November 20, 2006
All I Want For Christmas (in Darfur)...
Judging by the newly arrived décor I am seeing in storefronts, the holiday season is evidently upon us once again. As you already know, two friends and I are going to spend our holiday in Africa to film footage for a documentary (Christmas in Darfur), capture the feel of conditions on the ground, and interview the extraordinary people who have given and risked so much to lend a hand in a portion of the world that needs all the help it can get. I would like to thank you for your help and generosity in getting us started towards our goals.
more...
Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at
10:26 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 5 kb.
June 15, 2006
BBC : Documented Evidence of "Large-Scale Massacres" in Sudan
The BBC has an update on the Darfur Jihad:
The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court says he has documented evidence of thousands of killings of civilians in Sudan's Darfur region.
Luis Moreno Ocampo, investigating alleged crimes against humanity, says the killings include large-scale massacres and hundreds of rapes.
. . .
more...
Posted by: Kos_Irhabi at
11:13 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.
June 14, 2006
The Bad Guys Win
What am I saying. They're all bad guys. It's just that some of the bad guys are slightly better than the worse bad guys.
The 1400 year old jihad machine chugs on:
MOGADISHU, Somalia - Islamic militants captured the last strategic town held by their warlord rivals Wednesday, consolidating their hold over a large swath of Somalia even as the country's parliament called for help from foreign peacekeepers.
The brave troops of the U.S. backed warlords show us how they earned our hard-earned tax dollars:
Hours after the Islamic force attacked the town of Jowhar from three directions Wednesday, the last of the warlords' remaining fighters fled east, some in pickup trucks with rooftop-mounted machine guns. Militiamen seized the airport, just outside town. Residents were fleeing and witnesses reported as many as 19 dead.
Talk about take the money and run.
So the country's ineffectual and worthless parliament is calling for international peacekeepers. Sorry chums, we've been down that road and we've seen what happens.
It may not be realpolitik, it will never be given the Official Government Seal of Approval, but it's plausible that the only thing now to keep Somalia from being the new base of operations for Osama and Co. is a nice carpet bombing.
It's either that, or wait until Somalia is used as a base to launch another 9/11.
And, since you didn't ask, but were thinking it, yes, nearly 13 years on, I'm still bitter. If you were doing word association, and said "Somalia," the first thing that would pop into my head would be "fuc* 'em."
Posted by: Vinnie at
05:01 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Failed states are always chaotic where anything goes.
Posted by: john ryan at June 14, 2006 05:16 PM (TcoRJ)
2
I look at the suffering in post-war Vietnam and post-intervention Somalia and I remember what Ralph Peters wrote in his most current book: "when the US loses, humanity loses." Now there are some who want to abandon Iraq to those Islamo-animals? Insane.
Posted by: Thrill at June 14, 2006 05:41 PM (DYb4r)
3
>>>"when the US loses, humanity loses."
I would agree with that. Libs accuse America of invading Iraq to "further U.S. interests." And my response is yeah, and?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 14, 2006 05:47 PM (8e/V4)
4
Let the baby, have it's bottle.
I don't forsee the Jihadi's doing any better than the Warlords faired, the reason being is they have been welcomed because they're a hope, and a change and promise to make things better with their Islamic one trick pony show, the problem of course now is, they will have to make good on it.
Try telling a guy to put his wife in a Burka to be a good Muslim, while he has no food in his stomach, has no job, no water, electric etc.
What do they have to offer? nothing, no jobs, no money, no Government and they will ensure Somalia will be isolated by the rest of the world.
Sudan ran Bin Laden out of it's country because for all his money, he became a pariah.
Time to sit back and watch the jihadi's get their ass handed to them by a populace scorned.
Posted by: davec at June 14, 2006 07:13 PM (CcXvt)
5
Just don't let any of these Somalian use this as an excuse to immigrate here. Plenty of these backward shits allready wandering up and down our welfare roles.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 14, 2006 07:29 PM (s/5ju)
6
You are absolutely right, greyrooster. We can now expect another flood of refugees headed from Somalia to the US, with more murdered Americans the result. See how these people have behaved in Minneapolis. Just like they do in Somalia. Makes. You. Sick.
Posted by: jesusland joe at June 14, 2006 07:51 PM (rUyw4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 06, 2006
Islamists Take Mogadishu, Set up Sharia Courts: Echos of Kabul
As reported by Vinnie yesterday at The Jawa Report, Islamist militias with ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network have succeeded in taking over the capital of Somalia, Mogadishu. It should never be forgotten that al Qaeda's first sucess was in fighting American troops in Mogadishu during the famous "Black Hawk down" incident.
Although not mentioned in the movie by the same name, Osama bin Laden later admitted that he had sent fighters into Somalia to help warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid. Bin Laden, it is said, had had a mystic "vision" in which U.S. was revealed as a paper tiger & that American forces would withdraw from Somalia, defeated. When his "vision" came true, many came to think of bin Laden as a man with supernatural powers.
Thousands of U.S. troops are currently stationed in Djibouti, which borders Somalia to the north. Strategy Page (via Glenn) has the Somalia timeline.
We cannot afford to lose the Horn of Africa to Islamists.
Reuters:
The Islamic side, which supports sharia courts in Mogadishu, announced they controlled the city in radio broadcasts and public meetings. Both residents and some members of the warlords' own militia said the city was in Islamic hands.
"The era of warlords in Somalia is over," resident Mohamed Asser said. "This morning Mogadishu is under only one hand, the Islamic courts."
This is eerily similar to the takeover by the Taliban--which means "scholar" or "students"--of Kabul. The Taliban promised an end to the violence of the fighting warlords and a restoration of order. It was only later that we learned the harsh reality of Islamic law's "order" in Afghanistan.
Today, protests erupted in the Somali capital over the new Islamist masters of the city. The protests, though, seem to be along tribal lines. Times:
Hundreds protested today against the Islamist takeover of the capital of Somalia....
At least 1,000 protesters, from the Abgal clan, a faction of the Hawiye tribe that used to control much of northern Mogadishu, rallied in a football stadium and on the streets.
"We want to establish an Abgal sub-clan defence line, politically and militarily," said Hussein Sheikh Ahmed, an Abgal leader. "Advances into Abgal territory should be halted immediately."
And how has the U.N. backed interim government reacted to the take over of the nation's capital by Islamist militias who want to impose harsh Sharia law?
Today's protests, which were left unhindered by Islamist militias, came as the interim Somali Prime Minister, Mohamed Ali Gedi, congratulated the Muslim forces on taking control of the city.
Mr Gedi called the Islamist victory, which the US fears could lead to the development of a Taleban-style African state, "an excellent step forward" today, telling Radio France Internationale that the fallen warlords had been "hurting the reconciliation, stabilisation and pacification of Somalia".
Echos of Kabul, ringing in my ears.
More on why we should worry from All Africa:
Al Qaeda elements responsible for the 1998 US embassy bombings in Nairobi and Tanzania and the 2002 attack on the Paradise Hotel in Kikambala near Mombasa have been moving in and out of Somalia with the aid of local sympathisers, according to US officials.
Preventing Somalia from becoming a second safe haven for al Qaeda has been a primary objective of American policy in the Horn of Africa ever since US forces ousted Afghanistan's Taliban regime in 2001. The Afghan Islamist group had provided al Qaeda with the protection and resources needed to plot the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.
Apparently there is a faction within the State Department which believes we should be working with the Islamists to stabilize Somalia. Recently, Michael Zorick voiced that opinion and was immediately tranferred from his Somalia desk.
The theory goes that we should stabilize first, and then worry about al Qaeda sympathies later. Which, of course, is the same arguement I heard when Kabul was "liberated" by the Taliban. That "stability" was more important than the radical political philosophy of the group--which at the time no one really understood very well.
So, our covert proxy war in Somalia seems not to be working. But is the alternative the installatioin of another Taliban-like government in the Horn of Africa in the name of stability? Insanity!
Related: Kim at Wizbang: "As far as the Islamists are concerned, there is no Transitional Federal Charter of Somalia."
John at Op-For: "Another collapsed state that has the potential to turn into a big-time breeding ground. Somalia is starting to look alot like pre-Enduring Freedom Afghanistan." Indeed.
Malkin: Not Good.
Rule 308: "You want sharia? Have it, be my guests. But I bet you won't like it."
Sandbox: "True democracy cannot coexist with Sharia law."
If the Onion were half as funny as this, I'd subscribe.
This Boston Globe article reports on the covert operations the U.S. has been engaged in:
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
10:04 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1093 words, total size 8 kb.
1
So basically it's going to take another Democrat administration to ignore the problem, and then a GOP one to clean up the resulting mess and take all the heat for it. Standard. I guess it's no surprise conservatives get tagged "warmongers". It's a tough job, but somebody's gotta do it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 06, 2006 10:37 AM (8e/V4)
2
Won't be long now. I hope Spain's pacifist leader is ready for what is coming their way.
Posted by: Cmunk at June 06, 2006 10:53 AM (7teJ9)
3
Gee who could have seen this one coming ? As for our abhorrence of shaira law, well we seem to have been able to stomach it in Saudi Arabia for some time now even though that is the epicenter of wahabism
Posted by: john ryan at June 06, 2006 11:24 AM (TcoRJ)
4
To defeat the Islamists it is necessary for them to succeed now and then.
