerics threatened to call for a holy war against the United States. Think about it, this is from a sub-population of our planet that refers to themselves as peaceful? What does this say about their culture, their thoughtfulness, their mindset, and their suitability to join in the rest of mankind in making our planet a better place to live ? One can only describe the Islamist's and Muslim's reaction as tantrums - child-like fits, mindless violence, and just plain old lack of class and respect for life and other people's property.
Frankly, I don't give a damned what anyone does to the Koran. My opinion(personal viewpoint - not an expert opinion) is that it is a work of fiction, half-truths, and distorted facts, written by 'who really knows how many people' to control a population, and the toilet is just as good a place for it as a book shelf or night stand. But the toilet episode never occured in the first place, Newsweek got it wrong, the Arab press never bothered to verify the alleged toilet episode any more than did Newsweek, and the mindless, tantrum-like violence sparked by the false story showed all of us the true face of the Islamic culture today - a sick and violence-prone society, enveloped and characterized more by hate than by love of God and humanity, and badly in need of reform.
more...
Posted by: Richard@hyscience at
09:27 AM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
Post contains 799 words, total size 5 kb.
1
While the premise of your argument is correct, it's conclusion is mis-directed.
My opinion, the old media's agenda driven template got them in deep, and people are paying with their lives. I would expect that Isikoff will be fired, and the editor get fired and resign. This is far worse than RatherGate, how many suicide bombers will be recruited based on this made up story. As with Rather, Newsweek wanted to believe it so bad, they just knew it had to be true.
The damage done to the U.S. reputation and progress being made bringing societies into the modern tolerant world is incalculable. An issue has been handed to the Taliban/Jihadis that is far worse that what the old media was able to do with abu-grab. though they tried mightily -- the suicide bombings that will result from this Jihadi recruiting tool is going to take many lives.
Have you considered that it might be better to try and change the Muslim culture than it is to criticize? If you go back in history 30-40 years you will find this new strain of Islamic extremism is a recent phenomena. If you look deep, the people oppressed by these tyranical leaders do not agree with them, and practice a form of Islam that is no worse than modern Christianity. Want proof, just look at some news photos from the 50s and 60s of Muslim countries.
Posted by: 10ksnooker at May 16, 2005 10:26 AM (7evkT)
2
Is this a Newsweek Gate or Gitmo Gate?
Frankly, It wouldn't surprise me if they flushed the Koran. I don't give a flip either, but a lot of Muslims do seem to mind..
Newsweek screwed up bigtime, they should really check their sources better..
Posted by: IM at May 16, 2005 10:50 AM (MOpJN)
3
Newsweek Got Gitmo Right
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=5959
“Contrary to White House spin, the allegations of religious desecration at Guantanamo published by Newsweek on May 9, 2005, are common among ex-prisoners and have been widely reported outside the United States. Several former detainees at the Guantanamo and Bagram prisons have reported instances of their handlers sitting or standing on the Koran, throwing or kicking it in toilets, and urinating on it. Prior to the Newsweek article, the New York Times reported a Guantanamo insider asserting that the commander of the facility was compelled by prisoner protests to address the problem and issue an apology.”
Posted by: greg at May 16, 2005 11:02 AM (/+dAV)
4
I am no more an expert on Islam than I am an expert on nanotechnology. Both seem equally befuddling, but in my view, the statement--"Islam (a totalitarian ideology less than a century old). The terrorism of al qaeda, Hamas, the Iranian government and other Islamists results from the ideas of such contemporary radicals as Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini, not from the Koran."-- simply is not true. Islamic radicalism dates back to the days of Muhammad. The subjugation of women and the unworthy has a fundamental Quranic basis. That religion needs fixing and I mean a top-to-bottom overhaul.
Posted by: Sean the INFDL at May 16, 2005 11:17 AM (ptLBd)
5
A prime example of why Rusty's argument about war time censorship is valid. Fake korans maybe, maybe not. Newsweek has done serious damage here. I'm not so much upset about the Koran thing. It is afterall just paper. The koran claims to be a message from the god of the people of the book. Well the book is full of examples of this god hating idol worship. If you ask me kneeling toward mecca and praying to that box in the center is just that, idol worship. If the koran is a message from God then why does it direct behavior that God hates. Prince of Lies inspired it that's why.
Posted by: Howie at May 16, 2005 11:25 AM (YdcZ0)
6
Muslims should be ashamed of themselves.
Christians and Jews would never stoop to this behaviour, but I guess it's what we've come to expect from Muslims.
Certainly Liberals would condemn such behaviour from Christians and Jews, but not from Muslims. Liberals don't have very high expectations of their little brown multi-culti pets.
Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 12:40 PM (8e/V4)
7
I had decided to reserve comment on this particular aspect of the incident until the release of a Flash game I started work on yesterday. It's called "Can the Koran" (I plan to resist the more islamo-friendly "Q'ran"), you can likely infer the purpose but it will allow the player to use the pages of that particular piece of deranged fiction in all manner of ways, only one of which would be flushing.
Perhaps I can get my Fatwah then?
Posted by: GoldFalcon at May 16, 2005 12:59 PM (5xFFG)
8
Greg is fond of sources that are anti-American in basic ideology and which have expressly adopted the lie as their core rhetorical tactic. Greg is allied with the enemies of the United States. Greg knows who he is most comfortable with.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 16, 2005 01:42 PM (xauGB)
9
Ahhhh, shut yer trap, Robin.
Posted by: greg at May 16, 2005 01:50 PM (/+dAV)
10
No, greg. I won't. Threats to people who say things that are uncomfortable to you is the hallmark of the little jackboot tyrant we all know you are.
Greg probably masturbated to each video of afghans burning US flags.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 16, 2005 03:07 PM (xauGB)
11
Robin is a naughty little girl!
Posted by: greg at May 16, 2005 03:17 PM (/+dAV)
12
These dirtbags are looking for any excuse. They burn my country's flag and harbor terrorists that attack us and they are all upset by someone allegedly flushing a Koran? I'll flush your Koran, and I will wife my gorgeous butt with it first!! You want respect? Earn it! You don't get my respect by opressing half your population and burning the flag of my country, for that you get my undying contempt and my government gets every bit of my support for trying to remove you and those of your ilk from the planet.
Posted by: Teri Davis at May 16, 2005 03:19 PM (8JBAv)
13
"and I will wife my gorgeous butt with it first!!"-Teri Davis
Teri, got any pics?
Posted by: greg at May 16, 2005 03:32 PM (/+dAV)
Posted by: traderrob at May 16, 2005 07:47 PM (3al54)
15
Sean the INFDL needs to read a little more history. The origin of Islam actually gave women more rights than they had under the prevailing cultural practices. It also gave them more political rights than they held in Europe until the 19th & 20th Centuries.
It wasn't until the early 1970s that France allowed women to open their own bank accounts. And Switzerland franchised all Swiss women in the same time period--prior to that, several cantons did not permit women to vote.
Posted by: John Burgess at May 16, 2005 11:04 PM (7HZOv)
16
"It wasn't until the early 1970s that France allowed women to open their own bank accounts."
what a load of crap. Makes me wonder about the rest of your post.
Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 11:13 PM (8e/V4)
17
Well, I think this issue shows some contradictions of the current US politics. When you speak freely you admit that you hate muslims and the Quran. It's not a think to be ashamed of: after all, you see them as your enemy.
At the same time, you try very hard not to make this hate too explicit. You try to convince muslims that you're not against their religion. While the truth is that - besides the many different facets of Islam - the Quran is the foundation of everything in Islam Countries, so Islam IS really now your enemy.
I'm not judging here: this is a matter of fact. Your very comments show this. Even not considering your religious beliefs (many of you are Christian and (legimately) think that your religions is the only one 'right' religion, just from a politic/military point of view, Islam is your enemy.
So, I can't know if what Newsweek wrote was true. I think it's very likely it was true. After all, it looks like US intelligence is using every means to make prisoners talk. Being those prisoners Islamic fundamentalists, profaning their Quran will hurt them much more than ant physical torture. I really think it really happened.
But, the problem is, US administration can't afford to be open about this question. Muslims should not and must not know that somebody with an US uniform may have prophaned the Quran. There would be no way to justify this act.
So now you're against Newsweek. It's a good excuse to hit a magazine you don't like. It's a good excuse to criticize free press in time of war (but during WWII US press was allowed to write about US actions against the Nazis... why should this be so different if Islam is really the enemy?)
The hypocrisy is very clear: you can't be against Islam and respectful towards Islam at the same time. One of these attitudes will have to go. Which one would you choice?
