January 13, 2005
US/Israel Want Continued 'Military Gap'
File under 'no sh*t, Sherlock'. Of course, al Jazeera spins the obvious into a Zionist conspiracy.
The United States and Israel are perpetuating the military gap between Israel and Syria by controlling the balance of power, a Syrian analyst has said.Following reports the US and Israel were trying to prevent Russia from selling SS-26 Iskander missiles with the ability to hit any target in Israel to Syria, Imad Fawzi al-Shuaybi, a Syrian political analyst, told Aljazeera on Thursday, "This is not the first time Israel and the United States, individually or jointly, have interfered to halt Syrian defence plans.
"Imbalance of powers deprives Syria from its right to possess defensive weapons."
Al-Shuaybi added: "What the US and Israeli want is to maintain a big military gap between Israel and Syria in order to create an illusion of a possibility of imposing a peace settlement."
Posted by: Rusty at
08:21 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.
1
defence plans.
Just wanted to mention that you have spelled defense incorrectly the past few days when you have used the word.
File this under the no SH** category
Chris
Posted by: Chris at January 13, 2005 08:52 AM (1hbSn)
2
I am all for making the gap bigger.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 13, 2005 08:55 AM (IcheV)
3
There is no "Gap" unless it's a clothing store in Tel Aviv. The ONLY thing keeping the whole Middle East from being one large Yiddish Speaking Country is the old U.S.of A holding the Jews back!
If the Palestinians think they got "Displaced", Just think of how it would be were it not for our State Department and our current policy of keeping a hand on the shoulder of Israel . . . Based on how the Iraqis fought an enemy of their state, the old six day war would be a twelve day war and the Jews probably wouldn't stop till they were in India . . or at least at the Indian border.
Posted by: large at January 13, 2005 12:41 PM (VRK2g)
WWII Allied POW Deaths in Japan
During World War II, the Imperial Japanese Army took over 35,000 prisoners of war to Japan to perform backbreaking work as forced laborers in coal mines, factories, and other locations. Out of the total, a Japanese organization called the POW Research Network Japan has compiled a listing of 3,526 who died, many from malnutrition and pneumonia. According to the network's website,
How and where these casualties met their death has never been clarified. Prior to the surrender the Imperial Japanese Army issued instructions to destroy all documents relating to these camps. Japan’s Government has never told the full story of the treatment of POWs either in Japan or overseas.
Our group has endeavoured to unveil this hidden history, and this list is nearing completion. The roll of Commonwealth soldiers has already appeared on our web site. We are now adding the names of American and Dutch casualties to each individual camp site.
We wish to express our deep sympathy to those who lost their lives in this conflict. We trust that this list will prove helpful to families and friends, especially those who up to now did not know the fate of their loved ones.
Data from the General Headquarters of the Allied Powers, along with lists of names retrieved from cemeteries and war memorials, were used to compile the listing.
The effort to compile a listing of the dead Allied POWs should be heralded. No doubt, there are generations of families who are eager to know what happened to their loved ones.
Companion post at Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
05:22 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Yes, but were any of them forced to wear panties on their heads?
Posted by: Eric J Akawie at January 13, 2005 07:45 AM (hrQvk)
2
While it's a nice gesture, this should have been done 60 years ago.
Posted by: Venom at January 13, 2005 08:43 AM (dbxVM)
3
Are they holding any allied prisoners still at this date?
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 13, 2005 08:58 AM (D39Vm)
4
Historically the Japanese have gotten off very light for what they did in World War II. Between the systematic rape/destruction of Nanking and the rest of the Chinese mainland, the widespread cannibalism in their army ranks of civilians and POWs, medical experiments that put Mengele to shame, the first recorded use of bioweapons in the form of Anthrax they dropped on China, etc, etc.
They did all those things and have managed to remain unrepentant about the majority of the behavior.
And yet given the utter barbarity of their actions we were able to rebuild and reform them into an ally. It is part of what gives me hope that we can bring the Arab world around. Of course to bring the Japanese around we had to firebomb their cities nearly out of existence. I wonder what Curtis Lemay would have to say about our pussy footing around Persia?
Posted by: James at January 13, 2005 08:59 AM (rP4OC)
5
My fater was in the Navy. I had the experience in the Philly Naval Shipyar dof living near a Marine Officer who was one of the 10% who lived through the Batan Death march and the forced labor camps. He was a mental basket case - as most of us would be after 4 years of what the Japs did. Including seeing 90% of those who surrendered die from misstreatment.
The 4th Marines are the only Marine Regiment to *EVER* surrender. They only did after the Col talked directly to FDR and FDR told him to follow orders and surrender.
My personal opinion is that a traditional Marine fight to the death would have been better. At least we would have taken a lot of the bast----s with us had we done it.
Rod Stanton
Cerritos
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 13, 2005 09:03 AM (IcheV)
6
Rod--
As my Dad says, "WWCD?" (What Would Chestie Do?)
Posted by: Rusty at January 13, 2005 09:33 AM (JQjhA)
7
Rusty
Chesty would have fixed bayonetts and fought til the death! After getting "booze and broads in the barracks" for the men. That is a quote from what he said to Congress after Korea. I swear to God it is correct. Chexty BTW got his first heart and star fighting the Sandinistas after Wilson gave up on the Army 86 years ago and sent in the Marines. Sandinistas in those day were supported by Bolshevicks (sp?) Actually if FDR told him to surrender he would, Marines follow orders.