Their harsh rule will create local allies for us.
It is not necessary to win every skirmish.
BTW you can bet that OBL has his hands in the mix.
Our most immediate action should be to suspend NGO efforts there. Too much easy food is breeding an army of zombies. A food cut-off would send these boys back to the farm.
Posted by: blert at June 06, 2006 12:15 PM (yyrhf)
5
I got $50.00 says humanitarian aid will be increased to them which in turn can be sold to sustain the sharia enforcers. Coupled with the influx of cash from saudi, they maybe can get some good terrorist training camps going and set their eyes on some real prizes. why enforce sharia law for nothing?? Spread and destablize and go for the Nigerian oil, why mess around? That's what I would do and I wouldn't be at all worried about anyone stopping me either.
Posted by: goesh at June 06, 2006 12:26 PM (1w6Ud)
6
It seems to me that all options are bad, so which is the least worse? All of you make good points, even John Ryan.
Posted by: Macktastick Wicked Numero Uno at June 06, 2006 01:27 PM (JQjhA)
7
I have been giving these issues a great deal of thought, especially after the raids in the U.K and Canada, and I have come up with some *different* conclusions, than previous.
1.) Why should the U.S keep cleaning up countries like Somalia? if they are radicalized, and want Sharia law, then so be it? You cannot put out a fire with Gasoline, all our military interventions are Gasoline. The problem in these countries comes down to the fact there are very few "free thinkers" they follow the Imam's who tell them what to think, it doesn't matter if the Marines were able to operate on a baby, and save it's life -- if that baby is brought up to hate the United States.
2.) Al Qaeda, these new raids tell us something that Bin Laden had hoped: that now like-minded Muslims can form their own terror cells, without foreign assistance, he has emboldened jihadi minded nationals to take on the West, in order to change our way of life.
Al Qaeda used to be a rag-tag bunch of loosely knitted, terrorist groups, now it's a methodology, a methodology that cannot be stamped out abroad, without it being quashed at home. If the U.S keeps bringing in people from countries with large radical presence (Saudi/Iran/Palestine/Algeria/etc) we are going to be infested with the people that wish our downfall -- like the United Kingdom.
It is interesting that taking a job like a Police dispatcher, one is required to take a Polygraph -- why not immigrants, for fun questions like 'are you now, or were you ever part of a \insert radical Muslim group from home country\' 'are Israeli citizens a valid terrorist target?' 'do you ever want to kill infidels?' et, al.
The danger these new raids present, while the MSM sleeps is evident, Muslims do not need a Bin Laden, Muhammed Atta etc to give them instructions, or induction in terrorism -- they're organizing themselves, in their host country, a clean up at home is needed before we take the broom to countries like Somalia.
Posted by: davec at June 06, 2006 02:21 PM (CcXvt)
8
screw 'em.
One well placed nuke = 0 problems.
Posted by: yo at June 06, 2006 04:21 PM (bLhPK)
9
how can you tell they are women?
Posted by: Cindy at June 06, 2006 04:40 PM (HYH6y)
10
>>>Why should the U.S keep cleaning up countries like Somalia?
Because since the end of WW2, America has been fulfilling the function that was envisioned for the U.N. Except we don't get paid dues for it, and we get vilified for our troubles. It's not the U.N. off the coast of Somalia hunting pirates. It's the U.S. Navy. Are we going to get reimbursed for that? A simple "Thank you" would do.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 07, 2006 12:27 AM (8e/V4)
11
And now we'll be innundated with "political exiles" looking for sanctuary and in that mix will be the few who slip through the cracks whose purpose is to organize here. I like davec's idea. Polygraph. Who cares if it's sometimes unreliable? It's reliable enough for national security. If there's any coubt, they don't get in.
Posted by: Oyster at June 07, 2006 04:12 AM (YudAC)
12
Figure out which pile of rubble they're operating from, then bounce said rubble around with some JDAMs. If precision doesn't work, there's always the area effect option of ARCLITEing the place until it's undifferntiated gravel. It's not like they could actually
do anything about it. My sympathy for the Somalis died with Gordon & Shughart...
Posted by: Cybrludite at June 07, 2006 06:21 AM (XFoEH)
13
Let us firmly resolve not to take the refugees here.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2006 06:39 AM (v72Rt)
14
JC: it really doesn't matter because even when the U.S acts as a part of the United Nations, it always gets blamed for the actions, case in point:
Sanctions against Saddam, many children, and adults starved to death -- doesn't matter to the libs that Saddam spent over 11 Billion dollars building palaces in the same period -- who's to blame? why the U.S of course! U.N sanctioned bombings in Yugoslavia -- the American's are to blame!
Of course the U.N will not act, without the U.S taking the brunt of both manpower, and money, and ignore the problems entirely like in Rwanda, and now Sudan -- other countries love using U.S forces as meat shields, so there 200 troops they send actually looks like they're contributing, where is Russia's and China's contribution to peacekeeping forces? of course it doesn't help that both of those countries actually contribute to the instability in these regions, nor do they face sanctions in the U.N for the same.
Oyster: they have a much more reliable tool now than the Polygraph, I am not sure why they are not using it, it looks like a CAT scan image of the Brain, during questioning they can tell if you're accessing the memory portion of the Brain, or the creative side etc.
I don't see it happening however, but it should be a requirement.
Posted by: davec at June 07, 2006 12:56 PM (CcXvt)
15
Cindy: They are not women. They are terrorists hiding their weapons in the name of religion. That's why they insist on wearing the stupid looking garb. Black drug dealers used the same ploy in Miami for years.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2006 07:40 PM (di2KJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 02, 2006
American Among 8 Taken Hostage in Nigeria
Eight Westerners, including one American, working in Nigeria's oil fields have been taken hostage. Unlike other attacks which are usually claimed by the separatist MEND group within hours, this one was not. Whoever is behind the hostage-taking, we demand their immediate and unconditional release.
Reuters:
Gunmen abducted eight foreign workers in a night-time raid on an oil rig off the coast of Nigeria on Friday, raising new security fears after a series of militant attacks that cut output from Africa's top oil producer...
"Some unknown persons boarded the rig at 3 a.m. (0200 GMT) and took eight workers. They are six from the UK, one Canadian and one from the U.S.," said an executive from one of the companies that operate the Bulford Dolphin rig. He denied reports that eight Nigerians were also abducted in the attack.
Hat tip: George.
Posted by: Rusty at
10:20 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.
May 25, 2006
U.S. Backed Forces Fight al Qaeda in Mogadishu
There is a reason the U.S. is supporting a coalition of warlords fighting in Mogadishu. There is little doubt that the Islamist militias fighting for control of Somalia are associated with al Qaeda. This would not be the first time al Qaeda linked forces battled the U.S. in Mogadishu.
As the U.N. begins to fret over the growing violence in Somalia, do not let their equivocations fool you--while both sides may be filled with people who do bad things, at least one side is filled with our SOBs. The other side is led by bin Laden's SOBs (if not bin Laden himself).
Keep your eyes open, this one is getting hot. [Image right: Somalians carry pictures of Osama bin Laden during a 2002 protest against the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan]
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
04:14 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 4 kb.
1
I have an objection, Rusty.
Isn't the "our SOB" syndrome the same thing that has lead to so many headaches during and after the cold war? Ostensibly pro-American power bases are quick to turn on us the moment it becomes convenient for them to do so, even allying with former enemies.
Its also a truth that the fascist or in some cases Islamic regimes that we supported during the cold war all ended up being far more headache than what they prevented. The plain fact of the matter is that the US has nothing to gain from backing tyrants, fascists or Islamists in any corner of the globe. They will all bite us in the ass, one way or the other, in the short or long term.
How about instead of doing the "our SOBs, their SOBs" syndrome, we just kill all the SOBs? At the very least, let Al-Q exaughst themselves on the warlords and then just tangle with whoever comes out on top in that place.
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 04:24 PM (B9sDR)
2
It's a good argument you make, actually. But the same could be said about the Soviet Union in WWII, or any other ally of convenience.
The real question is the extent that the immediate threat outweighs the potential for a future threat. In the case of Somalia, letting it fall into the hand of Islamists who support jihad seems like worst case scenario stuff.
Posted by: Rusty at May 25, 2006 04:33 PM (JQjhA)
3
I guess my point is that we cannot be so concerned about the potential for those we support to abuse power in the future and therefore create more headaches for us in the future that we are paralyzed to inaction in facing an immediate threat.
Posted by: Rusty at May 25, 2006 04:34 PM (JQjhA)
4
Storm last night got my modem on one machine,
Tv, Stove I think is swered too.
Posted by: Howie at May 25, 2006 04:58 PM (D3+20)
5
Rusty, re: The Soviet Union, that is my point exactly. We defeated the Nazis and helped make sure the Soviet Empire survived through WWII with enough military and moral clout to help spread communism throughout the world, kill millions upon millions of people and bring the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation.
Hindsight 20/20 and all that, but here is my point: Helping "our SOB" is just going to create another SOB we need to destroy in the first place. In this particular case, if the warlords are powerful enough to be able to drive out the Muslims with only minor US support, we should just wait for both sides to exaughst each other, move in and set up a stable government to run things ourselves. Its win-win when you let two of your enemies kill each other.