Posted by: paul at May 17, 2005 02:44 AM (8U5to)
18
Paul
Only thing i dont agree with in your post is
"Profaning the Quran will hurt them more than any physical
torture"
Religion doesnt bother me, but i seriously doubt ripping up a Bible in front out a devout christian could possibly hurt more than,say,
Chopping someones head off its just not likely.
Posted by: sparky at May 17, 2005 08:29 AM (F1nba)
19
>>>"(but during WWII US press was allowed to write about US actions against the Nazis... why should this be so different if Islam is really the enemy?)"
You're an ignoramus. The U.S. press was heavily censored during WWII. They even had an official Office of Press Censorship you fucking moron. Bush is a pussy because he doesn't have the balls to put that seditious pig Izikoff up on charges.
Posted by: Carlos at May 17, 2005 11:02 AM (8e/V4)
20
"Bush is a Pussy"-Carlos
On that we can all agree. Is he Jeff Gannon's "pussy"? All those late night stays...
Posted by: greg at May 17, 2005 11:21 AM (/+dAV)
21
Carlos,
I've leveled a charge of racism against you at:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/082178.php
silence is affirmation
Posted by: greg at May 17, 2005 11:26 AM (/+dAV)
22
dude, will you PLEASE stop hunting me down on other threads!
LMAO!
I'm a religionist, not a racist. I don't believe in race, only pigmentation.
Posted by: Carlos at May 17, 2005 12:22 PM (8e/V4)
23
As a "religionist", don't you understand that you are insulting God by calling Muslims sub-human?
Posted by: greg at May 17, 2005 01:19 PM (/+dAV)
24
And you're a racist despite your acrobatics to the contrary.
Posted by: greg at May 17, 2005 01:20 PM (/+dAV)
25
"And you're a racist despite your acrobatics to the contrary."
hahaha! that's the best response you could come up with?
Posted by: Carlos at May 17, 2005 02:25 PM (8e/V4)
26
As a "religionist", don't you understand that you are insulting God by calling Muslims sub-human?
Posted by: greg at May 17, 2005 03:12 PM (/+dAV)
27
By definition, one cannot "desecrate" that which is not sacred.
Even a cursory look at the so-called Koran, reveals a persistant call upon all Islamists to murder all non-islamists, so-called infidels.
The book is not worthy to be called sacred by any stretch of imagination.
Posted by: dennis at October 20, 2005 10:18 AM (2CyBD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The al Qaeda-Canada Connection
By
Matt from WMD:
Some startling news about our neighbor to the north was reported in the Hindustan Times among other sources.
Canadian intelligence experts believe that converts to Islam in the country are becoming a major source of Al-Qaeda combatants and pose a risk to security.
An intelligence report from Canada's spy service, released to a daily said "there is a direct threat to Canada and Canadian interests from Al-Qaeda and related groups," and that those groups are attempting to expand their support in Canada.
Shocking. I know
Canada not only has intelligence experts, but a spy agency too! Who knew? But seriously, folks
this is something we need to take notice of because our border with Canada is pretty porous.
"Converts are highly prized by terrorist groups for their familiarity with the West and relative ease at moving through Western society," the recently declassified Canadian Security Intelligence Service report said.
This is the real danger posed in this story.
"The perception that the West is attacking Islam on multiple fronts continues to anger the Muslim world and contributes to support for radical views. Converts in particular are prone to extreme views because of their new-found zeal."
When CSIS Director Jim Judd testified recently before the Senate committee reviewing Canada's anti-terrorism legislation, he noted there were now suspected terrorists in Canada that "have had no discernible previous link of any kind with the terrorist networks."
That's what's on the other side of our border to the north. Anybody care to venture a guess what's going on to the south?
Visit Matt's home blog: Weapons of Mass Discussion
Posted by: MattWMD at
09:18 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I think a bigger story is how George Lucas believes the U.S. is in danger of losing its democratic ideals.
http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=8&id=337337
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/13776.html
Posted by: Venom at May 16, 2005 09:43 AM (dbxVM)
2
If I honestly thought George Lucas was any kind of threat to be taken seriously, I'd consider wasting a minute or two of my time to refute his nonsensical ramblings. Since he isn't, I won't take the time to point out the MANY errors of logic in comparing actual history to his so-called epic adventure.
Posted by: Matt Hurley at May 16, 2005 09:57 AM (vQcWL)
3
Matt, my above comment was meant:
1) To emphasize the triviality of the original post. While border security is important, I'd hardly call it "porous," since Canada has had to comply with U.S.-stipulated border controls. In short, since Canada wanted to continue to do business with its largest trading partner, it had to tighten all of its borders (land, sea, air, electronic, etc.) in manners the U.S. deemed necessary.
2) To have a little fun. This is, after all, a Star Wars-themed blog.
Posted by: Venom at May 16, 2005 10:06 AM (dbxVM)
4
Whether or not the US/Canada border is "porous" is certainly up to debate. That it can be characterized as "secure" is not. That really is what my post was trying to point out. The border with Canada is just as important as the US/Mexico border, but it doesn't get near the scrutiny that it should (mainly because Canada is cooperating with us on these issues - at least in theory).
I got the fun part... : ) However, I can imagine someone trying to make the point that Lucas has some sage advice for the world on the issues of the day...and I ain't buying that even on a STAR WARS-themed blog...
Posted by: Matt Hurley at May 16, 2005 10:32 AM (vQcWL)
5
"Too many think that anti-Americanism, their rejection of our aggressive efforts to expose and stop these extremists, bestows upon them a shield from those extremists. They are wrong."
I don't really know who you're referring to in this statement. If you're commenting on the Canadian government, I'd say that stationing troops in Afghanistan and helping rid that country of the Taliban & Al Qaeda pretty much proves their on the U.S.'s side of the GWOT. Remember, the GWOT means "Global," not just Iraq.
If you're referring to elements of the Canadian population, I'd counter by saying that there are likely more "Americans" in the U.S. that share those exact same views (just by using proportional representation in both countries). I'd say these people would pose the bigger threat, since they're already inside.
Of course, I suppose it's much easier for you to lash out at another country rather than reflect towards home.
Posted by: Venom at May 16, 2005 11:39 AM (dbxVM)
6
Canada has sheltered a lot of islamic extremists and terrorist sympathizers over the years. That is according to the RCMP itself. While I admire the small unit of troops Canada sent to Afghanistan, Canada's support in the GWOT is lukewarm at best. Canada's inability to defend itself, and its policy to undermine the US' attempts to defend both the US and Canada ( witness their idiotic stance on missile defense ) is not the behavior of a ally but of a narcissistic Left elite isolated from reality.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 16, 2005 01:45 PM (xauGB)
7
Robin, could it also be said that the actions of the U.S. are not the actions of an ally of Canada but, rather, those of a narcissistic, neoconservative right that cares only of its well-being and bases most foreign policy decisions on fear rather than fact?
Your definition of ally seems to imply that other countries should act not in their own best interests, but in the U.S.'s best interests. Why? Further, what definition of ally do you use?
Posted by: Venom at May 16, 2005 02:16 PM (dbxVM)
8
Venom, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Not to mention a problem with false hypotheticals.
Canada acts in ways that are not even in its own best interests.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 16, 2005 03:09 PM (xauGB)
9
Not really, Robin, I understood what you were saying. I simply think you're wrong. You're making a call as to what constitutes an ally, but your view is narrow.
And as for this:
"Canada acts in ways that are not even in its own best interests."
Please elaborate. Canada seems to be doing pretty well with its own foreign policy. It's able to keep the U.S. as an ally while making its own decisions.
Posted by: Venom at May 16, 2005 04:49 PM (dbxVM)
10
"Canada has sheltered a lot of islamic extremists and terrorist sympathizers over the years."
As if the US hasn't? Wake up people!!!!
Posted by: deccles at May 17, 2005 09:09 AM (ViBnj)
11
Good point...another reason for border control. We can catch these guys on BOTH sides of the border.
Posted by: Matt Hurley at May 17, 2005 09:38 AM (vQcWL)
12
...or at least contain them better than we are right now.