Rod an old Jarehead
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 13, 2005 11:23 AM (fLlQ8)
8
"Are they holding any allied prisoners still at this date?"
lol...
Posted by: Venom at January 13, 2005 02:06 PM (dbxVM)
9
I'm not without feelings here. My father, a pilot in the Army Air Corps was killed in action in 1943. I was two. He's buried at the Presidio in San Francisco. He died in battle. I fine comfort in that. Had he died in a Japanese prison camp I would still be seeking revenge. The Japs got a slap on the wrist for their crimes. All attention was given to the Germans for the persecution of the Jews. Crimes against Americans, Aussies, Brits, Philipinos, Chinese, Koreans apparently were not as important. Just never got the headlines. The Jews were starved and gased to death. American Pow's were starved and bayoneted to death. Why one is worse than the other I'll never understand.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 13, 2005 07:20 PM (oKjnh)
10
Come on Laura. You almost made me laugh along with Venom.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 13, 2005 07:21 PM (oKjnh)
11
You know, there's a first time for everything, but I'm in complete agreement with greyrooster. Whenever WW2 is mentioned in the context of atrocities committed, the abuse suffered by POWs at the hands of Japan doesn't get the attention it deserves. While I have all the sympathy in the world for the families whose lives were torn apart in the Holocaust, there were many families whose loved ones died in brutal conditions imposed by Imperial Japan. I can only suppose that the "slap on the wrist" greyrooster mentioned occurred because many of the offenders committed suicide before being taken prisoner.
While this list helps to bring such atrocities more into the light, it should have been done decades ago.
Posted by: Venom at January 14, 2005 12:11 PM (dbxVM)
12
..and Americans never committed war crimes and atrocities, that's right...My Lai, Abu Ghraib ???
Posted by: reality check at March 14, 2005 07:55 AM (PG8aj)
13
Hello, I grew up in the former Dutch East Indies, now Indonesia. Japan came to occupy the country for 3½ year. The Kempeitai killed my Dad.
My mother, two younger sisters and I were in old
condemned prison as Interrnees. I was in a toil and moil group, because of this heavy work I couldn't get children so I learnt after the war.
My mother, my youngest sister and I had one malaria attack after the other, my other sister had jaundice. We had oedema, dysentry and tropical
boils. Camp 10 (my prison) at Banyu Biru in Central Java was a real nightmare, we (women and children) had to try hard to survive in between the dirt, the bugs, the lice, the ever lasting stench, and we had hardly anything to eat or to drink.
If you have any questions, please ask.
Friendly regards from Holland,
Elizabeth
Posted by: Elizabeth van Kampen at March 18, 2005 03:25 AM (pi7Ad)
14
James, you needn't congratulate yourself for bringing Japan around. In fact the way you brought them around then is the reason you are misguidedly trying to bring the Arab world around now. Lucky them - you bomb them flat and then make them eat Burger King. Great. Now you're after Persia (sic) because you just love bringing other countries around.
Posted by: Ashie at April 13, 2005 12:45 PM (M5Cyl)
15
my husband is 83 years old and spent 3 1/2 yrs
as a POW IN PHILLIPINS AND JAPAN .No one knows
nor understands unless you were there or had family who was there. If there is any other living POW's living from Japan please e=mail and
let me know. THANKS FOR FIGHTING FOR OUR FREEDOM
YOU ARE ALL REAL HEROS.
Posted by: Duckwowrth at May 09, 2005 10:53 PM (HoSBk)
16
my great grandfather was in World War 2 and he was a prizoner of war but his cousin helped him escape and i think it is great that you help people realize what they really whent through. thanks.
Posted by: amanda at June 25, 2005 01:22 PM (BBajr)
17
And yet, after all this is said and done, I wonder what the Japanese would say about all this.
The final year of war saw 14,000 Americans killed, and more than 680,000 Japanese killed, as well as about 1,500,000 left homeless. Everyone dignifies this with, "But what about what they did to us?" Yes, well, what about what we did to them? This is hardly depth of what was done to the Japanese in the terms.
Even now, Japan still has censorship laws from America placed on them. Do we have anything? No. A few rambling Generals who are insane after the Japanese treatment, but what about the Japanese after our own doing?
1,500,000 left homeless, and I wonder how many survived the next year, let alone gained the kind of power/money that the US's weapon developers gained.
Poor Einstein lived in a life of mystery and guilt at what he had unwittingly done. The poor man probably resisted suicide for no reason other than to try and let the public know how sorry he was. There's no question that what the Japanese did was wrong, but I think you're being one-sided.
America has nothing to show from WWII that isn't positive. The companies are richer, the people more proud... And what does Japan have? They have a bunch of Foreign things, most of which they don't even want. They have McDonalds. They are -FORCED- to learn English in school. Christianity is now so supported that it's almost required, their government is RESTRICTED to American Democracy (Cough Capitalism) and they even have things as deep as censorship laws. (If anyone here has ever seen Japanese movies or mature-rated shows etc, the reason they're always censored or unshown (Example: In anime, characters don't have nipples) is because of their surrender laws).
And you say they got off lightly? They were only as bad as we were, yet they are quelled, quietened, and even restricted from freedom in their art? And even still they rarely complain?
As admirable as their silence is, Japan needs to step forth. The time of war is over. The penalties post-war were harsh, but there is NO way Japan needs to -still- have agreements placed on them.