I'm also not one to judge that our alliance with the Soviet Union was at all beneficial to the USA in any examination of what we had to gain vs what we had to lose.
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 05:18 PM (B9sDR)
6
"I guess my point is that we cannot be so concerned about the potential for those we support to abuse power in the future and therefore create more headaches for us in the future that we are paralyzed to inaction in facing an immediate threat."
I never suggested we do not take action. There is merely a time and a place to take it. When our enemies - and make no mistake, a tyrant is an enemy of America, as all tyrants must hate and fear any free country - attack each other, why interrupt them or help one side or the other? If they're so evenly matched that a little push from us lets one side or the other win, why don't instead we just wait for them to nearly destroy each other, move in and mop up the depleted winner and thus have two birds killed with one stone?
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 05:23 PM (B9sDR)
7
I think grey skies would be less time consuming, less agonizing and would be over in a flash!
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 25, 2006 05:34 PM (FCC6c)
8
But isn't that kind of exactly what we let happen in Afghanistan? If we don't know which side will eventually win, can we risk that the bin Ladenist side will gain the advantage? And then WE have to invade, rather than use proxy armies.
Posted by: Rusty at May 25, 2006 05:54 PM (JQjhA)
9
We would have to invade anyway, to clean up our own mess. All those big guns and dictators being in power thanks to the good ol' US of A would just engender feelings of resentment towards anyone who is pro-US and foment violent revolution against us, putting into power someone who is decidedly anti-US in their leanings.
I mean, shoot, backing up tyrants in order to prevent crazy ass enemies of America from taking over?
what could possibly go wrong?
The idea that we can use "proxy armies" to win a war is false. All that will happen is either our "allies" turn out not to be (see the Afghan constitution) or a legitimately pro-US (read: Completely dependent on the US) tyrant gets his ass overthrown and replaced by Osama Bin Laden.
There is no avoiding fighting our own battles ourselves, Rusty. The question is merely whether or not the US has the will to do it. Otherwise we'll be running about the world putting out small fires that we started five years previous until we give up and stop bothering with the rest of the world.
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 06:04 PM (B9sDR)
10
Hmm, your HTML isn't working, looks like. The "what could possibly go wrong" linked to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 06:05 PM (B9sDR)
11
OK so in the picture some people in 2002 are carrying a picture of bin Laden. Now the question is Which side are they now on ? Is there any reason to believe that the warlords that we are supporting now will not be associated with al Queda in the future ? The one thing that Somalians need most is stability, no matter who is in charge.
Posted by: john ryan at May 25, 2006 06:17 PM (TcoRJ)
12
Can I bet on both sides to lose?
Posted by: hondo at May 25, 2006 06:39 PM (DaNq1)
13
DEBKA is not really a source that I would trust without other corroboration. DEBKA makes it seem like Aidid had a well trained group with an up to the minute Command and Control ability to use our secret codes. That is not the impression I got from reading Black-hawk Down. Or my impression of the capabilities of ANY group in Somalia.
Posted by: john ryan at May 25, 2006 06:53 PM (TcoRJ)
14
Hmm, your HTML isn't working, looks like
Um, no. Go back to HTML school.
You can thank me later. Actually, you can thank me now for fixing the link to the anyone can edit what they want accuracy of Wikipedia.
Yeah, john, stability at all costs is what Somalia needs, just like the Taliban's stability, Saddam's stability, the Mullah's stability, Assad's stability, Stalin's stability, Hitler's stability, Mao's stability, Castro's stability.
Posted by: Vinnie at May 25, 2006 06:54 PM (/qy9A)
15
John,
Bin Laden himself claims to have been behind Mogadishu, that's just a quick link I found with Google.
MIB,
The problem is that you are being picky with your examples. You choose examples where no matter what the U.S. did, we were screwed. Also, you mischaracterize Afghanistan. We helped the Afghans defeat the Soviets, and then we completely abandoned them. The Taliban was not formed until 1994, and then only becaue the Pakis supported them.
Posted by: Rusty at May 25, 2006 07:08 PM (JQjhA)
16
I said "See the Afghan constitution" and was referring to the Northern Alliance. You know, the current mess there. Proxy armies just don't work. If you can cite an example where a proxy wars didn't result in long-term headaches for the US, I'd love to see it.
Vinnie: The point was the actual occurance, not the specific text in wikipedia. I guess that one flew over your head while you were busy fixing my html.
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 07:12 PM (B9sDR)
Posted by: Rusty at May 25, 2006 07:27 PM (JQjhA)
18
It's spelled "occurrence."
How about El Salvador?
Posted by: Vinnie at May 25, 2006 07:37 PM (/qy9A)
19
I only hope they all destroy each other. The winners or losers might wish to move here.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 25, 2006 08:10 PM (pzM6K)
20
Jonah Goldberg talks about this every now and then. He uses a device used by IIRC William McKinley. He likened current events and the like to boulders rolling down the road at you. Some boulders will come at you on the right, some down the middle, and some from the left. Some boulders will bound off the road well ahead of you and not be a problem.
Now, what McKinley (and hence Goldberg) said was that your effort to jump out of the way of one boulder could very well put you in the way of another. However, what is the option? Get crushed by the first boulder? No, you jump out of the first boulder's way and then right away you have to deal with another boulder coming at you.
Yeah there is no doubt that supporting bad people to fight badder people now is not an ideal situation but we do not live in an ideal world.
I think many pine for a perfect world. Yes, the Afghani constitution is not a 21st century thing, but it seems many view the fact that the Vagina Monologues is not playing in trendy Kandahar Cafes is a sign of abject failure in Afghanistan. Yes, being in the 12th Century is not ideal but it is progress from their previous 7th Century situation.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at May 25, 2006 08:50 PM (v2l2P)
21
The contras failed, though, Rusty. The Sadinistas lost in elections after the US backed a different political party, iirc, with money to help get their messege out. It doesn't help that the Sadinistas were commies and crashed the country.
So I'm not sure how the "proxy war" succeeded, when the "war" part (the contras) failed and a completely different plan (back the opposition party) succeeded.
Vinnie: El Salvador doesn't seem to be an "our bastards" kind of civil war. They seemd alright, in fact. How were they evil, dictatorial tyrants exactly?
Posted by: MiB at May 25, 2006 09:24 PM (B9sDR)
22
I understand MiB's and Rusty's points as well. But it's not only the US that enters into unholy alliances from time to time. Look at history and the alliance between radical Muslims and the Nazis for instance. Should their alliance have been successful, they would have been forced to duke it out among themselves afterwards. Once their common goals were achieved, the focus would change to their differences. It's just a matter of weighing the odds. Sometimes the immediate danger and other 'unholy alliances' are more important. The only other options are to break every international law of combat or complete isolationism.
Posted by: Oyster at May 26, 2006 05:55 AM (YudAC)
23
I'm cool with breaking every "international law of combat," since trying to make war civilized is the most retarded exercise I can possibly think of.
Posted by: MiB at May 26, 2006 06:27 AM (B9sDR)
24
When the starting point is a government by Al Qaeda's hand-picked stooges, then any first step is good as long as it might lead towards the removal of those particular blood-soaked fanatics. That doesn't mean you can take the first step and then stop. An iterative approach is correct.
Posted by: Pangloss at May 26, 2006 07:15 AM (lk+8t)
25
50 bucks says the black guy beats the black guy, then beats the black guy, then beats the black guy .....
Is Somalia going to be available on PPV?
Posted by: hondo at May 26, 2006 03:05 PM (k/PLS)
26
Well a little late to comment on this but today Monday the Voice of America has a headlined story DOUBTS ARISE OVER PRESENCE OF FOREIGN MUSLIM FIGHTERSIN SOMALIA I am unable to hotlink to the story ,the dread questionable content appeared but anyone interested will be able to locate it on the voice of aamerica site
Posted by: john ryan at May 29, 2006 09:56 AM (TcoRJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 24, 2006
Americans, Nigerians, South Africans Arrested in Congo
(Kinshasa, Congo) In the run up to the July 30 national elections, the Democratic Republic of Congo has arrested 32 foreigners, including 10 Nigerians, three Americans and 12 South Africans, in a suspected coup plot. No names have been disclosed.
From Reuters.co.uk:
"About 30 people claiming to work for a security company have been arrested. They say they were working for the company but our information suggests they had other intentions," government spokesman Henri Mova Sakanyi told Reuters.
"They wanted to destabilise the institutions of the country, that means a coup attempt."
Sakanyi said the group had been arrested a few days ago but did not give any details other than that they worked for security firm.
Apparently, the foreigners are considered mercenaries "as they have all come back from Iraq." It doesn't make sense
to me, but authorities appear to believe that anyone coming from Iraq is a mercenary. As a consequence, Sakanyi said they would be tried in court.
From another source, ANDNetwork.com:
According to the South African diplomatic mission in the DRC, 19 of the 32 mercenary suspects arrested in the Democratic Republic of Congo hold South African passports. Sixteen of the suspects work for the Omega Security Company, while three work for a mining company as interpreters.
There is a discrepancy in reporting of the number of South Africans which remains to be resolved. One report says 12, another says 19.
From WaPo:
The United Nations said it could not confirm Congo's allegations.
"We are not concerned about this, it appears to be a case of political manipulation by Congo's government," said Jean-Tobias Okala, U.N. spokesman in Kinshasa. "We have almost 18,000 troops here to achieve our goal of peaceful and transparent elections."