Posted by: Matt Hurley at May 17, 2005 09:39 AM (vQcWL)
13
Odd. Seems this blog is bashing Canada more aless. Hasn't anyone forgoten that the reason our border is so friggen loose-ended is the "Free Trade" aggrement between the US and Canada. Canadians and Americans DO NOT require a Passport from either side. This was so Truck drivers movinf products had less time at the border. But as of 2006, Canadian will require a passport to enter the US. Which will make all of those Americans that Travel to Alaska for holdidays, also require a passport. Only becasue for Americans who want to go home, have to prove they are American. Canada decide, why waste the few millions on passport requirments when the americans will do it for us!!!! Thinkign about all of this, it seems that our so called "Free Trade" Agrrement will sease to end, while Canada has been more focused on its Trade Agreements with the East! (Britian, Ukraine, Russia) Since Alberta cant export its Beef to the US, seems that Britian has taken the Bill. And Russia, require expert Oil Engineers, so canada is helping with support of the large oil projects in the North, to send help. Either way, seems Canada is moving away from the US....also have you checked your dollor, the canadian dollor is catching up fast!!!!
Posted by: Bill Elter at July 08, 2005 03:00 PM (PDq8m)
14
I am a Canadian with a pretty thick skin when it comes to people making statements about my country, but I have to comment on a couple things I read here.
"While I admire the small unit of troops Canada sent to Afghanistan, Canada's support in the GWOT is lukewarm at best."
I think you should realise that while we have a great land mass up here our population is equal to that of the state of California. We are a small country in terms of population - we are a country that takes pride in our international efforts in peacekeeping missions and being a tolerant people NOT in being a military power.
"Canada's inability to defend itself, and its policy to undermine the US' attempts to defend both the US and Canada ( witness their idiotic stance on missile defense ) is not the behavior of a ally but of a narcissistic Left elite isolated from reality."
We could not defend ourselves against an attack from a major military power like the USA... nobody in their right mind would claim we could - but I think many of our American brothers south of the border greatly underestimate what capabilities we do have up here in military terms. We are quite capable of defending ourselves from any REALISTIC threat, as the likelyhood of the US, Russia, England or other countries with massive populations declaring war on us is next to nil. I suppose if we devoted all of our resources to the military we could bump ourselves up the list on "countries we can compete with" but even with %100 devotion to becoming a military power we would never come close to the USA or England. We do not devote massive resources to R&D of military technology but we do keep our forces up to date with the latest aircraft, naval vessels and infantry equipment and tactics and I'm sorry my friend but no matter how many times the stereo type that we depend on the USA for national defense is spouted it won't bring it any closer to being the truth.
I'm also sorry to say but our idiotic stance on ballistic missile defense isn't so idiotic at all. When and if the next attack comes to North America what will be the means of delivery. A ballistic missile or a suitcase left in a truck? Think about it. The USA and Canada already have NORAD to monitor our airspace. We have no interest in putting weapons in orbit around our planet or escalating/pushing the R&D of such weapons. We have no desire to undermine the security of this continent, we've just realized that the 80's are OVER.
I can't speak for all Canadians or for the future decisions of our government but it is my strong opinion that the best position for us (as Canadians) is to concentrate on internal security rather than sending our troops abroad to stir up trouble or escalating the delivery systems of WMD's no matter who's behind the trigger. Now, I may strike a nerve here but look at my statement from my shoes - We don't go around the world whacking the hornets nest with a big stick. We are a target of terrorism on the basis of association with "Western Culture" not because of our actions abroad. That being said, we (being the average Canadian citizen) are not ignorant to our own position or the position of our neighbors to the south. The least we can do is help keep terrorist elements out of our continent and support logical and sane actions - to us Afghanistan made sense, Iraq did NOT.
Times are changing, if Sep 11 had been a conventional military attack by ANY country in the world we would be mobilizing our entire force right now as we've done throughout EVERY major overseas conflict since WWI with the exception of Vietnam and the 2nd action in IRAQ. I would say we've done our fare share when it comes to fighting for freedom and democracy. It's not unfair to expect that we can stay out of certain conflicts (Vietnam and the Invasion of Iraq WITHOUT UN support) without being blasted as narcissistic Left elite isolated from reality.
Amazing what a few draft-dodgers moving to Canada during the Vietnam war will do to a reputation. Stop beleiving what's spoon fed to you and look it up.
Thank you.
Posted by: Colin Jinkerson at July 17, 2005 12:59 PM (0YBBk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A New Neologism
Ace of Spades has been
griping for a long time about how there's no noun available to replace the dreadful neologism "blogosphere". It's easy enough to ignore Ace, but now Maserati-drivin' Cornerite Warren Bell
complains about it as well. Since both of these guys are apparently screenwriters of somewhat varying degrees of success, my sympathy is limited. Just make up your own word and stick to it, fellas.
Nonetheless, these simpering weiners may have a point. "Blogosphere" sounds sufficiently nerdy to describe most electronic media, but it doesn't go far enough. Too often we're grasping for a word that includes more than just blogs, and encompasses all the fast-turnaround pixel-based publications that fling new ideas and breaking news around like poo in a monkey house, leaving the old-fashioned media in the dirt. Drudge, Lucianne.com, Free Republic, NRO, Fark, Tech Central Station, DU, Best of the Web, all these need a word that distinguishes them, along with blogs, from those old-fashioned print and TV outlets creeping along in the left lane with their blinkers on, blissfully causing riots in Afghanistan and correcting them a week later, shaking their liver-spotted fists at us whippersnappers in our Maseratis passing them on the right.
So that word is: "The Immedia".
Yeah, Google gives many hits on "immedia" already. ("The Immedia" gets much fewer.) Someone's probably even copyrighted it. But who cares? The word does what it's supposed to do and there's no reason it can't be pressed into service, immediately.
Posted by: seedubya at
05:10 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.
1
"The Immedia" ?
No fucking way, you have
got to be joking, LMAO, that is so art-house wanky, and so been there done that. Dude, way before your time as a blogger art schools throughout the land were setting up "Intermedia" departments. It was wanky then and it sounds even wankier now. At least those guys were nice peaceful harmless types - the worst one guy ever did was eat lightbulbs live in a performance peice.
Go on, I dare you, call your log "Immediac" - haH HAH HAH.
I CAN'T believe I am hearing this from a 40 year old lecturer.
Ditch the "media". Really. Just go with the "I". Or the "me", the "Imesphere" - now that has a ring to it.
Anyway, once the teenies start playing sounds and homemade animations en mass through their sites this whole print thing is going to start looking incredibly ratty and liver-spotted (like it doesn't already).
Logs, these are just logs, electronic logs and diaries, nothing more, nothing less. A bunch of scrambled letters, that's all. It's just expressionism, that's all. Degenerate expressionism manifesting itself in a world at war. Or dadaism, lacking in coherence and logic. A bunch of mashed up articles and clippings selected at random and scattered across the web.
"The Immedia" LOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL
Posted by: Republican at May 16, 2005 07:00 AM (zPCEz)
2
How about "Accountable Media Sources Of Principle Which Expose Bias"
AMSOP-WEB
No? Oh well. I tried.
Posted by: Oyster at May 16, 2005 07:07 AM (YudAC)
3
"Blog" and its derivatives always reminds me of Harrison Ford's comment to Carrie Fisher at their first reading of the "Star Wars" script. "You can read this stuff, but you can't speak it."
Posted by: Mr. Kurtz at May 16, 2005 07:41 AM (UmkWi)
4
I was trying to get my arms around Immedia, but just couldn't.
It sounds too much like Immodium. And that comparison will not do us any good, no matter how apt it may be.
http://www.imodium.com/
Posted by: Tom at May 16, 2005 09:01 AM (X/h0P)
5
I like blogosphere, why does it need a change? Blogosphere represents the new media and I am sure the MSM (old media)would love to see a name change fight er discussion. I dont think that the name blogosphere will ever go away, just get bigger. At lest I hope so.
Posted by: Bill at May 16, 2005 01:55 PM (xPftg)
6
One too many "o"s. Just Blogsphere. Tougher. Tighter. Much better than blogglobe. Blognet. Blogistan. Blogcadia. Heh.
Immedia is pretentious beyond words to describe it. About 2 major layers of abstraction beyond anything relevant and usable.
Anyway, these things cannot be "decided"; they happen. Wanna try another word? Run it up the Blogstaff and see who salutes!
Posted by: Brian H at May 21, 2005 12:46 AM (8AabM)
7
One too many "o"s. Just Blogsphere. Tougher. Tighter. Much better than blogglobe. Blognet. Blogistan. Blogcadia. Heh.
Immedia is pretentious beyond words to describe it. About 2 major layers of abstraction above anything relevant and usable.
Anyway, these things cannot be "decided"; they happen. Wanna try another word? Run it up the Blogstaff and see who salutes!
Posted by: Brian H at May 21, 2005 12:47 AM (8AabM)
8
Oops. Edit revision was a double. Sorry.