As for 'Bringing countries around'? I'm only glad that more countries haven't been 'brought around', because if more countries were like America it would be a sad, sad world.
Posted by: Curt at July 08, 2005 05:25 PM (SfjT0)
18
the only reason that the japanese got off so lightly was because they didn't sign the geneva convention treaty!
Posted by: marcus radny at July 19, 2005 07:49 AM (wT2+T)
19
Remember the rape of Nanking? Thousands of Chinese men, women, and children killed wholesale? The pictures of Chinese people bayoneted numerous times? The game was to see how many times a body could be pierced by a bayonet and not die, yet still feel pain. The stories of Japanese soldiers fighting between each other to see who had the best technique for beheading prisoners. How about the Bataan Death March? March, or die, often shot, beaten, or bayoneted to death. Look up Hell Ships. Allied prisoners were herded into cargo ships for transport to Japan, without the vessels being refitted for humans. Tankers with residual oil were stuffed with POWs who received no medical treatment and only scant rations in transit. The temperature in those holds reached well over 100 degrees, and they quickly filled with a noxious layer of oil, sweat, vomit, urine, and diarrhea. Standing shoulder to shoulder, men began to go mad. The weaker ones would faint and slip beneath the surface of the evil soup to a final death. The saying was, 'When a man goes mad, he doesn't scream...he howls'. Mortality rates on such ships reached 80% at times. The survivors were pressed into slave labor, oftentimes into abandoned coal mines deemed too dangerous for Japanese workers. Others were used to test new anti-personnel munitions or medical experiments. The problem was that the Japanese regarded solders who surrendered as having no honor, and were thus less than human. This fanatical, slavish devotion to 'honor' led to entire garrisons of Japanese soldiers fighting to the death on Iwo Jima, and other of the island fortresses. Those who were not 'fortunate' enough to be killed in battle for the Emperor, suicided. Allied planners were predicting better than 250,000 US casualties if a conventional invasion of Japan were executed. So, why again were nuclear weapons dropped on Japan? One word should be sufficient to explain it. But as an Occidental, I'm not sure I can grasp all the subtleties of it. That word is bushido. Bushido, the code of the warrior. Death before dishonor. Better still, ask anyone who had lain in the hands of the Japanese as a POW. I rather expect they would support the policy. Ending the war with all speed. Faced with utter ruin, the Emperor had no other choice, other than watch as cities disappeared one by one. Remember, payback's hell.
The war ended, and Japan was occupied by the Army under MacArthur. He eventually lifted the boot heel off the necks of the Japanese people, and help restore their dignity. In desperation, MacArthur called back home, requesting 5 million Japanese New Testaments. The God of the United States had defeated the Sun God-Emperor of Japan. Alas, they were NOT sent. Thus, the Japanese began to worship instead mass production and Kaizen, becoming salarymen. The United States did not succeed in evangelizing the Japanese people, unfortunately. Despite that, never in the course of human events have so few people had so much power and abused it so little. Perfect? No. A shining beacon of hope to a world where there are still dark places? Absolutely.
Posted by: Rob Collier at August 06, 2005 10:18 PM (J4/Ci)
20
I don't mean to offend anyone, as it is purely what you've been brought up learing that scopes your education on the matter - but I get really irritated by the notion that the US fought the war by themselves and secured freedom for everyone.
I'm from England. My Grandfather was a POW in Japan - transported on one of the hell ships mistakenly bombed by a US submarine due to the lack of red cross on the ship to signify POW transportation.
He was in the war from day one in 1939. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but the US didn't show up until Pearl Harbour - so before everyone gets down on their knees and worships the USA, (don't get me wrong, their role was vital in the progress of ending the war) give a thought to the people who watched and suffered the slaughter from the beginning.
Posted by: Gemma at October 16, 2005 06:18 AM (axQ8U)
21
After living in Japan for several years, and getting to know several people that lived through the firebombing of Tokyo, don't think that anything but the atomic bomb would stop the war. The Japanese were not ready to surrender or even thought they were losing. When the a-bombs were dropped many in Japan just got mad and were more deterimined than ever to keep fighting. It wasn't until the emporer himself got on the radio and told the people it was over that the Japanese realized how bad it was. Remember that dying for the their emporer was the ultimate honor and honor was everything. It took a total destruction of two cities that finally turned things around and nothing else.
Posted by: Phillip at October 26, 2005 10:05 PM (ip9GV)
January 12, 2005
Germans Arrest 22 Followers of the Religion of Peace
SF Gate:
German police stepped up their crackdown on Islamic extremism Wednesday, detaining 22 people during raids of apartments and mosques allegedly used by a network that provided financing and other support to terrorists.About 700 officers searched dozens of apartments, mosques and call centers in five German states, discovering militant Islamic propaganda and forged passports and visas, authorities said....
The suspects included German citizens and nationals of Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya and Bulgaria, Bavarian state police investigator Gerhard Zintl said. Their ages ranged from 17 to 46, and five of the suspects were female.
Posted by: Rusty at
04:01 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Love your headline! I know for a fact that this "infiltration" of Militant Islamists is happening all over Europe... They better wake up before they find a knife pressed to their collective throats!
TOMO
THE TOMO REPORT
Posted by: TOMO at January 12, 2005 06:14 PM (hT6it)
2
Three cheers for DeutschenFolk! And it is about time! Too bad they did not do this in '96 when Sadm's Intelligence folk and the 911 leaders were ploting 911.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 12, 2005 07:24 PM (fLlQ8)
3
I guess peace just ain't what it used to be...