The upcoming elections are hoped to be the end of internal strife which has endured since 1998 and resulted in the deaths of four million people in a humanitarian crisis. Oddly, the tragedy in the Congo happened concurrent with the presence of UN peacekeepers. A
prudent observer could logically conclude that the UN hasn't been very effective.
From Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
06:02 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 3 kb.
May 12, 2006
Bloody Somalia
(Mogadishu, Somalia) After 15 years without a national government, Somalia is a battlefield. Tribal militias and Islamic fundamentalists, allegedly tied to al-Qaeda, are struggling for control and many people are dying.
From KhaleejTimes.com:
Islamic militiamen and secular fighters battled Wednesday for control of Somalia's capital despite promises of a cease-fire, as the death toll rose to at least 90, with nearly 200 others wounded.
The sounds of heavy weapons echoed through the city, but the fighting was not as intense as it had been in the previous three days. The battle between the Islamic Court Union and the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counterterrorism has centered on the northern neighborhood of Sii-Sii, with neither side gaining an advantage.
Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed of the Islamic Court Union called for a ceasefire, but the tribal militias suspect that it's only because they ran out of ammunition. Both sides have been jockeying for position in anticipation of a major battle for control of Mogadishu. And, sadly, caught in the crossfire and dying are the civilians.
It's worth noting that every time I read of Somalia, I recall Blackhawk Down. I think of how the media plastered breaking news images of starving Somalians in front of the public, day after day, until the politicians were forced to send help. Food was sent and U.S. military units were there to distribute the food in the lawless country. Fighting started and the American forces soon were overwhelmed. Reinforcements were requested, but too little came, too late.
Some of the finest American fighting men ever to have lived died in Mogadishu. Needlessly, I think. And it all began with media reports of starving Somalians.
From Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
08:57 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.
1
IP the next time that you open "Black-hawk Down" you might notice that the main enemy "warlord" in that book Mohammed Farrah Aidid has now become our main ally and recipient of arms and money. He has been REHABILITATED !! He is now part of the Global War on Terror. http://somalinet.com/news/world/English/2532
Posted by: john Ryan at May 12, 2006 09:46 AM (TcoRJ)
2
John, Mohammed Farrah Aidid died several years ago. His organisation was taken over by his son, who was in the US Marine Corps. That may explain the alleged ties with the GWOT.
Posted by: Graeme at May 12, 2006 10:04 AM (QeG/l)
3
Isn't it nice to know that tens of thousands of Somalis were admitted as "refugees" to the United States after "Blackhawk Down"? Isn't it nice to know that all of them are fanatical Muslims? Isn't it nice to know that large sections of some cities (e.g., Minneapolis and Mankato, Minnseota) are now controlled by violent Somalis who regularly attack any infidels that they may encounter? Isn't it nice to know that the police will not protect said infidels, instead engaging in "outreach" programs with the Somali adherents of the Religion of Peace?
Allahu akbar, you fools.
Posted by: Minnesota Fats at May 12, 2006 12:51 PM (+YE56)
4
The time is coming when we'll scourge these scum from our country.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 12, 2006 01:28 PM (0yYS2)
5
haha your little "same but different" speel backfired this time John, why not compare the fact they're two black men, and black people died in Hurricane Katrina's wake.
You really are a clown.
Posted by: davec at May 12, 2006 08:37 PM (CcXvt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 10, 2006
Islamists Kill 13 Algerian Customs Officials
(Algiers, Algeria) Sources indicate that a convoy of Algerian customs officials was attacked by Islamist militants in the southern part of the country.
From Middle-East-Online.com:
Thirteen Algerian customs officials were killed (pic) and eight others injured Friday when their convoy was ambushed south of Algiers, security sources and the Algerian news agency APS reported.
A security source said the convoy of about 12 four-wheel-drive vehicles came under rocket attack by Islamist militants around 8:00 am (0700 GMT) at Ouardhia on a Saharan road to In Salah.
more...
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
01:31 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 391 words, total size 3 kb.
1
One thing left out - the Customs officials - well - they were muslim too (unless they were Chinese contract workers). So much for muslim brotherhood and peace.
Without oil - who would really give a fuck about these people - 'cept to sell bullets to - to kill other muslims of course - to bring about the united islamic world of peace.
Posted by: hondo at April 10, 2006 05:18 PM (4mgfY)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 29, 2006
Why We Should Be Sad Charles Taylor Will be Brought to Justice?
Yes he's a war-criminal, but here is the final word on Charles Taylor:
Yes, certain do-gooding goo-goos can cheer that "justice is being served," but if this becomes common proactice, how many hundreds of thousands will die needlessly because dictators understand that the deals they are being offered aren't worth the spit they will be signed with?
Indeed.
Posted by: Rusty at
03:14 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Rusty
Will be?????? I will be it when I see it - until then, let the UN, African Union, International Communiity show go on.
Taylor is scum - screw him - but let's let the above parties make a fool of themselves once again.
Posted by: hondo at March 29, 2006 05:08 PM (StM4D)
2
Wow! Mr. President of Nigeria Kudos!. How quickly your men got the job done. I wonder how this would have played out if the White House had not threatened to call off the scheduled summit! In a way, yes Mr. President you are 'vindicated' but only probably because the 'snob' from Big Brother Sam's officer would have been too high a price to pay for letting a mass murderer escape apprehension. Maybe a Charles Taylor in handcuffs and put behind bars will show the rest of us that no matter how much we may think of ourselves, we are still only human and the final word truly lies not in our hands or even in the hands of our spiritual advisors. The Almighty truly rules in the affairs of men... He can bring down the high and mighty anytime...
Posted by: esinu at March 29, 2006 07:58 PM (JylYt)
3
I live in the USA and have kept abrest of the Charles Taylor story. My Problem with the way this matter is being handled is I do not understand how this man will ever get a fair trial in Sierra Leone. I believe that the UN should take possession of this man and move him to a democratic country that has existed for many years and not one of these phoney proped up so called democracies. I would suggest that he be taken to the Hague and tried there or a special Un court in France or Sweden or Holland. Then I would believe that he would have a chance of getting a fair trial. Also, they have taken the funds that he had with him and those funds belong to him and should be placed in a special imprest account where he can hire the council or attorneys of his choice to defend him and have the funds to pay them. We must remember that many of the leaders of African nations came into power by way of the death of thousands. Charles Taylor is not the only "Warlord" who came into power of a country by way of the death of tens of thousands of innocent people. Look right now how many people, innocent children and women, not counting the men, are killed each day in some effort of some individual that wants to become the ruler of his country no matter what he has to do to take control. The whole world must get involved in every place where these awful murders of all these innocent people is occuring and we must come to a resolution that allows people to live in peace and safety and able to support and feed there families.
Posted by: Leonard Jeter at March 30, 2006 12:03 AM (D0Mrg)
4
Send him to the Hague? So he can die of old age before conclusion of the trial?
Posted by: Oyster at March 30, 2006 05:48 AM (YudAC)
5
I hope he gets some good old fashioned African justice, i.e., a burning tire around the neck.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 30, 2006 06:46 AM (0yYS2)
6
Improbulus Maximus, I think that may be the Haitian custom of "necklacing" that is so popular with Papa Doc, Baby Doc, Ton Ton Macoute(sp?) and Aristide's crew. It'd be much more entertaining if they'd put him and LRA's Joseph Kony in a Deathmatch, fighting to the death with sporks.
Then again, I may be wrong about the car tire thing. Libs won't support it, releasing all that foulness into the air, oh yeah, the smoke can get pretty nasty too.
'Pick
Posted by: icepick at March 30, 2006 08:46 PM (/QwmR)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 02, 2006
Rebel Leader in Nigeria Not Buddhist Monk, Big Fan of Osama bin Laden
How can I ever thank da Oyster enough for pointing out this article. Every single article I've seen about the Ijaw rebels who have recently begun attacking oil platforms in the Niger delta is careful to make the point that the Ijaw people are generally Christians or animists. It's true. They are.
So, when Ijaw rebels begin to take hostages, we are to draw the conclusion that since most Ijaw are Christians or animists then the group responsible for the kidnappings must also be composed of Christians and animists. Except that mostly doesn't count in this case:
If the rising cost of the world's oil can be blamed on any one man, a portly African militia leader with a poster of Osama bin Laden glowering from his wall is the most likely culprit.
Al-Haji Mujahid Dokubo Asari, the leader of a motley collection of gunmen styling themselves the Niger Delta People's Volunteer Force, managed to push the world oil price above $50 a barrel last year....
"Our struggle is like those in Chechnya, Kosovo, Palestine and South Africa. That is how we are going to fight. We are not going to just sit down. We are capable of defending ourselves."
Mr Asari, 40, who shuns military fatigues and sports a trilby and a silver-topped cane, is an unabashed admirer of bin Laden. Songs praising his "gallantry" echo from a stereo in his spacious home in Port Harcourt, the Delta's largest city.
Yup. Those pesky Christians and animists are the most likely culprit behind the string of attacks on oil platforms, the series of hostage takings, and the rise in world oil prices. FYI-
Haj is a name taken by Muslims who have made the trip to the infidel-free city of Mecca.