Posted by: Brian H at May 21, 2005 12:49 AM (8AabM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Newsweak II--The Undiscovered Irony
Actually this is being hinted at in a few different places, but let's make it explicit:
Newsweek ran a story based on mistaken information about flushing a Koran. As a result of their mistake, people died and America's reputation suffered abroad.
George Bush invaded Iraq based (in part) on mistaken information about WMD's. As a result of his invasion, people died and America's reputation suffered abroad.
Of course, Iraq did have WMD production capabilities, they did sponsor terrorism, they did violate UN resolutions and international law, they did prosecute a genocide against the Kurds and killed thousands upon thousands in a nightmarish totalitarian state. And Iraq now has a fledgling democracy. And America clearly demonstrated its resolve to avenge the attacks of 9/11. But all that's not important right now.
What is important: Newsweek did exactly what the left accuses Bush of doing. Can the left defend Newsweek without implicitly defending Bush as well?
Posted by: seedubya at
01:21 AM
| Comments (31)
| Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You pawn. The fact is that every US home (almost) has a flushable toilet. The production capability was there, and right-wing US bloggers
regularly sponsor extremist right-wing behaviour - noting Blog-ads to left; "Victor Davis Hanson at his best", "Politically Incorrect - The Coolest Right Wing Shirts", "Military News and Discussion" (echo chamber) glorification of dark side etc.
Newsweek pre-emptively broke a headline that was waiting to happen. Newsweek are committed in their foresight and commited in alerting their audience to risk.
Anyway, if you still think "the left" read Newsweek you probably need re-educative instruction. The left read and write everything. Including rightwing spoofs like this sit...woops, cat got out of bag again.
Posted by: Republican at May 16, 2005 07:29 AM (zPCEz)
2
Newsweak lied, people died.
Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 08:55 AM (8e/V4)
3
"What is important: Newsweek did exactly what the left accuses Bush of doing. Can the left defend Newsweek without implicitly defending Bush as well"
And can the right attack newsweek without implicitly attacking bush as well?
Paralyzed we are.
Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 09:14 AM (Ygl+x)
4
actus,
a valid point if Bush had relied only on a single unnamed source. In other words, Bush would have made a better journalist than Michael Izikoff.
Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 09:18 AM (8e/V4)
5
"a valid point if Bush had relied only on a single unnamed source. "
Then rusty's analogy also fails. I'm assuming it doesn't.
Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 10:01 AM (Ygl+x)
6
actus,
relying on a single solitary anonymous source is a lot closer to lying than relying on multiple foreign and domestic intelligence sources.
Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 10:49 AM (8e/V4)
7
"relying on a single solitary anonymous source is a lot closer to lying than relying on multiple foreign and domestic intelligence sources."
and going to war and killing lots of people and using billions of dollars is a lot different than printing words on paper. but we can still use analogies.
Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 11:13 AM (Ygl+x)
8
actus,
but causing deaths in order to further U.S. interests is a lot different than causing deaths just to hurt Bush.
Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 11:26 AM (8e/V4)
9
"but causing deaths in order to further U.S. interests is a lot different than causing deaths just to hurt Bush."
The analogies rise and fall together, as they are mirrors of each other.
Do you really hold newsweek morally culpable for those deaths? if a koran had actually been desecrated, would you hold that desecrator as culpable?
Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 11:30 AM (Ygl+x)
10
Do you really hold newsweek morally culpable for those deaths? if a koran had actually been desecrated, would you hold that desecrator as culpable?
actus,
I would consider Newsweek morally culpable for reporting it even if it were true, because they reported it based on either A) malice against Bush, regardless of the consequences, or B) without malice, but with reckless ignorance of the consequences. That kind of ignorance is culpable.
Newsweek was motivated either by malice or extreme ignorance of the consequences. And anybody that ignorant should not be reporting world news. I find it hard to believe Izikoff is that naive.
But given that the accusations aren't true, Newsweeak is double and triple culpable.
The interrogator, on the other hand, is not morally culpable because A) flushing Koran pages down a toilet isn't immoral, anymore than some Liberal atheist flushing pages of the Bible is immoral. It was merely an interrogation technique not consisting of torture, and not meant for publication by ignorant malicious journalists.
Or the interrogator not culpable because B) he never did flush Koran pages down a toilet.
Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 12:14 PM (8e/V4)
11
"Newsweek was motivated either by malice or extreme ignorance of the consequences."
What if they knew the consequences? How do you get malice? how can this be pinned on bush?
Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 12:22 PM (Ygl+x)
12
This is part and parcel of the MSM actions to abuse their role in our society to attempt to not merely inform, not merely debate but to undermine our government with false stories.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 16, 2005 01:48 PM (xauGB)
13
"This is part and parcel of the MSM actions to abuse their role in our society to attempt to not merely inform, not merely debate but to undermine our government with false stories."
Do you really think that desecration of the koran does not happen?
Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 06:21 PM (Ygl+x)
14
"Do you really think that desecration of the koran does not happen?"
I couldn't care less if it does happen. Bibles and buddhist statues are desecrated 24/7 by these muslim sub-humans, and we don't fucking riot and kill people over it. If someone riots because of a desecrated Koran he should be shot like a mad dog.
Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 07:04 PM (8e/V4)
15
Actus-
Yes, I really think desecration of the Koran does NOT happen at the hands of our civilian interrogators or soldiers. I think anyone who did so would face severe discipline. For very good reasons, as the recent riots have demonstrated.
I expect that, in line with the "fake menstrual blood" incident, it would be within the rules of engagement to desecrate a fake Koran. I have no knowledge of that, of course, and whether it would be effective I am quite doubtful.
Posted by: See-Dubya at May 16, 2005 07:04 PM (KO8iS)
16
"Yes, I really think desecration of the Koran does NOT happen at the hands of our civilian interrogators or soldiers. "
Woah.
Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 10:35 PM (Ygl+x)
17
Actus, do you know something I don't, or do you just have a much lower opinion of our troops than I do?
Posted by: See-Dubya at May 16, 2005 11:19 PM (qf8md)
18
"Actus, do you know something I don't, or do you just have a much lower opinion of our troops than I do?"
I'm assuming our troops act a lot like prison guards -- which aren't nice people. I don't think that mishandling a Koran is that big of a deal -- in the humane treatement sense -- and I'm assuming that our troops don't either. Not the kind of thing I would do, but I've never had to run a prison/ detention system.
I'm also going by the fact that before this there have been other reports of desecrations, and other religious offenses being used.
Are you really surprised to find out that, in a prison, jailers act like prison guards?
Posted by: actus at May 17, 2005 01:47 AM (Ygl+x)
19
"by these muslim sub-humans"--Carlos
Carlos shows us his true colors. He believes one fifth of the world is comprised of sub-humans. He probably thinks the same of Africans and Orientals. Carlos is a racist. This is a racist war.
Posted by: greg at May 17, 2005 10:52 AM (/+dAV)
20
greg,
it's true, I do believe they're sub-humans. But it's not racism, it's religionism. And it's no different that how you Leftists see us christians.
(and I don't care if you're not a Leftist-- given your views, you might as well be.)
Posted by: Carlos at May 17, 2005 12:15 PM (8e/V4)
21
and ps., greg, YOU are the racist for holding Arabs to such low expectations of their behaviour. You think it's fine when they act like savages because after all they're only Arabs-- the little brown people (said with an Irish brogue). YOU are the racist for always giving the little savages a pass, while holding christians, Israelis, Americans, westerners to unrealistic standards of perfection.
Posted by: Carlos at May 17, 2005 12:32 PM (8e/V4)
22
"it's true, I do believe they're sub-humans. But it's not racism, it's religionism."-Carlos
It is racism and furthermore you insult God by saying so. These are the sons and daughters of Abraham.
"And it's no different that how you Leftists see us christians."-Carlos
I am a Christian. You're talking out your ass.
Posted by: greg at May 17, 2005 01:27 PM (/+dAV)
23
greg,
do you believe in the divinity of Christ, and his claim that there is no way to the Father but through him (Jesus)?
Posted by: Carlos at May 17, 2005 02:27 PM (8e/V4)
24
Yes, as a matter of fact I do.
Posted by: greg at May 17, 2005 02:42 PM (/+dAV)
25
well good for you greg. You've just risen a few notches in my estimattion of you. But your Leftist buddies can still suck eggs.
Posted by: Carlos at May 18, 2005 12:53 AM (8e/V4)
26
Carlos,
You insult God by calling His creations sub-human. I don't think you can receive salvation unless you rid yourself of this sickness.
Posted by: greg at May 18, 2005 08:33 AM (/+dAV)
27
Greg
I am serioulsy getting fed up with all the crap about religion.