Posted by: Patti at January 12, 2005 10:01 PM (AeVT6)
4
TOTO is certainly right. Look at the ages and the countries involved and this is just one raid in Germany. Every country does have to wake up, small or big, and do raids like this, which will stop terrorists attacks these groups were planning before they are carried out. When I first read this, I thought it surprising that Germany did this crackdown on Islamic extremism in that neighborhood, or more to the point, that Germany did anything at all. It's unnerving to see that both sexes, the ages and the countries that Germany picked up.
What I've been constantly surprised at, during the invasion of Iraq, we were able to use their airspace but not able to use their airbases or set up shop at any of their airports but Turkey constantly is having so many of their people kidnapped and killed, so why are the terrorists constantly picking on the Turks? Has Turkey done any raids in their country as Germany has done but it seems more like the Turks are also victims of terrorists attacks. We don't hear too much from Turkey; what are they doing to stop terrorist attacks?
Germany refused to be part of the coalition forces; they've also denied any of their NATO troops to go to Iraq to help train Iraqi's but it's obvious that they do have groups settling into their country either to plan events there, elsewhere, and feel being in Germany is safe for them. I sure hope they don't release any of these people back into the system.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 13, 2005 09:21 AM (D39Vm)
5
Cindy Well done!
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 14, 2005 06:14 AM (fLlQ8)
6
Thanks, Rod! Appreciate it.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 15, 2005 01:01 AM (D39Vm)
Mosul Bombing
Speaking of Ansar al-Sunnah, this is surely their work.....Turkish Press:
Twin car bombs killed at least two Iraqi soldiers in Mosul...In the troubled city of Mosul, a white van tried to swerve inside a joint convoy of US and Iraqi military vehicles, but exploded prematurely, killing an unknown number of civilians, US army Sergeant Chris Schaeffer told AFP.
A second car parked on a street, not far away from the first blast, exploded and killed two Iraqi soldiers, Schaeffer said.
Posted by: Rusty at
03:58 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.
1
This reminds me of the double bombings held here in our own county. A bomb goes off, everyone gets there to help and then another goes off to cause more deaths and injuries for maximum loss. Eric Rudolph (is that his name?) who was finally caught a few months ago by accident, used to do that at abortion clinics. How can you protect yourself under those circumstances? You can't and the more they do of this, the worse it's going to get for everyone. Not only do they need to secure the scene but they're going to have to secure a wider space and hopefully notice the second vehicle before it explodes.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 13, 2005 09:28 AM (D39Vm)
Christain Rock Band to Play at Bush Innagural
In light of all the controversy surrounding an invitation to Kid Rock to perform at the Bush innagural, I thought I'd throw in my own two cents. Might I suggest Faith + 1? 
Members of Faith + 1 from left to right: Leopold Stotch, Eric Cartman, and Token
In light of all the controversy surrounding an invitation to Kid Rock to perform at the Bush innagural, I thought I'd throw in my own two cents. Might I suggest Faith + 1? First off, let me distance myself from all those South Park conservative-" types who are ridiculing the protesters. And to all you potty mouths who are pooh-poohing all of us real conservatives, well let me just tell you that there's no room in the big tent for your ilk. What did you think the big tent metaphor was about? We we're talking about a revival tent, morons not a tent of ill repute.
Does any other band represent the second Bush era better than Faith + 1? With such inspiring songs as "I've been thinkin bout you, Jesus", "The body of Christ", "I can't live without you, Jesus", and "Don't you ever leave me, Jesus" there's something in their songs for every one. And family friendly? You better believe Faith + 1 is family friendly! I mean, what could be more family friendly than an interracial Christan rock boy band??!!??!!
Members of Faith + 1 from left to right: Leopold Stotch, Eric Cartman, and Token
Shamelessly linked at the Traffic Jam....because WWJD?
Posted by: Rusty at
02:59 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Might I suggest Faith + 1?
HAHAHAHAHAH! I've had that one song stuck in my head since I heard the news.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at January 12, 2005 04:03 PM (yZMsp)
2
He's named like my name ...
Posted by: Leopold Stotch at January 12, 2005 04:06 PM (r4QA1)
3
"You're trembling Jesus, baby ..."
God that's funny.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at January 12, 2005 04:08 PM (yZMsp)
4
"Never been so enticed, Lord Almighty I wish I could have the body of Christ..."
Posted by: Rusty at January 12, 2005 05:08 PM (JQjhA)
5
What ever happened to good old fashioned Death Metal?
Posted by: Jeffrey at January 12, 2005 07:53 PM (eidub)
6
You are *out* of your mind. LOL
Posted by: Juliette at January 12, 2005 08:39 PM (Jn7q4)
7
Michael Collins: Boys, in recognition
for over one million records sold, the Christian Recording Industry is
please to present you with this Myrrh album. [presents the album plaque to Cartman. The crowd cheers]
Cartman: [takes the album] Thank you very uh- wah? Myrrh album?
Stan: I thought albums win either gold or platinum.
Michael Collins: No no, in Christian rock, our albums go gold and frankincense and myrrh. Congratulations!
...
And the absolute best part of that episode:
...
Butters: Eric, I-I'm pretty sure you shouldn't say the F-word about-uh... Jesus.
Posted by: Mark J at January 13, 2005 01:25 AM (ykFk5)
8
Mark--dude, you're right....that was the best line!