Posted by: Rusty at
09:27 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Oh yes that leader is a big fan of Osama bin Laden But he is not the leader of the group that recently kidnapped and then released the hostages. The charming man in the photo says that his group is the NIGER DELTA PEOPLE'S VOLUNTEER FORCE. Hawkins and the other workers were seized by militants from the MOVEMENT FOR THE EMANCIPATION OF THE NIGER DELTA I do not have much to offer in the way of info on them other than that one of their important stated goals is the release from jail of Diepreye SOLOMON PETER Alamieyesesigha. He was governor of the mainly christian state of Bayelsa in southern Nigeria and is most famous for having slipped out of Britain dressed as a woman while charged with monetary offenses. (Wikipedia)
Posted by: john ryan at March 02, 2006 09:46 AM (TcoRJ)
2
of course I would be willing to admit that the man identified in the photo does have a passing resemblance towards some of the later depictions of reincarnations of buddha, what with his big belly and jovial demeanor.
Posted by: john ryan at March 02, 2006 09:52 AM (TcoRJ)
3
Dayumn. How about some linky, linky??
Posted by: Rusty at March 02, 2006 10:02 AM (JQjhA)
4
The leader of the Niger Delta Peoples' Volunteer Force, Alhaji Dokubo Asari, converted to Islam from Christianity. His tribe, the Ijaw tribe, is one-percent Muslim.[1]
---------
[1]Our Links With Biafra, 20 Sep 2004. All Africa dot com (see comment link)
Posted by: Mark James at March 02, 2006 10:11 AM (3XwHO)
5
well I will post the links in a minute but my trail went from CNN to wikkipedia.
Posted by: john ryan at March 02, 2006 10:20 AM (TcoRJ)
6
A lot of times these groups are 'related', if you know what I mean. There can be a larger umbrella group, with specific cells going by different names. It's common in Iraq, but I don't know enough about Nigeria to know if this is the case here.
Posted by: Rusty at March 02, 2006 10:27 AM (JQjhA)
7
Well I think it is a lot like in Iraq also. I do not see a lot of co-operation amongst the groups taking part in the insurgency. The people of southern Nigeria do not receive the benefits of the oil taken from there. The money all seems to go to the muslims in the north. Just like the Kurds deserve their own government so do the people of the south of Nigeria. Oil makes for strange bed companions "We the People" must really watch out for with whom our govenment chooses to sleep.
Posted by: john ryan at March 02, 2006 11:10 AM (TcoRJ)
8
MOVEMENT FOR THE EMANCIPATION OF THE NIGER DELTA is an amalgam of numerous guerrilla groups. NIGER DELTA PEOPLE'S VOLUNTEER FORCE is one of several groups that come under MEND's umbrella receiving support and funding.
Posted by: Oyster at March 02, 2006 11:54 AM (zCI3+)
9
Or it's the other way around. I read it somewhere several weeks ago. I'll look for the source.
Posted by: Oyster at March 02, 2006 11:57 AM (zCI3+)
10
Here's the paragraph I was looking for:
"The statement signed by one Cynthia Whyte on behalf of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) said: "On behalf of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) and after due deliberations facilitated by the Ijaw Institute of Strategic Studies (Ijaw ISS) and with the supreme consent and guidance of the Supreme Leader of the Niger Delta People's Volunteer Force, Alhaji Mujahid Dokubo-Asari, I Cynthia Whyte, hereby announce that the four hostages will be released any time in the next few hours to the government of Bayelsa State."
http://ijaw-iss.com/html/news_letters.html
Posted by: Oyster at March 02, 2006 12:09 PM (zCI3+)
11
Any links to this Oyster ? I am a bit sceptical that they, MEND, share the $$$$ that they receive in ransoms. http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=14670 In this link to International Security Network MEND is discribed as "a previously unknown group" Using google I can not find anything about them as an umbrella group or really anything about them before Jan 2006. I have also tried to place some other links I found using a simple google querry but rejected for "questionable content"
Posted by: john ryan at March 02, 2006 12:13 PM (TcoRJ)
12
Just to think most of this Bin Laden memorabilia is created, and distributed by our GWOT alley, Pakistan.
There isn't anything vile enough to make they don't sell: including cigarette lighters cast in the form of the World Trace Center, as you depress the igniter the flame comes from the towers - to Bin Laden T-shirts etc.
Just don't make a image of their "Prophet"!!!
Posted by: dave at March 02, 2006 12:23 PM (CcXvt)
13
I didn't say specifically that they share $$$ from ransoms. But they do in fact work together and I'll also now try to find the link that discusses the funding part.
You're trying way too hard to pin this on a Christian group. The point is, there may or may not be Christians scattered withn these various guerilla groups, but they're not who run it.
Or maybe I'll just leave you to fend for yourself with your query skills. Because I'm finding scads of stuff.
Posted by: Oyster at March 02, 2006 12:23 PM (zCI3+)
14
No Oyster I am not trying to "pin it on" the christians. This is taking place in the south where they are by far the majority. Quite frankly I would like to see the "christians" win their rights, just as I would like to see the muslim Kurds have there rights. In fact I would like to see the USA support these (christian) groups in the south. But also trying to pin it on the muslims is well, silly. After plowing theu the ISi document, tedious reading, I also came across their reference of "giving to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar" it does seem to reinforce my personal belief that these are mostly christians. I find some difficulty in believing that a muslim spokesperson would be a woman quoteing from the bible.
Posted by: john ryan at March 02, 2006 01:18 PM (TcoRJ)
15
Have you tried to google her name? Have you done much research at all on names of people associated with these groups? You question that Cynthia Whyte says,
"...give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar," and that it sounds like something a Christian would say.
Would this be the same Cynthia Whyte, a "Martyrs Brigade" leader in Nigeria?
here
I knew a Muslim girl in Vermont years ago named Frances Bugg. I understand your reasoning, John, but things are not always what they seem. And it would do us all some good to not take what
"seems to be" as irrefutable or even likely these days. Muslims are not adverse to using verses from the Christian bible. In fact Muhammed used all manner of stories from the Old Testament and the Talmud in the Koran. He just bastardized the stories to fit his whims. An it's not unusual for women to hold high positions like hers in Islam. There are many women in Iran (yes, Iran, where women are generally considered chattel) who hold such positions and are every bit as warped as the men.
Posted by: Oyster at March 02, 2006 04:34 PM (zCI3+)
16
i get the feeling I'm being avoided.
Posted by: Oyster at March 02, 2006 07:02 PM (YudAC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 01, 2006
Al Qaeda Back in Sudan
I'm *shocked*, *shocked* I tells ya! Al Qaeda warns UN not to send peacekeepers into Darfur.
Posted by: Rusty at
03:35 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Radical Islam is spreading its tentacles everywhere, and murder, slavery(yes, I said slavery), looting and death always follow the jihad. If you want to see the jihad in slow motion, all you have to do is observe what is happening in Darfur and Nigeria.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 01, 2006 03:56 PM (rUyw4)
2
LOL! like Al-Qaeda had to worry about the U.N sending in peacekeepers, without their "meat shields" the U.S and the U.K putting up the brunt of the money/equipment/forces it won't happen, you have to have their huge resources so Germany/France/et al can send in their 50-300 peacekeepers.
Posted by: dave at March 01, 2006 03:58 PM (CcXvt)
3
SHOCKING!
Ha Ha Ha Ha
Well, I guess that puts the kabash on the enlightened progressive international all caring world community ever stepping foot in the region regardless whatever the Sudanese (sorry - uncontrolled local tribal elements)do in the Dafur or South.
When the dying becomes loud and sufficent enough to draw the eager attention of the MSM here and in the West - I fully expect the pleas for the US to "do something!", "take the Leadership" ....
I only hope Bush Jr can be stronger than his father (ala Somalia) and resist.
Posted by: hondo at March 01, 2006 04:03 PM (fyKFC)
4
Nice to see that showing solidarity with Palestinians year after year (because as well all know, terrorism is just a response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) and millions in UN financial aid to questionable islamic causes is really paying off for them. Yesiree.
Posted by: Graeme at March 01, 2006 04:14 PM (r9AIt)
5
The ome million barrel per day oil production of Sudan is exported thru ONE pipeline. If the USA really wanted to make Khartoum behave it would not take much of an efffort to do so. But since thaey are an acknowledged "ally" in the GWT we give them some slack...... on genocide.
Posted by: john ryan at March 01, 2006 06:04 PM (TcoRJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 28, 2006
Islam Threatening Christians in Africa: Freedom for Thee, but not for Me
Be on the lookout for creeping facscism in Africa. Two questions: How is it that the traditional interpretation of Islamic law is now somehow 'fanatical'? Why is it that so few seem to realize that 'freedom of religion' in Islam means its Orwellian opposite?
Incidentally, if a 'moderate' Islamists wishes only to impose a lesser penalty on apostates--say, a fine--it's still religious fascism.
CBN News:
"It is our duty to spread Islam, and to especially try to convince the Christians to change their faith,” Hamdan said. “A man has the right to choose his religion, but once he is a Muslim, then he has lost that right. If he changes, under the laws of Sharia, he should be put to death.”
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
12:48 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.
1
It's my contention that the only difference between "extreme" and "moderate" Moslems is how harshly they do/would treat non-Moslems when they dominate a society.