It is not a Religious war The terrorist may like to think it s a religious war but its not. The Coalition forces are not fighting a religion they are fighting idiotic brainwashed fools who ought to know better. thats all folks........
Posted by: sparky at May 18, 2005 01:27 PM (F1nba)
28
Sparky,
Take a deep breath, now exhale. That's it, inhale, exhale.
Posted by: greg at May 18, 2005 01:30 PM (/+dAV)
29
PHeeeewwwwww
Thats better

PMT!
Posted by: sparky at May 18, 2005 07:50 PM (F1nba)
Posted by: casinos in linea at July 01, 2005 09:41 PM (MHDX6)
31
all of u dumb ass u cant blame bush for all of this he just did what he that was right and could help and protect our country. If Keery would have done somthing like this u would have been for him so shut up. But hey Kerry Isnt president so u cant say ne thing.
Posted by: adam at November 03, 2005 08:27 PM (xBEg9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Real ID act, or More Demagoguery from the Clinton Camp (Get used to it)
Palominas has a post up about
Hilary's comments on the Real ID act.
Apparently, since members of the public like us, who take time to read the fine print and worry what kind of precedent a bill like this will set have voiced objections to the bill, Hillary is against it too.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This woman is dangerous and cunning. She will stop at nothing to sway public favor in her direction and win power. DO NOT TRUST HER.
PS-if you don't know anything about the Real ID act, I wrote a post last week about it.
Cross-posted at Ze Uzzer Blog
Posted by: Suzanne at
12:39 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.
1
No one more than Hellery, in recent memory, reinforces my conviction that power does not corrupt; power attracts the corruptable. In comparison, her husband is just a venal lightweight.
Posted by: Mr. Kurtz at May 16, 2005 07:52 AM (UmkWi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Kim Jong-Il: The New Face of Evil
Mark Coffey at
Decision '08 has an eloquent
post on the grave situation in North Korea.
Go check it out. It's a worthwhile read, like all his work.
Cross-posted at Suzanne's blog
Posted by: Suzanne at
12:17 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.
1
As I commented over at Mark's, I recently heard a Noth Korean refugee say how good it felt to be in a
free country. The PRC.
Posted by: Mr. Kurtz at May 16, 2005 07:55 AM (UmkWi)
2
Kim Jong-Il looks like a mongoloid. Bet he was born retarded.
Posted by: A Finn at May 19, 2005 04:23 AM (cWMi4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 15, 2005
Ansar al-Sunnah Video Attack on Contractors
The
video is now up. Thanks to Ian of
The Political Teen with help in compressing and editing the video.
What is disturing about this video, though it should not surprise anyone, is that they drag out dead and injured bodies into a pile and then shoot them. There is not any footage of Saito nor his capture therefore I presume they are saving that footage for later as that is their method.
You should notice two white splotches in the video which were not added by myself or Ian. They were included in the original video. What do they conceal? My guess is these splotches cover up the vehicles used by the terrorists or another distinguishing characteristic of some of the terrorists and/or methods. This is the first I've seen in a terrorist video where they have intenionally blotted out something.
You can download the video here.
Posted by: Chad at
04:21 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.
1
This mean they have problems with digital editing software- or they had too little time to do it properly - by blur efects or something else than this.But the question remain - I've seen loots of Ansar al Sunnah videos - and there were not scared of showing off their cars , so maybe they are using expensive models or special models? Samples from this video was shown to mass public - in Polish Public and comercial news too.
Posted by: Polish.expert at May 15, 2005 04:53 PM (el7Vq)
2
Here is what I have found out http://osint.blox.pl/html
Posted by: Polish.expert at May 15, 2005 05:53 PM (el7Vq)
3
Oh, fuck this nonsense...RUSTY! What did you think of episode 3?!! I heard it's the best of all 6? Fill me in.
Posted by: babler, inc. at May 15, 2005 10:28 PM (WfZ6a)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Newsweak
Well, if they didn't lie exactly, as Traderrob points out below, their mistake did lead to murderous riots and widespread unpleasantness. Malkin, with the
roundup.
But, friends, I ask you, should we be so quick to judge?
more...
Posted by: seedubya at
03:19 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.
1
yeah, f%$# those motherf*&^ers!!! hang 'em high!
Posted by: Mr. K at May 15, 2005 03:40 PM (6wsg3)
2
So
Myers was right. The media is out of control and their bias has killed people.
Posted by: Scott B at May 15, 2005 04:33 PM (y6ZHS)
3
I won't believe for one second that they didn't know what such an inflammatory lie would lead to, especially in parts of the world where our troops are in harm's way. I believe that they counted on it, and were only disappointed in the fact that no Americans died in the direct aftermath. Our enemies are many and various, but whether their weapon is an RPG or a shameful lie, they are an enemy nonetheless. All persons involved in this lie should be tried as criminals.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 15, 2005 06:43 PM (0yYS2)
4
Seems to me that anyone who reports for a major news media about what is going on in sectors of the globe should at least have a smattering of an idea of what makes them tick. Anyone with a mind should realize that the Muslims consider the Koran to be an integral part of their life and not something to be sneered at. Yet here we have these major reporters and editors putting out a story without ever double checking the facts of it or ever passing it by the source to see if it is correct and it is a story that is guaranteed to cause riots in Muslim countries. Then we get an apology from the magazine after people have died and been maimed that the magazine apologizes to the people who were killed or injured. Sorry, too little and too late.
Then in addition to making a half-hearted apology, they turn around and in a story from Reuters announce that the reporters and editors will not have any action taken against them.
Why then did they bother to apologize at all if they really didn't mean it. I personally think that Newsweek and the reporters and editors involved should have to go to all the countries where the riots occurred, especially Afghanistan, and announce that the story was wrong and it was their fault. Then they should donate a lot of money and aid to the population of the country to try to repair all the damage they have done. That is the least they can do and I don't personally think it even comes close to repairing all the damage they caused the American cause, the Afghani cause or the cause of the WOT in the rest of the world. Snarky comments from them in passing just is not acceptable.
Posted by: dick at May 15, 2005 08:34 PM (NGdOJ)
5
Freedom of the press anyone? It was so stated by our founding fathers to keep everyone's actions in check, unless you are Fox news or the NYTimes, biased style... My opinion is, if some motherfucker snaps a picture or video of you doing something fucked up, you better be accountable. Don't shoot the messenger: Regulate or stop whining like a bitch-ass when you're caught with your pants down. Oh, so and so said such and such and now there's hell to pay...pblththth!
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 15, 2005 10:25 PM (WfZ6a)
6
The MSM's hatred for George W. Bush kills people.
Posted by: Carlos at May 15, 2005 11:03 PM (8e/V4)
7
The Bush anti-truth reporting propaganda machine strikes again!!
Posted by: deccles at May 17, 2005 09:11 AM (ViBnj)
8
Duh-bya, Lib-ya sittin' in a tree...
Oily hand jobs aren't free...
Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 17, 2005 06:53 PM (WfZ6a)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Newsweek Paragraph Sparks Violence. Were They Cavalier in Their Reporting?
It was one
small seemingly insignificant paragraph to Isikoff, but the results were significant and deadly.
The unrest began this week after Newsweek published an allegation that American military interrogators had desecrated the Islamic holy book in an effort to rattle detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The report said that they had placed the Koran on the lavatory inside inmates’ cells and had “in at least one case, flushed a holy book down the toilet” .
AT LEAST nine people were killed yesterday as a wave of anti-American demonstrations swept the Islamic world from the Gaza Strip to the Java Sea, sparked by a single paragraph in a magazine alleging that US military interrogators had desecrated the Koran. lts were devastating.
Now it's beginning to become clear that the "devastating" paragraph wasn't true.
On Saturday, Isikoff spoke to his original source, the senior government official, who said that he clearly recalled reading investigative reports about mishandling the Qur'an, including a toilet incident. But the official, still speaking anonymously, could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the SouthCom report. Told of what the NEWSWEEK source said, DiRita exploded, "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said. How could he be credible now?"
Another reliable "anonymous" source. To make a contention with this sort of potential impact Isikoff should have had at least 3 sources two of which would be willing to go on the record. Don't these people have the slightest concern for the consequences of their actions. Are they so myopic in their zeal that thinly verified assertions are synonomous with fact.
The pen is mightier than the sword and when used indiscrimantly equally as deadly.
Update: Newsweek apologizes....sort of:
Last Friday, a top Pentagon spokesman told us that a review of the probe cited in our story showed that it was never meant to look into charges of Qur'an desecration. The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them "not credible." Our original source later said he couldn't be certain about reading of the alleged Qur'an incident in the report we cited, and said it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts. Top administration officials have promised to continue looking into the charges, and so will we. But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst.