Posted by: Rusty at January 13, 2005 08:09 AM (JQjhA)
9
Is this one of the joke posts?
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 13, 2005 09:32 AM (D39Vm)
10
There should be some poll somewhere that can be bombed with this revalation ... march forth troops.
Posted by: Salamander at January 13, 2005 12:07 PM (F26eZ)
11
Cartman: OH F(BEEP)K JESUS!
Posted by: Eric cartman at January 27, 2005 11:00 AM (GhyEz)
12
What if Butters' parents where their and hear cartman say the F-word about jesus?
Posted by: Stan marsh at January 27, 2005 11:04 AM (GhyEz)
13
Cartman want the platinum album so bad, that he wants 10 bucks. After Cartman gets kick off the band, he Rushes to Butters' house, then Token's Manison. That was funny. Cartman needs to calm down. he should take some time. take a easy.
Posted by: Clyde goodman at January 27, 2005 11:10 AM (GhyEz)
14
[Cartman runs up to Butters' house, pounds hard on the door, Butters answers.]
Butters: oh, hi Eric.
Cartman: Butters, get your drum set and meet me at my house, hurry Butters, (rushes off)
Butters: (sees cartman run off) ohhh...
Posted by: Stan marsh at January 27, 2005 11:20 AM (GhyEz)
15
Cartman: You godam asshole
Posted by: Stan marsh at January 27, 2005 11:25 AM (GhyEz)
16
Cartman: You godam asshole!
Posted by: Stan marsh at January 27, 2005 11:25 AM (GhyEz)
17
[Token's Manison, Cartman runs up to the Door, Cartman pounds on the door, Token Answers]
Cartman: Token, get your bass guiter and meet me at my house.
Token: What?! we don't have a bass Guiter.
Cartman: because your Family Black! the Bass guiter gotta be around in your house somewhere! [rushes off]
Token: What a asshole. [shuts the door in front of him]
Posted by: Stan marsh at January 28, 2005 05:03 PM (RWVCv)
18
Cartman: You godam asshole!
Posted by: Stan marsh at January 28, 2005 05:04 PM (RWVCv)
19
Token: Butters' mom is a bitch.
Cartman: Good one Token.
[Token has enough of that, he Pouches Cartman three times, Token walks away, Butters farts on Cartman's head, flips him off]
Butters: F(beep)k you Eric. [walks off]
Posted by: Stan marsh at January 28, 2005 05:10 PM (RWVCv)
20
that was not cool God Bless and hope you all find the real God who can destroy the earth in one whisper.
Posted by: heyBuddy at May 19, 2005 10:23 PM (U05Qe)
21
that was some shit out there keep it up
Posted by: tylrer at June 30, 2005 08:10 AM (a4u17)
Not The Last Samurai
by Demosophist
The issue of Hiroshima/Nagasaki comes up whenever the left or the Islamofascists get around to listing the "crimes of the US." In the past I've tended to agree with the critics, because by and large I was as uninformed as they about what was actually going on within the Japanese High Command in those last days. Well, we now know that using nuclear weapons was probably the only way to get Japan to surrender, and even that almost didn't work. From John Hawkins' interview of Victor Davis Hanson: more...
Posted by: Demosophist at
02:53 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 616 words, total size 4 kb.
1
yes, and had we intervened earlier, when the Japenese invaded Manchuria, and when Hitler rolled into Czechos...oh, yeah, that would have been preemptive war. can't do that....sorry, better to let millions die, so we can appeal to liberal sensitivities.
Posted by: Mr. K at January 12, 2005 06:18 PM (t6m5j)
2
We should have been more concerned about a people that killed thousands of Americans in a cowardly sneak attack at Pearl Harbor.
When I think about Bataan, Japanese prison camps, forced sex slaves, the rape of Nanking. I believe the Japs got what they deserved. I also think they know it.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 12, 2005 06:34 PM (R0PwA)
3
It’s not just the Okinawa campaign, but the suicides on Saipan that cemented Washington’s commitment to using the bomb. While the suicides were hyped (not all were as voluntary as the military press made them out to be), the Japanese mainland was arming women and high school students with primitive weapons to use in suicide attacks. I've lived in Japan and I like the place, but having been immersed in their culture, I can see what a horrible mess their society must have been while ruled by the militarists in Hirohito's various governments.
There weren’t many purely military targets left by 1945 – one reason we firebombed around the Sumida River in Tokyo was that industry was spread out into many little shops and family factories, since we’d pretty much destroyed the large industrial plants. So the liberal screaming about what else we could have bombed shows once again their ignorance of history and willingness to save Japanese lives at the expense of American ones. That’s not even getting into the fact that the Soviets would have jumped off from Sakhalin and invaided Hokkaido and Northern Honshu, fragmenting Japan as they did Korea. How many Japanese would have died in that campaign and subsequent terror?
Posted by: John at January 12, 2005 08:09 PM (YFWw+)
4
I have never felt it was right to drop Atomic bombs on Japan; they are still suffering from the effects. I think what we did was so very wrong but what was worse, was rounding up Japanese-Americans, including those that were born here and just because they were of Japanese descent, taken from their homes and businesses and even losing family members and putting them into camps. In a way, it was no different than the Camps by Germany. I just feel that whole situation was a big black mark in our history. I'm sure we would have won the war anyway but I don't think the bombs or the camps put us in a good light. Glad we have learned so much since then or we'd be rounding up every Muslim who lives in this country and putting them in camps. We're supposed to be better people than that.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 13, 2005 09:42 AM (D39Vm)
5
We're supposed to be better people than that.