Posted by: Oceanguy at February 28, 2006 01:51 PM (fA7Rx)
2
Agreed. We should be aware that there are many Muslims in America, though, who are 'liberal' and secular in their political outlook.
Posted by: Rusty at February 28, 2006 02:11 PM (JQjhA)
3
Actions like these actually work to our advantage. Lost in the haze is the fact that islam (al 1.2B of them apx) is effectively alienating and pissing off a very significant portion of the remaining 6B.
Perception and opinion of islam globally amongst ordinary people on the street is not good.
Posted by: hondo at February 28, 2006 02:45 PM (fyKFC)
4
Related . . .
Poland is actively exposing the threat to Christians with their "Martyrs of Our Time" Ad Campaign.
Gateway Pundit is running the story with images of some of the posters and links to more. http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/poland-introduces-martyrs-of-our-time.html
Would like to see a similar exposition in english here in the USA.
Posted by: heroyalwhyness at February 28, 2006 03:45 PM (XU9K/)
5
I no longer think any Muslims can be trusted. Once they get their numbers up, they start placing the flag of Islam on buildings like the White house.
Posted by: Leatherneck at February 28, 2006 05:58 PM (D2g/j)
6
As Rusty said, some Mulsims in america are "liberal" and secular in their political outlook, but ...(you knew there was a but) These are not the people I worry about living with. It's who they vote for that worries me.
Posted by: Oyster at February 28, 2006 08:02 PM (YudAC)
7
You can take a "liberal" muslim and a buck, and that'll getcha a cup of coffee but nothing more. I know and have known "nice" muslims, most of whom I don't doubt wouldn't hurt a fly, but they are the society among whom psychopathic murderers are bred, raised, sheltered, and trained to kill us, therefore, they are all my enemies until such time as they choose not to allow those among who are prone to cause trouble do so.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 28, 2006 08:42 PM (0yYS2)
8
In extendum, I would like to ask everyone to contemplate how they would have liked it had they been alive during WW2, and the German and Japanese had been allowed to have political propaganda and military recruiting centers in America. Having mosques and muslims among us is the same as having an SS recruiting and training center, with lots of Nazi's running around inside, planning to kill and maim. Let me 'splain you slowly; islam is the new Nazism, and muslims are the new Nazi's. They are not our friends. They are not our allies. They are our enemies, and they and all their allies among the left must be treated as such.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 01, 2006 05:45 AM (0yYS2)
9
mosques are recruitment centres... buddy, if that is the case i would suggest you walk up to the mosque nearest your place. bet you have never seen the inside of one. but do sit through a service. or better yet visit on a friday afternoon when the imam makes the his weekly sermon. the least you could do would be to keep an eye on your neighborhood muslims. dont let them scare you and good luck, i think you will be surprised.
Posted by: khany at March 01, 2006 10:44 AM (bk+q7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 18, 2006
Muslims Riot Over Cartoons: 15 Dead, 11 Christian Churches Burnt in Nigeria
When Northern Nigeria became an Islamic state-within-a-state, it was supposed to become a peaceful utopia....Kristallnacht in Nigeria against Christians: 15 dead, 11 churches razed. ROPMA.
Posted by: Rusty at
04:30 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Where is the Christian outrage? Not one word....
Especially from Christians who push DIVESTMENT from Israel... These Christians do not give a rat's ass about freedom or persecuted people. This is why Hitler was so successful for so long. Christians do not give a crap, and Jews are so naive that they think everything will be ok in the end....real brilliance!
If Islam is not eradicated-entirely-Islam will eradicate everyone else.
Posted by: Steve Sharon at February 18, 2006 04:41 PM (dbpS1)
2
Damn straight Steve. It's them or us, and for my part, it's damn sure not going to be us.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 18, 2006 04:47 PM (0yYS2)
3
11 churches hmmmm. that is the same number as were recently burned in Alabama.
Posted by: john ryan at February 18, 2006 04:59 PM (TcoRJ)
4
Dude,
11 churches burned in a RIOT over CARTOONS in a single DAY. Who's to say the SEVEN churches burned in Alabama weren't burned by ROPers who were pissed over same thing?
Posted by: Rusty at February 18, 2006 05:28 PM (JQjhA)
5
Muslims, despite all the years they have been supposedly trying and despite billions in oil wealth have been unable to create ONE utopic islamic society. Turning dozens of islamic countries into one utopic islamic country is just not possible and all the blame lies with themselves.
Posted by: Graeme at February 18, 2006 05:57 PM (6TH8d)
6
john
No clue as to what your point is supposed to be - but I finally realized why you are rarely if ever subjected to some of the more hostile (and occasionally vile) attacks a few here on the right sometimes launch into against other liberal/leftists. Curious?
Posted by: hondo at February 18, 2006 06:01 PM (fyKFC)
7
Graeme, I been preaching about that same subject ever since I saw the photos Michael Totten took in Kurdistan over the past few days. The Kurdish leaders have a vision for their people, a vision to make things better and become a part of the civilized world.
And there is no reason the Arabs could not have a paradise in the Middle East. They have the money, the people, but not the mental capacity. Why?
It is because of radical Islam. The religion, as it is now being practiced in the ME, is full of hate and bile spewed at a small nation insignificant in comparison to the Arab nations. Dictators, poverty, hate and ignorance reign supreme. Paradise lost, indeed!
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 18, 2006 07:21 PM (rUyw4)
8
I think we can drop the "radical" label in front of the word "Islam" -- it's already implied JJ
Posted by: dave at February 18, 2006 08:24 PM (CcXvt)
9
Radical is to
islam, as
virulent is to
plague.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 19, 2006 07:12 AM (0yYS2)
10
Just to tell you that Christians in Nigeria launched reprisal attacks against the muslims .
More than 30 muslims were killed. Christians in Nigeria fight back.
All these events are regrettable
Posted by: joe at February 22, 2006 10:45 AM (esXWj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 23, 2006
Amnesty International Workers Detained in (of all places) Sudan
This can't be the same Sudan that is on the United Nation's High Commission on Human Rights? That's some other Sudan, right? Because the savior of the world, the U.N., would never allow one of the worst violators of human rights in the world to help police human rights violations. That's simply not possible.Amnesty International:
At 5:55 pm local time yesterday, security forces in plain clothes entered the building where the NGO Forum was being held. The security forces -- their number varying from six to 15 during the occurrence -- ordered all delegates to switch off their mobile phones. They said that the meeting was "unauthorized" and demanded the names of all participants. Participants, numbering approximately forty, were ordered to hand over all documents and laptops. Some resisted; the security forces forced upon their bags. Some small scuffles broke out. At this point more security forces entered and surrounded the room. Still and digital photographs, along with recorded video, were taken of all the participants. Some participants were pushed, threatened, and told "you better do what we say or you will face problems later". There were repeated demands to participants to hand over their belongings.
Security forces attempted to divide the participants into international and national groups. Attempts were also made to separate women from men. Many refused both requests.
Charming.
Before we begin oppressing you, you will be happy to know that you will be gender segregated.
Posted by: Rusty at
11:02 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Damn George Bush, damn Karl Rove, and damn Halliburton too!
Seriously, I can't wait to see how the leftards pin this on everyone from Ronald Regan to Pat Robertson.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 23, 2006 11:08 AM (0yYS2)
2
Don't forget, treatment at Guantanamo is far, far worse.
Posted by: Graeme at January 23, 2006 11:18 AM (j0Fnw)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 23, 2006 12:07 PM (0yYS2)
4
I have no idea why any sane person would go willingly to the Sudan.
Posted by: tee bee at January 23, 2006 12:17 PM (q1JHF)
5
Sudan is a "valuable member in the War on Terror". The oft sited offer of handing over Osama bin Laden was an early example of their cooperation. Certainly on that basis alone some alleged mistreatment of Amnesty International and the long standing ummm unpleasantness in Darfur should be overlooked.
Posted by: john Ryan at January 23, 2006 12:38 PM (TcoRJ)
6
And you're surprised that Sudan is chairing the Human Rights Commission? What's funny (okay - not funny) is that when the war started in Iraq, Lybia was slated to take the human rights chair and Iraq was to chair the disarmament committee.
Posted by: Oyster at January 23, 2006 03:42 PM (osKlJ)
7
Ya know, at times like this I would trot out the old chestnut about foxes and henhouses, but it would just be trite.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 23, 2006 04:00 PM (0yYS2)
8
I've no desire or interest in getting involved with anything Sudan - Im pulling an actus on this one.
If the Lib/Left or any human rights group wants to involve themselves - then form up your own "Lincoln Brigades" like the '30s and march off to righteous glory.
They can start recruiting at their local Universities - I might even donate 20 bucks and some old Army Training Manuals.
Suspect big problem would be that any leftists interested, will all want to be Colonels and Generals and argue over the color of their berets.
Biggest problem however is that none would be interested in getting their hands dirty - when there is a perfectly good rally nearby with a cute cafe available across the street for later gatherings of righteous indignation and lattes.
Posted by: hondo at January 23, 2006 04:06 PM (3aakz)
9
Yep, hondo, I can see it now, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King brigade. Volunteers are needed from the Left to go to the Sudan and clean the mess up. I can just imagine the number of volunteers. None.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 23, 2006 05:25 PM (rUyw4)
10
JJ
Be honest! They will probably get a few naive fools probably believing THEIR PRESENSE as human shields between the Sudanese and the oppressed with ALTER THE COURSE OF HUMAN HISTORY.