Posted by Traderrob
Posted by: Traderrob at
09:42 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Newsweek is responsible for these riots and deaths. They should be proud of themselves.
Posted by: Carlos at May 15, 2005 10:04 AM (8e/V4)
2
What can I do?
Well, go ahead and try to sell me a Newsweek. Go ahead, try!
I demand accountability for this irresponsible article. ItÂ’s typical of the MSM to search high and low for any item that would damage the cause of Democracy in Iraq.
Pro Democracy Newsweek subscribers should demand IsikoffÂ’s job. Let Newsweek try to make a profit selling their rag to the salons of Urban America. Then they can try to get Volvo and Trojan to buy all their add space.
DonÂ’t support this crap with your money! Boycott Newsweek!
Posted by: Brad at May 15, 2005 10:09 AM (pO1tP)
3
Isikoff should be made to answer for this. People died because of his reporting. He hands the jihadis a tailor made reason to spread hate against the U.S.
It's obvious that his intent was to gen up a slanderous scandal, abu-Grab II, use it against the Bush administration and take the credit for it.
He went too far. Unless he has hard proof of his charges -- He should be fired.
Posted by: bill at May 15, 2005 10:33 AM (7evkT)
4
Fired? His words are directly responsible for several deaths! Surely there are criminal charges that could be brought? Seriously....the man needs to be held responsible.
Posted by: BorgQueen at May 15, 2005 11:14 AM (AxlwF)
5
Normally I am on board with you guys. How about blaming the psycho Muslims for taking the whole thing a little too seriously. If you look at them the wrong way, they flip out.
Look at the women, they flip out.
Criticize suicise bombing, they flip out.
Ask them to consider a more rational approach to their religion and, you guessed it, the flip out.
The MSM is biased and lame, but this should have been a non-story. Recall some "art" display in the US a few years ago, called "Piss Jesus". Some "artist" dunked a crucifix in urine. Christians protested. Liberals defended the a-hole. And then everyone went home. Peacefully. Quietly.
Would you have blamed the MSM for inflaming Christian passions by reporting the story?
The MSM is responsible for many things, but these riots are the fault of extremists and idiots who happen to be Muslims.
Posted by: Bill Dautrieve at May 15, 2005 11:31 AM (aH2mq)
6
If the story had been true, I would agree with you for the most part. The point is, it was in all liklihood not, and that reckless reporting with little regard for the consequences is the crux of the issue.
Posted by: traderrob at May 15, 2005 01:19 PM (3al54)
7
What happened to Blog Sabbath? Is Ozzie gonna be a guest blogger?
Posted by: Mr. K at May 15, 2005 01:48 PM (QqA6E)
8
The Koran is as holy as a Reader's Digest.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 15, 2005 03:30 PM (Fw/Gv)
9
Its just absolutely unthinkable that anything bad would happen to koran in the custody of the US war on terror.
Posted by: actus at May 15, 2005 10:05 PM (QPrcU)
10
Howard Fineman was on Imus this morning, and he was trying to defend and spin Newsweek's handling of the matter into something other than a complete and utter mess that it is. Even Imus was having none of it; asking why and how Newsweek could run a story with one source providing the attribution and the 'second' source never even commenting on the section in question. The 'second' source apparently critiqued a different part of the story, and that served as the basis for validating the entire story.
Fineman noted that Newsweek ran a more detailed research on the story after reports surfaced that the original story could not be confirmed. That seems to be bass ackward, considering the import of the story. How about this - do the research and due diligence first, run the story second. Not the reverse, which could get a lot of poeple killed, damage credibility of numerous parties involved, and have political, social, and religious ramifications that extend well beyond what anyone could have imagined.
Meanwhile, the riots continue, the US has a far more difficult situation ahead of it because Newsweek ran a story that appears concocted out of the mind of a solitary individual (sound familiar?), and people are dead.
Where is the culpability on the part of Newsweek and how many other stories are run using the same methodology used here.
It really makes you wonder who is cavalier with their stories, the original media, or the immedia (bloggers)?
Posted by: lawhawk at May 16, 2005 08:14 AM (nzf/N)
11
>>>"It really makes you wonder who is cavalier with their stories, the original media, or the immedia (bloggers)?"
Exactly. These are the same people who sneeringly look down their noses at alternative media, including the blogs and radio talkers.
Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 09:00 AM (8e/V4)
12
Newsweek and The Washington Post, thier parent, should be boycotted. At some point the American public no matter what their ideals needs to make it known that irresponsible jurnalism will not be tolerated. As an american we are all now more likely to be victims of terrorism because of this false unsubstantiated story. Even if the story itself only adds a fraction of a percent to that likelyhood it is still an escalation and something the US public doesn't want to suffer. We are already suffering enough just for trying to make the lives of these people better but now we must suffer for things that never occured. This should be unacceptable to everyone in the US.
Posted by: Reho at May 17, 2005 09:20 AM (vTNxk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 14, 2005
The Kidnapping of Nabil al-Wazer
This story comes to us from Armies of Liberation, who asks that we have a link fest on this one, gather support for getting the word out on this story, and watch it unfold over the next few days.
ThereÂ’s an al-Qaeda jihad against the Zaidis in Yemen, and many of the al-Qaeda jihadists are leaders in the Yemeni government and security forces. They've bombed civilians, closed schools, trashed libraries, had mass arrests, prohibited Zaidi sermons, dragged charred bodies through the streets, and more.
Nabil al-Wazer is prominent in the Popular Forces Union, a Zaidi party with a secular basis. HeÂ’s also related to the partyÂ’s leader. Just like they bombed the Zaidi region (Saada), now its the turn of the Zaidi party to be attacked. Its part of the jihad against the Yemeni Zaidis (shia). Otherwise the government would return him safely to his family.
Nabil al-Wazer is being held by Houssain Abo Dunya in Hajja since Tuesday. Kidnapped. HeÂ’s kidnapped. His location is known. Since Tuesday. Not a police in sight. Nothing.
The kidnapper is asking for approximately $50,000 US dollars.
So the Yemeni government can do mass arrests and arbitrary arrests, but not legitimate arrests. It can target its citizens but not protect them. It can arrest women, and boys, and old men, but not criminals. One would think that if a citizen is kidnapped, the law enforcement would go recover him. So is the Yemeni government a state, or is it a mafia if they donÂ’t perform even the most basic functions like hostage recovery?
Unless theyÂ’re in on it. LetÂ’s all watch and see what happens next.
Related reading - Why Al-qaeda survives in Yemen.
Cross posted at Hyscience
Posted by: Richard@hyscience at
11:03 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 3 kb.
Blogging from D.C.
Yo peeps. I'm blogging from an underground bunker deep in enemy territory. And by that I mean 'a squalid Capital Hill basement apartment. Unfortunately it's the place the
Professor Chaos calls home.
The first thing you notice when coming from the backwoods of a Red State to the nation's capital are all the self-important looking young people. Wannabes of all sorts come to this modern Babylon to climb, claw, and sleep their way to the top. In many ways this place reminds me of L.A., my home town, with its hordes of young people willing to do just about anything to make big in Hollywood. But at least L.A. has a socially valuable product that people are willing to pay for.
This town is worse than Rome. At least Rome had some pretty interesting entertainment--you know, with that whole Colliseum thingy.
Here the goal is power. Here they forcefully rob the nation of its wealth and redistribute it amongst themselves.
In the Bible Rome is personafied as a whore. A whore is far too wholesome to represnt this town. Whores give you something in return and the exchange is voluntary.
What best represents D.C. then? A Rapist.
Posted by: Rusty at
09:34 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Man, I thought I asked you to make it sound like the Batcave or something. Now I come off as just some lame college professor living in a basement apartment ...
Posted by: Leopold Stotch at May 14, 2005 10:20 PM (R0xRP)
2
Easy there, bulldog. Some of us are here just trying to feed our selves. Plus, the major goofballs in DC are all sent here from out of town.
Posted by: harrison at May 14, 2005 10:26 PM (fO2kP)
3
Rusty:
Just got back from having dinner in the Dupont Circle area with some of the
Free Muslims and a few of their supporters, including Judith at
Keshertalk and the good protest warrior satirists at
Communists for Kerry. Beers, margueritas, cajun cooking, and lots of conversation about the future of, well you know... that place with all the Mullahs, weightlifters and nukes.
Posted by: Demosophist at May 14, 2005 10:43 PM (d0CtA)
4
my, my, such a cynical young man...remember, we put a lot of those people there. When I was in DC, all I saw was history, I guess I ignored tthe people.