The details finally convinced me that Japan would not have surrendered any other way. Also note that the Russians were on Sakhalin and had they invaded from the north I doubt that they'd have left anything but devastation in their wake. Those bombs almost certainly resulted in the minimum number of casualties for both sides. Harsh to say, but the real killer there was totalitarianism's willingness to sacrifice everyone on its grisly alter, including its own people.
As for the internment, that's another issue. I just don't know much about it, but I think Michelle Malkin has made a reasonable case that it was necessary, and that it was also humane. There's just no comparison at all between our Japanese internment camps and the extermination camps of the Nazis. The closest parallel to those were the slaughterhouses in Fallujah, which would be scaled up to enormous proportions were those bastards ever able to take over the country. As for internment of Muslims in the US, I just don't know anyone who advocates that. Some have accused Malkin, but to my knowledge she's never made such a recommendation.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 13, 2005 03:38 PM (7AGFb)
6
Internment probably saved a lot a Japanese/American lives. There was cases of lynching of German Americans during WW2. As it turned out internment was not needed. Does anyone know what Japanese immigrants would have done if the Japanese invaded the west coast? What is the difference between Hawaii and California? The Jap Navy got help there. Think about it. The threat of invasion was real during the early years of the war. All races that came to America have paid a price. Maybe thats the price the Japanese had to pay. At least they didn't die in the internment camps. My ancestors paid with the revolutionary war, war of 1812, war with Spain war, Mexican war, Civil war, WW1, WW2. No one rides free. Wish to reap the benefits? Sometimes you have to pay a price. Fair or not. The truth is, the majority now come to America to reap what others have paid for.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 13, 2005 07:45 PM (oKjnh)
7
My $0.02:
The Japanese shelled various locations in California during WWII. There was a power plant in Santa Barbara County near the shore that had been hit (mostly superficial damage) by a submarine off the coast. There was a very real and pervasive fear of the Japanese war machine in those days. Hawaii merely demonstrated that the Anglo-Americans had anecdotal evidence to suspect Japanese-Americans. They wondered if it could happen in California as well.
Posted by: Buck Brown at January 14, 2005 06:38 PM (ZECZR)
8
Demo: the reason we didn't know about the internment camps because it was never discussed and certainly was not in our history books. But thee people were American's of Japanese, Chinese and Oriental descent.They were taken from their homes, ending up losing their homes and businesses. During WW2, many Japanese American's signed up and fough side by side with their own countrymen (Americans) and those that did, had no idea what was happening to their families,their homes and their businesses. A few years back, they were reimbursed by our govt for their losses which could never make up for all the things they really lost; the govt's fear to intern these AMERICAN'S was wrong in every way for none of them were a danger to the rest of us and they certainly did not approve of the Japanese attacking their own country - which was the United States. Just because we were at war on many fronts, including Japan,did not mean that the Japenese who lived here agreed with it and were just as shocked and disgusted as the rest of us; then they were torn from their homes and bussinesses and put in internment camps; that was not necessary for they were American's.
I understand, Demo,about the atomic bombs but I still do not agree thatit ould be done because it not only killed millions butit caused so much damage on the people and has still an affect on Children since then all the way up to today. I guess that kind of power bothers me.
I never said we should round up all the Muslims, so you misunderatood me. WhatI did say above is from WW2 internment camps and the things we learned from it will make sure there were no Muslim Interment camps although they do deserve it more than the American Japenese ever did. This was their home, not Japan.
Our enemy today are Islamic radicals and since we do have hundreds of Muslims here in the US, maybe we should put them in interment camps for our own safety. even though there may be lots of terrorists in those families. It was just a thought. And it would be easier to pick out the terrorist who's over for a visit.
Just another though,is all.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 15, 2005 01:48 AM (D39Vm)
9
Cindy:
Well, you're on a horse that's too high for me to assail. And we're so far removed from the WWII experience that it's really hard for any of us to judge in any realistic sense. Suffice to say that for the time being at least (and all bets are off if there's a WMD attack on the US) the basic incentives are somewhat different for us that the 1940s Americans. Intelligence provided either by coverts, or by inside people who have been turned really constitutes a critical component of the War on Terror, and any unjustifiably harsh treatment of Arabs works against that. So barring a WMD attack I think you can expect to see some significant forebearance toward Arabs in our modern society.
But be advised that Jacksonian America, once awakened, will be impossible to put down.
Also, as I recall there were really two groups of internees who were treated much differently. Citizens of the US were treated much differently that non-citizens, and a significant number of citizens chose to remain in the camps after the war even though they were no longer required to stay. Also, bear in mind that if some Japanese citizens had their property confiscated that's a separate issue. If they lost businesses, it's in teh context of emergence from a depression in which business failures were far from atypical. But I agree that confiscation of private property, to the extent that it occured, was actionable.