Once the Sudanese stop laughing, it may dawn on them that their target practice.
Posted by: hondo at January 23, 2006 05:41 PM (3aakz)
11
Inquiry to Lead at Headliner Search just moments ago re: Sudan, "Jeopardy@Iraq"
Posted by: Cheryl@StateInterests at January 23, 2006 05:50 PM (zta0g)
12
Inquiry to Lead at Headliner Search just moments ago re: Sudan, "Jeopardy@Iraq"
Posted by: Cheryl@StateInterests at January 23, 2006 05:51 PM (zta0g)
13
Inquiry to Lead at Headliner Search just moments ago re: Sudan, "Jeopardy@Iraq"
Posted by: Cheryl@StateInterests at January 23, 2006 05:51 PM (zta0g)
14
Uh, Cheryl...
What?
What?
and,
What?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 23, 2006 09:49 PM (0yYS2)
15
I just can't understand why Karl Rove would dare say that some people around here are still thinking in a pre-September 11th fashion. I just don't get it.
Why can't I go to Sudan and everything be happy, fuzzy, and warm?
Posted by: Dr. Zubov at January 24, 2006 12:46 PM (zrSt3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 17, 2006
American Hostage in Nigeria Identified
An American oil worker taken hostage by Nigerian terrorists claiming to be part of the Movement for Emancipation of Niger Delta has been identified as Patrick Landry. Three others were taken hostage. They are: Briton Nigel Watson-Clark, Honduran Harry Ebanks, and Bulgarian Milko Nichev.
As I speculated earlier, the terror organization is part of a larger Ijaw rebellion. Although Nigeria is dominated by Muslims, the ethnic Ijaw minority are mainly Christian and have been complaining for decades about corruption, mismanagement, and mistreatment by the central government. Whatever the misdeeds of the Nigerian government, taking hostages is NEVER a legitimate avenue of political protest.
Melbourne Herald Sun:
SEPARATIST rebels in Nigeria are close to achieving their aim of paralysing oil production in the Niger delta, after a series of attacks and kidnappings.
Yesterday four foreign oil workers kidnapped by militants spoke to the media by phone on their sixth day in captivity.
They read their captors' demands, including a 48-hour deadline, and warned the military against attempting rescue.
The kidnappers have staged a series of attacks on oil pipelines, platforms and workers over the past three weeks, denting supply from the world's eighth largest exporter and driving up world prices...
"I'd like to contact my family and let them know that I am all right and everything with us is good," said a man who identified himself as Harry Ebanks from Honduras. "The only thing (is) the environment is not good with us because there is a lot of mosquitoes and it is dangerous for us."
The Briton, who identified himself as Nigel Watson-Clark, read a list of five demands by the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta.
"The Nigerian Government should not make any military intervention," he said. "They should not make any attempt to rescue us as it has been made clear that it may result in the loss of our lives."
A man identifying himself as Patrick Landry, a US citizen, said: "This climate in the conditions we're in is not conducive to us, especially as I am an older man and my health is not good.
"I'd like y'all to contact my family and let them know that I'm all right, these people are treating me good, but the climate is not what it should be." ...
The group demands local control of the delta's oil, payment of $1.5 billion by Royal Dutch Shell to the Bayelsa state government to compensate for pollution, and the release of three men including two ethnic Ijaw leaders.
"If the Nigerian Government does not meet these demands in 48 hours, whatever happens is in their own doing," the British hostage said.
Posted by: Rusty at
08:40 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I'm not suprised by this attack in the slightest. NIgeria is the worlds 8th largest exporter of oil and the vast majority of their population lives on less than a dollar a day. This should not be tolerated. I don't know if kidnapping is the best way to meet the demands of the rebels but I do think that the rebels have some very legit complains about polution, lack of opportunites, religious constrain, as well as having an unfair and racist power structure. If you sufficate and exploit a population for long enough they will find a way to rebel against your authority by any means necessary.
Posted by: Brian at February 04, 2006 03:44 PM (1svsG)
2
nigeria isnt a scure country yet but government try to do as well as can do for being better but looks like some peaple is tring to bieng with them laws
and do not trying to be with country i dont know who exacly they are but they are never want to be with government they are just doing as they law got them to do and i dont think they are bieng muslim or no be so differnt to them and they want money in this rush time
Posted by: sajad at March 06, 2006 06:05 PM (KFpCS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 12, 2006
American Taken Hostage in Nigeria
Probably victims of Ijaw extremists (who are animists and Christians), but there is a growing Islamist movement in Nigeria as well with its accompanying violence. Nigeria is proof that oil has a terrible track record at making nations wealthy.
UPDATE: Regular commenter Jesusland Joe informs me that his cousin works for Shell in Nigeria. If any one learns of the name of the hostage, please e-mail me. We pray that this hostage will be released unharmed. UPDATE II: Jesusland Joe has confirmed his cousin is o.k.
Washington Post:
Gunmen stormed an offshore oil platform run by Royal Dutch Shell in Nigeria and kidnapped four foreign workers, including an American, while apparent sabotage ruptured a pipeline at a facility processing 106,000 barrels of crude daily, officials said Thursday.
Gunmen in three boats seized the workers from a support vessel attached to the oil platform Wednesday, Shell spokesman Andy Corrigan said in London.
Military spokesman Maj. Said Hameed said the four included an American, a Bulgarian, a Briton and a Honduran, and "efforts are being made to secure their release."
In a separate incident, a major pipeline feeding Shell's Forcados oil export terminal ruptured overnight at Brass Creek, forcing the company to stop production of 106,000 barrels of oil daily, Shell said.
A Shell spokesman in Lagos said the pipeline exploded, though details were sketchy. In December, a major Shell pipeline was blown up by unknown attackers, forcing the company to shut down large volumes of crude oil.
Posted by: Rusty at
04:55 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.
1
My cousin works for Shell and he is in Nigeria. Does anyone know the name of the American who was kidnapped?
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 12, 2006 04:59 PM (rUyw4)
2
No name yet. E-mail me if you hear anything and I'll run it by you first if I get a name. We'll keep our fingers crossed.
Posted by: Rusty at January 12, 2006 05:08 PM (JQjhA)
3
Rusty, I just talked to my aunt. She has talked to my cousin, and he is not the American who was kidnapped. However, pray for the hostage and his family, as they will be having a tough time.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 12, 2006 05:51 PM (rUyw4)
4
Doesn't look as though there is anything new this morning. Some of the littoral states in the Niger Delta are said to be negotiating with the suspected kidnappers in an effort to secure the release of the hostages. But officially, there has been no contact with the hostages nor with their captors:
http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/news/article03
Posted by: Tim at January 13, 2006 07:18 AM (5rYy9)
5
Reuters says the hostages are being held on a vessel at sea and that a team has been sent to negotiate their release.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L13286513.htm
Posted by: Tim at January 13, 2006 08:15 AM (5rYy9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 10, 2006
Arab Women Praise Ethnic Cleansing, Mass Rape, in Sudan
Sick. Disgusting. Disheartening.
While African women in Darfur were being raped by the Janjaweed militiamen, Arab women stood nearby and sang for joy, according to an Amnesty International report published yesterday. The songs of the Hakama, or the "Janjaweed women" as the refugees call them, encouraged the atrocities committed by the militiamen. The women singers stirred up racial hatred against black civilians during attacks on villages in Darfur and celebrated the humiliation of their enemies, the human rights group said....
During an attack on the village of Disa in June last year, Arab women accompanied the attackers and sang songs praising the government and scorning the black villagers.
According to an African chief quoted in the report, the singers said: "The blood of the blacks runs like water, we take their goods and we chase them from our area and our cattle will be in their land. The power of [Sudanese president Omer Hassan] al-Bashir belongs to the Arabs and we will kill you until the end, you blacks, we have killed your God." ...
The Janjaweed have abducted women for use as sex slaves, in some cases breaking their limbs to prevent them escaping, as well as carrying out rapes in their home villages, the report said.
Hat tip:
Ace's biyatch and future Jawapundit, Allah, with more commentary from Ace here.
Posted by: Rusty at
01:15 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Once again: Arabs are primitive savages and should just be exterminated.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 10, 2006 01:41 PM (0yYS2)
2
Just for the record, that Amnesty report is more than a year old:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1264901,00.html
Posted by: Eugene at January 10, 2006 01:44 PM (byXhQ)
3
Good catch Eugene. It's interesting how long it takes for some of this to hit the MSM or how much of it recirculates after lengthy periods.
Posted by: Rusty at January 10, 2006 02:03 PM (JQjhA)
4
We all know that the MSM only pops it's head up to do something when it helps their agenda. For the record, the MSM still hasn't picked up on this story and won't.
Posted by: Drew at January 10, 2006 02:53 PM (Zs4Wk)
5
Savage is the word that comes to my mind after reading about these people. The World really hasn't changed much at all since the 1500's, the only progress has been in the West and parts of the Far East. Depressing!
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 10, 2006 03:50 PM (rUyw4)
6
The Janjaweed are animals. Period.