Posted by: Mr.K at May 15, 2005 01:43 PM (QqA6E)
5
While I no longer live in DC, it absolutely does not lack for things to do, no matter your interest--okay, deepsea diving, mountain climbing, and unauthorized piloting excepted.
Posted by: John Burgess at May 15, 2005 04:51 PM (7HZOv)
6
"What best represents D.C. then? A Rapist."
Hey we're working on sending them back to sugarland.
Posted by: actus at May 15, 2005 10:06 PM (QPrcU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Do Your Part
I knew it would not be long for Ansar al-Sunnah to re-open their website after two mirrors were taken down. They were hosted briefly on Tripod and on 50Megs until they were taken down.
For those of you who are unaware, groups like Ansar al-Sunnah pop up several sites on the same free webhosts over and over. Because of their content and people that get tired of seeing their drivel on the internet (no names), the companies are contacted and the site is removed. Most companies are fairly easy to work with (uh, so I've been told that is) and take the site down within a couple of days if not within the hour following a complaint.
The new URL for the Army of Ansar al-Sunnah is http://alansar-37.5u.com/. They are again hosted on 50Megs which is accessible here. If you choose to do so, you can contact 50Megs on through email at this link. If you feel inclined, you can call them at 1-801-437-6100. The company is located in Orem, Utah and would be more than willing to listen to phone calls and/or emails.
It should be noted that many of these free webhosting sites do not know who sets up a site on their servers. 50Megs in particular has taken down numerous sites promptly when alerted. Does anyone care to take down a jihadist site? I hope so.
Cross-posted at In the Bullpen
Posted by: Chad at
08:07 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.
1
wow.. i just wanted to see how quick they would take down the website if i called the number above and the rep that spoke to me did it right on the phone.. check it...
Posted by: HAHA at May 14, 2005 08:48 PM (wJc4r)
Posted by: Chad Evans at May 14, 2005 08:52 PM (8sFHk)
3
I wanted to view that bs content before it went down, I didn't stand a chance :-p
Posted by: IM at May 14, 2005 08:57 PM (a9tRx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bin Laden henchman ‘seriously wounded’
Most of us were skeptical of this story that came out Wednesday
AL-ZARQAWI SERIOUSLY INJURED, SAYS IRAQI OFFICIAL , some cooboration now appears to be surfacing.
IRAQÂ’S most wanted terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has been seriously wounded, according to a doctor who claims to have treated him last week.
The doctor told an Iraqi reporter in the western city of Ramadi that Zarqawi was bleeding heavily when he was brought into hospital on Wednesday. After treating his wounds the doctor tried to persuade him to remain, but the Jordanian-born terroristÂ’s minders drove him away.
The claim was supported yesterday by a senior commander in the Iraqi resistance who had been to Ramadi to investigate the report. The doctor, who refused to specify the nature of the wounds and asked not to be identified, was detained by the Americans on Friday for questioning, residents said.
Hopefully the SOB bled to death on his way back.
Posted by Traderrob
Posted by: Traderrob at
07:05 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.
69 Year Old Pilot Causes Panic
It's chilling to realize there are
people like this buzzing around the skies while you and I are flying from place to place via United or Northwest.
From WAPO:
The pilot who caused a midday panic in Washington on Wednesday failed to get briefings about the weather and restricted airspace and became lost minutes after leaving a Pennsylvania airport, Federal Aviation Administration records show.
more...
Posted by: Traderrob at
01:33 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.
1
OK... a 69 year old? Well, it could've been his idea of "going out with a bang".
Posted by: A Finn at May 14, 2005 01:47 PM (lGolT)
2
I wonder, was his turn signal on the whole time?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 14, 2005 05:14 PM (0yYS2)
Posted by: traderrob at May 14, 2005 06:41 PM (3al54)
4
Oh well, see ya. I got better things to do with my computer now (Puzzle Pirates!! Arrr!), so good luck and have fun commenting.
Posted by: A Finn at May 16, 2005 02:52 AM (cWMi4)
5
Turns out I can't play it on school computers, so... Too bad for ye landlubbers, who haves ta read me crap.
Posted by: A Finn at May 18, 2005 02:21 AM (cWMi4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 13, 2005
Predator Missile Offs al Qaeda #3
The last 10 days have been extremely productive for our military in terms of snuffing dirtbags. 100s of insurgents killed,
more captured including al-Libbi, al- Rawi, al- Zubaydi and now this.
more...
Posted by: Traderrob at
07:11 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"Let them hate us as long as they fear us"......killed more IslamicNazis!!!!....Hurrah!!!!
Posted by: THANOS35 at May 13, 2005 09:55 PM (mZYh2)
2
An old saying goes"Cut off the head of the snake and the body will die"....Im just waiting for the rest of those dopey-ass Islamic scumbags to get spooked and start popping out so the US forces can frag their ass....nuff said
Posted by: THANOS35 at May 13, 2005 09:58 PM (mZYh2)
3
But was he given a fair trial?
/guilt-wracked white Liberal
Posted by: Carlos at May 14, 2005 12:09 AM (8e/V4)
4
Carlos, you're crackin' me up. You need to work on your guilt too. I hear there a self-loathing, re-education, indoctrination class starting next month. Wanna go with me? ;-)
Posted by: Oyster at May 14, 2005 08:24 AM (YudAC)
5
I assumed Carlo's was being sarcastic, I hope he was because his entire concept is way beyond ludicrous.
Posted by: traderrob at May 14, 2005 08:42 AM (3al54)
6
Oyster,
I grew up a guilt-wracked hispanic Liberal even though my hispanic mom picked cotton as a child in Texas and my father was exiled from Francoist Spain. Can you imagine feeling guilty about that? Nobody had a bigger claim to victimhood than I.
Yet I was guilt-ridden-- precisely because I was a Liberal. It's par for the course.
My two brothers are still guilt-ridden. One of them, a school teacher, felt guilty for his comfortable life because it was acquired "on the backs of the poor". LMAO! No jokes.
Today I have ridden myself of that guilt in exchange for conservative rage. It's a lot more fun. No jokes. Being a conservative is a blast!
Posted by: Carlos at May 14, 2005 09:10 AM (8e/V4)
7
traderrob
the slash line (/) at the end of a post is a symbol that represents sarcasm. So yes, he was joking.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 14, 2005 04:17 PM (xkIHW)
8
The thing about the guilt ridden while liberals is that they feel that not only is it wrong to profit from the labor of another, it is also wrong for one person to have more than another. Of course, this doesn't stop them from buying Volvos and hiring illeal alien gardeners at starvation wages. Of course, the whole profit and sharing thing doesn't apply to them, only to those evil rich white people, not to be confused with liberals, who are mostly rich white people.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 14, 2005 05:19 PM (0yYS2)
9
The left takes "all men are created equal" to the point of absudity. They believe it to mean all men have equal abilities, talents, motivations and drive to succeed and therefor are entitled to an "equal" piece of the pie. It's a naive interpreation of the psyche of man and highly delusional interpretaion of the intent of our founding fathers.
Posted by: traderrob at May 14, 2005 07:27 PM (3al54)
10
"Predator Missile Offs al Qaeda #3"
How many al Qaeda #3 men are there for crying out loud.
Posted by: greg at May 16, 2005 10:31 AM (/+dAV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
On "The Wisdom of Solomon:" They Fought, They Died, And They Ceased To Be
These Marines fought and died while motormouths at Columbia University spit on the lives that these men sacrificed. To me, these people are anathema. Some academics in America's universities are running their mouths about freedom this and freedom that, but are not willing to lift their little finger in behalf of their own way of life, they just complain. They are against much, and for little. This, while other men, instead, walk the walk, they stand for much and complain little, they fight, they die, and we live on. God bless our Marines and their families, and God bless these men!
"In 96 hours of fighting and ambushes in far western Iraq, the squad had ceased to be. Every member of the squad -- one of three that make up the 1st Platoon of Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 25th Regiment -- had been killed or wounded, Marines here said. All told, the 1st Platoon -- which Hurley commands -- had sustained 60 percent casualties, demolishing it as a fighting force." - Villainous Company via BlackFive
In a foreign country far from their home, a company of United States Marine Reservists from Ohio,
citizen soldiers all, paid the ultimate price for the freedoms
that academics in the U.S., and especially Columbia University's professors, take for granted. They were very likely,
like most Marines, plain-spoken men. They were men of deeds, not words. The went to war for their country, their loved ones, and our way of life; they fought, they died, they ceased to exist.
HABAN, Iraq, May 11 -
[...]