Finally, although I think Malkin opposes recompense of the internees I don't. One can frequently moderate the need to commit a "sin" in the fallen world by the recognition that there are consequences for doing so that one can't shirk. The ethics of what was done are in sharp contrast to "internment camps" maintained by our enemies during this period, including internment of British and American citizens by the Japanese. An no one has ever offered to compensate those people, as far as I know.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 17, 2005 03:22 PM (7AGFb)
10
Amen.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 17, 2005 07:04 PM (Vc+ll)
11
When will I be compensated for my father. He didn't get to sit the war out in a internment camp. Who payed the higher price. A Japanese American family in an internment camp or my family? When will my children be compensated for growing up without a grandfather? Everyone pays a price. The difference is us plain old white folks that have been here 300 years don't expect to be compensated. Anyone think my family didn't lose their small business? Wrong. Friggin cry babies.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 17, 2005 07:18 PM (Vc+ll)
12
"I Recently saw The Last Samurai and felt it one of a long line of fundamentally anti-American films eminating from the left coast, essentially siding with a totalitarian movement and ideology against the US." okay that line there pretty much sums up the level of your ignorance Demosophist. Gimme a break, "Anti-American"? The director of the movie Edward Zwick IS American! For christ sakes this is an AMERICAN movie! Where you get "Anti-American" out of that is beyond me.
"I don't know if the movie is historically accurate or not, but sincerely doubt it."
Well buddy the whole movie is based on the actual events of a samurai Saigo Takamori who leads the rebellion for the same reason as in the movie. and the "lowest class of nobility"? did you even watch the movie or have picked up history book for that matter? The Samurai were the ruling class of Japan for over one thousand years. and change them into "business men"? I dont think you really got the point of the movie(or watched it for that matter).[In real life] after seeing the US's warships and cannons, and seeing how weak the were economicly and militarily compared to the US and other countrys they excepted the US's ultimatum. We totally revolutionized them. We trained their soldiers, and everything. So in a way WE are responsible for them becoming a world military power during the early 1900's to WW2.
"The Last Samurai is an utterly foolish movie, with almost no redeeming social value. It could easily have been produced by the Japanese Fascists in the High Command as a propaganda film during WWII, except that censorship would have prevented it from being shown here." Umm......okay. I think the only thing utterly foolish here is you. this movie is about a people hanging on to dying ways and traditions, and how an American Captain who took part in the American's own butchery [of Native Americans] sees the beauty of their culture and becomes a part of it.
Again how you get any of that bs you totally blows my mind. and sheesh quit trying to use words that are probobly bigger than your I.Q. and start focusing on actually making a point.
btw i'm sorry if i'm given u guys a history lesson. I am doing a research paper on the Samurai culture and accidently stummbled upon this, and after reading this moron's post I had to comment and clear up the MAJOR misconceptions. plus I just really enjoyed the movie and kinda got pissed at this faild attempt at a review.
Posted by: Doc at February 14, 2005 03:44 PM (0vNaM)
13
Well buddy the whole movie is based on the actual events of a samurai Saigo Takamori who leads the rebellion for the same reason as in the movie. and the "lowest class of nobility"? did you even watch the movie or have picked up history book....
I'm somewhat disinclined to limit my view of history to what comes by way of a Hollywood movie, but I do know about who ruled Japan for a thousand years, and it wasn't the Samurai. They were, as I said, a warrior caste and the lowest echelon of the nobilty. And the plan to turn that caste into a business class at the turn of the century was quite deliberate. Lipset comments on it in his essay of Japanese Uniqueness, as does Eisenstadt. Again, do you get your knowledge of history from films?
Umm......okay. I think the only thing utterly foolish here is you. this movie is about a people hanging on to dying ways and traditions, and how an American Captain who took part in the American's own butchery [of Native Americans] sees the beauty of their culture and becomes a part of it.
I rest my case. Next you'll be quoting Ward Churchill to me. Again, this story is a narrative that willfully distorts history in order to present a specific theme not unlike that presented in *Dances With Wolves*, which is probably where you got your history of the West. I suppose you think that cartoon in *Bowling for Columbine* was historical truth too?
Gawd.
I am doing a research paper on the Samurai culture...
And what source told you the Samurai caste ruled Japan for a thousand years? Hokusai painted for the Samurai? This is what you're saying? Heh.
Posted by: Demosophist at February 14, 2005 05:57 PM (Dfdj0)
14
It may be that your historical text has conflated the role of the military caste in Japan with that of rulership, because they were the "muscle" that allowed the rulers to maintain their position. As such, they weren't without leverage (as any military caste would be), and they were definitely part of the nobility. But they weren't the ruling caste any more than those referred to as the "knightly caste" in Europe were the rulers. It was a feudal system, and the military played it's place according to feudal rules of fielty. That, in fact, was one of the few things that was accurate in the movie: *The Last Samurai*.
Posted by: Demosophist at February 14, 2005 06:28 PM (Dfdj0)
15
I think it's you who need to check your scources.
"but, I do know who ruled for 1000 years and it wasnt the samurai." It was the Shogun who himself was part of the Samurai warrior class(who did work for the emperor but was still responsible for most everything else). I dont know where you get your information because the Samruai were considered the highest class of Japanese society. They were highly respected and looked up to. I meen anybody with half and ounce of common sence can see this. Why do you think some Japanes display there ancestors armor and weapons in there home? or how the Samurai code played such a big role in WW2. because they were a very highly respected and honorable people. not the "lowest class of nobility" as you deemed it. That in fact plays a large role in the movie. The ONLY time I have heard differnt is from you. You are wrong.