Posted by: RepJ at January 10, 2006 04:12 PM (IaYgg)
7
That's really, really shocking :
Volume 1, Book 11, Number 662:
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet said, "Listen and obey (your chief) even if an Ethiopian whose head is like a raisin were made your chief."
Ishaq:243 "I heard the Apostle say: 'Whoever wants to see Satan should look at Nabtal!' He was a black man with long flowing hair, inflamed eyes, and dark ruddy cheeks…. Allah sent down concerning him: 'To those who annoy the Prophet there is a painful doom." [9:61] "Gabriel came to Muhammad and said, 'If a black man comes to you his heart is more gross than a donkey's.'"
Ishaq:144 "A rock was put on a slave's chest. When Abu Bakr complained, they said, 'You are the one who corrupted him, so save him from his plight.' I will do so,' said Bakr. 'I have a black slave, tougher and stronger than Bilal, who is a heathen. I will exchange him. The transaction was carried out."
Posted by: dave at January 10, 2006 04:45 PM (CcXvt)
8
The MSM did pick it up - when it was reported last July.
This story is not new.
Posted by: Eugene at January 10, 2006 05:56 PM (WegFO)
9
They must have buried it on the back page, Eugene. And I don't read the Guardian.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 10, 2006 06:02 PM (rUyw4)
10
The world doesn't care about Sudan, it was long forgotton by the leftists and anti americans protesting for peace and against the odd injustice against some terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan.
As we all know, they don't give a crap about peace and justice, as long they can all get together and have a good whine about America, that's it.
Posted by: MathewK at January 10, 2006 07:35 PM (pVHqF)
11
Its nice to see Muslim women getting involved in affairs of state - its almost "progressive" in a bizzaro kinda way.
Posted by: hondo at January 11, 2006 09:57 AM (3aakz)
12
I have a book called "The Damned Die Hard", it's about the French Foreign Legion. In once chapter it speaks of the North African campaigns, and how legionnaires learned to save their last bullet for themselves, because the arab women would skin them alive and use tear their genetals off with their bare hands. Arabs are nothing but primitive savages and should be exterminated.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 13, 2006 09:47 AM (0yYS2)
13
Nice “little dick” theory Improbulus Maximus. You have got a way with words. Your little dick, lack of overall intelligence, and respect for humanity. I have a question for you…. Were you abused by a Muslim when you were a child???…. Let me know little dick!
Posted by: Straight White Man at January 15, 2006 12:05 PM (p9OTP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 09, 2005
Spain Nabs Seven Bad Guys
Spanish authorities have announced that they have captured seven terror financiers. The seven are said to have helped finance the al Qaeda linked GSPC.
BBC:
At least seven people have been arrested in Spain on suspicion of helping to fund an Islamist terror group said to have links with al-Qaeda....
He said the detainees were suspected of raising money and providing logistical support for the Salafist Group for Call and Combat - an Algerian-based extremist group.
He said the group was "perfectly structured", had a hierarchy and was dedicated to committing petty crime and forging documents and credit cards.
Mr Alonso added that money was sent to Algeria either in person or through a complex system of bank transfers that made it difficult to trace.
It's interesting to note that the BBC actualy uses the word 'salafist' to describe the terror oranization. Many in the West believe Wahhabism is the major Islamic problem, but it isn't. Salaafiyism is.
Posted by: Rusty at
10:07 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Agent Brown says that the Spanish also arrested a Balkan War Criminal while he was partying in Tenerife. Good job Spain.
Posted by: Agent Smith at December 09, 2005 06:29 PM (6LOUW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 22, 2005
Murtha Has History of Urging Cut & Run
Jason at Generation Why does the yeoman's work of investigating Rep. John Murtha's (D-France) policy stances. The single greatest mistake made by the Clinton Administration was cutting and running from Somalia. Why, you ask? Because the financial and logistical force behind the warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid was a much more insidious and, at the time, unknown character: Osama bin Laden.
As Jason notes in his excellent post, Murtha urged cutting-and-running from Somalia too--making the sacrifices of the men who died their vanity.
Osama had something of a religious experience while in Somalia in which he predicted that America would cut-and-run. When the U.S. did pull its troops from Somalia, some Muslims--including Osama himself--took this as a sign that bin Laden had mystical powers. Bin Laden would later recall to ABC News:
"Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows," the terror chief recalled. "America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."
Even though the reason most Democrats have for wanting our troops to immediately withdraw from Iraq comes from a good place (not wanting our troops to be harmed), the lesson our Islamist enemies will learn from such a withdraw is that the U.S. is weak, just as they predicted. We cannot let them have such a victory. The time for the policy debate about a military action must be BEFORE troops are deployed. Once they are deployed, it must be the policy of the United States of America to win at all costs. Anything less will only reify the mystic worldview of Islamists in believing that Allah is on their side and will lead to more acts of terror around the world.
More from Jason at Generation Why.
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
08:37 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 2 kb.
1
>>>"Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run
in defeat after a few blows,"
Osama got it wrong. It's not the American soldier that runs in defeat after a few blows, it's these traitorous Liberals and their enablers in the mainstream media who are the bloody cowards.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 08:50 AM (8e/V4)
2
Is it just me or does he look like Jonathan Winters' twin?
Posted by: Oyster at November 22, 2005 09:14 AM (fl6E1)
3
A much more important question for all you dumb@sses, but is way above your head cause you are a bunch of dumb@sses would be
1)what were US soldiers doing in Somali to begin with.
2)what are US soldiers doing in Iraq to begin with.
Nothing besides screwing in other countries affairs where the US has no right to meddle.
When you continue a road of stupid policy, soldiers will die, in vain.
Murtha is giving you apes a great opportunity to jump back on the side of right, but instead you crawl deeper in the anus of wrong.
good luck pulling your head out.
choke on that turkey bluecoats.
Posted by: Jawa and all Jawa supporters....Suck! at November 22, 2005 09:31 AM (/3n/k)
4
They were in Somalia to try to feed starving people you fucktard moron, a mission which was an outgrowth of liberal foreign policies, as exemplified by your golden boy Bubba Clinton. Tell you what, if I ever see you starving, I won't screw around in your affairs, since I have no right to meddle.
This post is a prime example of why all liberals should be rounded up and dumped into an abandoned strip mine, alive, then covered over and forgotten about.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 09:42 AM (0yYS2)
5
well stated Improbulus! I would help round up the liberals and dump their sorry anti-American asses in the mine with you. Liberals and the MSM are the biggest threat to America's existance!
Posted by: Andy Driggers at November 22, 2005 09:49 AM (tMU4W)
6
"1)what were US soldiers doing in Somali to begin with."
Good question, no good answer. We had no national interest in being there. However, once there the point becomes moot.
"2)what are US soldiers doing in Iraq to begin with."
We are there because we had a national interest in removing the Hussein regime. We are still there because we have a national interest in what sort of regime emerges. But, thanks for playing.
"Nothing besides screwing in other countries affairs where the US has no right to meddle."
We have a right to meddle in any country where we have a national interest.
"When you continue a road of stupid policy, soldiers will die, in vain."
When you don't support the troops and their mission, that is what makes their deaths vain. YOU make their death vain, not the policy. Policies are inherently neutral, only people construct meaning.
"Murtha is giving you apes a great opportunity to jump back on the side of right, but instead you crawl deeper in the anus of wrong."
Murtha is giving us 'apes' an opportunity to see how much people like you actually hate America and wish for her defeat.
You, on the Left, are like the abusive husband. You love America, of this I have no doubt, but only on your own terms and only inasmuch as America pleases you. You also love America so much that you will take every opportunity to beat her up when she displeases you.
Good luck pulling your head out of your ass. Again, thanks for playing.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at November 22, 2005 09:50 AM (JQjhA)
7
The troll doesn't even know how irrelevant he is. Keep up the frontal lobe release little man.
Posted by: Oyster at November 22, 2005 11:03 AM (fl6E1)
8
ironic.
one minute the United States is accused of not helping Africa because "they have no oil" yet when American soldiers are deployed in order to support the United Nations peace keeping and relief efforts they "shouldn't be there" and we have no "strategic need" to be there.
Then the left says the United States should have waited for the United Nations inspectors in Iraq, then you critique the U.S for supporting the United Nations?
Arguing with the left is like a dog chasing it's own tail.
Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 11:08 AM (CcXvt)
9
That's why I don't argue with them Dave, I just disparage them, which is actually better treatment than they deserve, and far better than they will get when TSHTF.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 12:08 PM (0yYS2)
10
>>>one minute the United States is accused of not helping Africa because "they have no oil" yet when American soldiers are deployed in order to support the United Nations peace keeping and relief efforts they "shouldn't be there" and we have no "strategic need" to be there.
You noticed too? That's because their tactic is to play both ends against the middle-- the middle being the United States. One set of moonbats vilifies the U.S. for intervening, while the other set of moonbats vilifies the U.S. for NOT intervening. Both sets of moonbats make mutually exclusive arguments but it doesn't matter because what really counts is their mutual hatred of America. And yet I just wouldn't DARE question their patriotism.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 12:17 PM (8e/V4)
11
You're right Carlos, we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 04:30 PM (0yYS2)
12
Well said Dave, Carlos.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 23, 2005 04:18 AM (ZaAd/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
144kb generated in CPU 0.1197, elapsed 0.2102 seconds.
134 queries taking 0.1812 seconds, 418 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.