The explosion enveloped the armored vehicle in
flames, sending orange balls of fire bubbling above the trees along the
Euphrates River near the Syrian border.
Marines in surrounding vehicles threw open
their hatches and took off running across the plowed fields, toward the
already blackening metal of the destroyed vehicle. Shouting, they
pulled to safety those they could, as the flames ignited the bullets,
mortar rounds, flares and grenades inside, rocketing them into the sky
and across pastures.
Gunnery Sgt. Chuck
Hurley emerged from the smoke and turmoil around the vehicle, circling
toward the spot where helicopters would later land to pick up
casualties. As he passed one group of Marines, he uttered one sentence:
"That was the same squad."
Meanwhile, what was going on at Columbia University?
On Friday, the university senate voted by a 53-10 margin, with five
abstentions, against a resolution to re-establish an ROTC program on
campus. Prominent in this roll call of dishonor was President Lee
Bollinger, who voted against, and Provost Alan Brinkley, who gave an
impassioned speech comparing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
policy to a campus organization that allowed "African-Americans to join
. . . only if they pass for white." Oddly, Mr. Brinkley abstained from
voting, suggesting he lacked even the courage of these convictions.
BlackFive writes that "the university's decision was
remarkable for two reasons. The first is that, though it has obviously
escaped their notice, we are at war. Moreover, Columbia's student body
had previously voted 2-to-1 to bring back ROTC. The second is a
federal law called the Solomon Amendment, which prohibits schools from discriminating against military recruiters. If they refuse, they must forfeit federal funding." But breaking the law doesn't seem to concern America's left that infests her academic institutions. The academic left's traitorous acts in a time of war is kindly addressed by BlackFive in saying that, "America's elite universities
have cloaked their hostility to our armed forces in the language of
civil rights. They portray this as a principled stand against the
military's legal policy of discharging homosexuals ("don't ask, don't
tell"
. It's an interesting stance, since these colleges booted ROTC
off campus long before "don't ask, don't tell" became official policy." I, on the other hand, would consider it appropriate to simply say that they are self-centered, egotistical, bubble-minded, cowards that will use almost any excuse to not stand-up for the very country that provides them the bubbles that they live in.
But inasmuch as BlackFive is far more politically correct(and appropriately so) then I can be on this issue right now, I recommend that you go read his perspective ....
Semper Fi, (1960-1965)
Hat tip - Villainous Company via BlackFive
Cross posted at Hyscience
Posted by: Richard@hyscience at
02:03 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 739 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Every time I hear news of this sort it makes my blood boil in me. A good liberal is a dead liberal.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 13, 2005 02:31 PM (0yYS2)
2
Wasn't Columbia University once called the frankfert(sp?) school that was kicked out of Germany in the late 20's early 30's? If so, maybe we should send it back to Germany brick by brick.
Posted by: Andre at May 13, 2005 04:07 PM (mfvPa)
3
Or her perspective

I'm guest-blogging at B5 this week.
Thanks for the link, but even more for being angry about this. It infuriates me.
- A Marine wife of 26 years
Posted by: Cassandra at May 13, 2005 04:21 PM (289B8)
4
No, Columbia used to be Kings College, founded in the late 1700s before the Revolution. I believe you are thinking about the New School, which was founded in the 30s and took in a huge number of Jewish scholar refugees that were fleeing Hitler. By the way, does anyone have a link to Columbia so that we may tell them what we think of their decision? I can't find anything relevant on their website. What treasonous asshats. I really hope the SCOTUS upholds Solomon.
Posted by: Scott in CA at May 13, 2005 04:57 PM (XRyrV)
5
7 have died in operation Matador, 6 of them from that squad alone. They got ambushed.
Posted by: Carlos at May 13, 2005 07:10 PM (8e/V4)
6
As someone born in the Bronx (which is where Columbia really is..this "Upper Manhattan" shit is just those Ivy League fucks trying to stay away from "Darkieville"), I wish someone would show up on their campus all Travis Bickle/Bernie Goetzed and bring the war home to their front door.
Someone call PETA, or one of those other numbnut groups, because Columbia's medical research facilities are just waiting to get found out.
Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at May 14, 2005 01:40 AM (kiH79)
7
And Lee Bolinger is one reason why the University of Michigan got so f**ked up!
Posted by: Macker at May 14, 2005 03:23 PM (R4i3L)
8
" It's an interesting stance, since these colleges booted ROTC
off campus long before "don't ask, don't tell" became official policy." "
Can you guess whether they liked the previous policy?
Posted by: actus at May 15, 2005 10:49 PM (QPrcU)
9
Hmm. At my university, the senate has no actual authority in these sort of decisions. Instead of letting self-interested faculty make the decisions, they rest solely on the board of regents, who tend to have the best interests of the university in mind, and not some political agenda. Is it different at private institutions?
Posted by: Hammertime at May 16, 2005 12:21 AM (d4dAk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Lt. Pantano: Killer or Hero?
Washington Times:
An investigating officer has recommended that the Marine Corps drop murder charges against 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano, who shot to death two Iraqi insurgents a year ago during a raid on an insurgent hideout in the "Triangle of Death."
Let's pause right there, people. Just for one moment, if you please. Notice they say 'shot to death'. May I remind you that when Pantano 'shot to death' these two 'insurgents' they were refusing to obey his orders? May I also remind you that this 'shooting' occured in the 'Triangle of Death'?
The 16-page report from Lt. Col. Mark E. Winn castigates as unreliable the prosecution's chief witness, Sgt. Daniel L. Coburn, whom Lt. Pantano had removed as squad leader weeks before the April 14, 2004 shooting.
Yep, I'd say that makes him unreliable. Reminds me of the 7th-grade boys I had to reprimand yesterday for giving each other purple nurples.
"The government was not able to produce credible evidence or testimony that the killings were premeditated," Col. Winn wrote in his report, a copy of which was obtained today by The Washington Times.
"I think now [Sgt. Coburn] is in a position where he has told his story so many times, in so many versions that he cannot keep his facts straight anymore," Col. Winn wrote of the chief witness.
Col. Winn's decision follows a five-day pretrial hearing last month at Camp Lejeune, N.C., Lt. Pantano's home base. His role is to conduct the hearing and decide whether a court-martial is warranted.
Hopefully, Pantano will be cleared of these charges. Don't train Marines to defend themselves and their country unless you plan to have them kill.
Cross-posted at Descartes Bar and Grill
For those of you who haven't heard about Pantano, Michael Savage has a great page with more information here.
Pantano's family has set up their own website, Defend the Defenders.
H/T Michelle Malkin
Posted by: Suzanne at
01:44 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 325 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Hero to patriot Americans, killer to other people who know about this meaningless accusation. Only people who know him or are trialing him need to have an opinion on such a small matter like this. Wooptiedoo, he killed some 3rd world people, possibly trying to kill him, in a war zone. So what? Not like they were people from a country that can actually influence something other than desert people and terrorists.
Posted by: A Finn at May 14, 2005 07:36 AM (lGolT)
2
Keeps changing his story? Is Sgt. Coburn any relation to Guiliana Sgrena?
Posted by: Oyster at May 14, 2005 08:04 AM (YudAC)
Posted by: A Finn at May 14, 2005 08:07 AM (lGolT)
4
He's a MARINE, for God's sake; he's been trained to kill. His job is to kill the enemy for if he didn't, the enemy is still a danger to the troops in that area. It's his JOB and responsibility and NOT something you hold against him. How's any of the soldiers job to protect and keep others from harm if they are made afraid to shoot the damn enemy?? Everytime a soldier runs into an enemy, how is he supposed to do his job with this kind of threat over his head which will lead to more US and coalition deaths. We're at war, folks and he did exactly what he was supposed to do, nothing more, nothing less. To hold any soldier or marine responsible for the death of the enemy only puts them in harm's way. This situation is so stupid; it should never have arisen in the first place.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at May 14, 2005 03:27 PM (PEKrh)
5
I had a friend from the CORPS who was there with the Army. These are people who send children as suicide bombers. YA! Step out of the vehicle, the kids bum rush you. You would like to help but instead you put your gun to the biggest ones head and tell the translater to respond "BACK OFF!!", in a mater of self defense. I was his best man, and he was mine. We served together for 2 yrs at Pendleton, and to read his eyes after being in Iraq for a year and 1/2...
Think about it and put yourself in there boots. On the other side of the world where generally your not wanted, and in a combat zone!
Posted by: Mike, former Marine at May 26, 2005 01:23 PM (pO1tP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
160kb generated in CPU 0.1105, elapsed 0.2677 seconds.
135 queries taking 0.2352 seconds, 465 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.