"this story is a narrative that willfully distorts history"
You are wrong here as well. First off there really was a rebel leader Saigo Takamori(Katsumoto)as I said before that fought to keep the old ways and as in the movie were defeated in one last huge battle. As for the character Algaren, he is based on a French army captain who fought side by side with the samurai in the Boshin War. Yes this is not based on ACTUAL events. but it is sticking to history to a certain extent at least(more than Dances with WOlves lol). and even the battle at the end is accurate. despite being outnumber some 50-1 the Samurai still outkilled the Troops who were armed with very similar weaponry as in the movie. It is a non fiction story.
"next you'll be quoting Ward Churchill to me."
okay first off i dont know who the hell that is. and second that wasnt a quote that was from me.
"and the plan to turn that caste in to a business class at the turn of the century was quite delibrate."
Okay, first off Japan didn't want to turn the Samurai into businessman at all. They wanted the samurai dead or disbanded; they cut their salary in half, and as a final insult made it illegle to where the sword(which is a sign of their HIGH status in most cases). This is what started the rebellion. and business had little or nothing to do with what they wanted. They wanted to revolutionize their country in every way.
"I rest my case."
you never had one.
"Hokushi painted for the samurai." ok whered that come from. If you step back and take a look I'm the only one making a point here. You are wrong about the culture, and are not clear on your own points. you've been so busy trying to show me up that you forgot about your own "Last Samurai Axis Propaganda" Theory.
and stop trying to camoflauge your lack of knowledge of the culture with big words and irrelivant statements.
Posted by: Doc at February 14, 2005 08:48 PM (nZFVn)
16
Okay, first off Japan didn't want to turn the Samurai into businessman at all. They wanted the samurai dead or disbanded
Yeah, according to the movie. And one can always find an historian (like Ward Churchill) who will make whatever claim is convenient for them, but the fact is that they simply couldn't kill off the Samurai, and it made excellent sense to sort of "retool them." Not completely successful.
Why is it so difficult to believe that Hollywood would take an historical sequence of events and subtly distort and spin it so that their message, which was not the message of history, is what got through? As for the role of the Samurai all I can say is that if I come across the citation for the artcle I'll post it (I read it a decade ago as part of a set of articles in Doctoral program in Science and Technology Policy)... but the observation stands. In the aggregate the Samurai were the lowest echelon of the nobility at that point in history, which doesn't mean that some of them weren't above others. (And as far as I know you're right that they were a ruling caste at some point, though I'm skeptical.) Actually the movie makes it clear that their social status wasn't very high by presenting them as financially without resources, etc. (But note that the period I'm talking about wasn't the 1860s, but the turn of the century. Just prior to WWI.) What role could they play in a new westernized (non-feudal) Japanese society? What impressed me about the article (which may actually have been written by Eisenstadt, now I think of it) was that thay could just deliberately transform a troublesome social class by organizing a new function for it. Very clever. But not entirely successful.
Yes, of course they were part of the nobility. I said that. But they were a threadbare nobility by that time.
And the point I made about the transition is also valid. The elements of the old feudal culture came back and the Samurai inspired a new fascist militarism born out of that same tortured sense of honor. What do you think fascism is, if not a throwback to feudalism? Anyway, if you want to read about the sociological aspect of these events (I'm actually a sociologist, so I don't trust historians who always write the narrative that appeals to their inner child) read S.M. Lipset's "American Exceptionalism and Japanese Uniqueness." (Or the title might be the other way around, I'm not sure.)
Anyway, another movie that's distortive in the same way, since you're into verification of Hollywood's sense of history, is *The Gangs of New York*. In reality there was a very strong anti-war movement in New York City during the Civil War, and there were race riots that targetted the black population for their supposed role in bringing about the war. It's a very ugly chapter in Irish-American history that Scorcese deliberately distorts to give it a "class warfare" element, manipulated by some evil capitalists. The reality was far more mundane. Just your run-o-the-mill race prejudice, and resentment at being required to serve in a cause they opposed.
Posted by: Demosophist at February 16, 2005 08:04 PM (Dfdj0)
17
I see now that we were talking about two differnt eras of samurai. I thought you ment all through history they were the lowest class, but i see know you were talking about pre ww2 and I agree.
"They simply couldn't kill off the Samurai, and it made excellent since to retool them."
I see where your coming from and half agree on that. But still the Samurai were to honorable and proud of a people to just drop and change what they and their ancestors had done for 800 years or more. Maybe your right and some low ranking samurai did give up the sword. That maybe so. But the one thing you didnt mention is that there was an actual rebellion of the Samurai as in the movie, and most of which were killed (allthough from what I've read and heard they put up a hell of a fight, still outkilling there foes armed with cannon and rifle).
And I think you'll agree with me that even though the samurai caste was done and over they still highly influenced the Japanese soldiers of WW2.
"since your into verification of Hollywood's since of history,"
Now don't get me wrong here. I'm not the kinda guy who will take a history lesson from Hollywood believe me(seen Zulu?lol). But I do believe The Last Samurai was intact with the history. Let me lay it all on the table:
There was a rebellion led by Saigo Takamori in the mid 1800's.
The rebellion was caused by similar things as in the movie. Salary cut, food supply cut, etc.
The character Algeran is actually based on an actual person,(the name of which I don't recall but I'll let you know sometime) who did fight side by side with the samurai(allthough this was not during the samurai rebellion but the Boshin War actually).
The Japanese Government pays America, England, France, and other countries to help turn Japan into a modern country(cannon, clothes, telegraph, military tactics+training the works).
Then with all this together the Samurai rebel, the Japanese Government sends it's new
"modern" army after the samurai, there is a big battle where the Samurai fight valiantly but are defeated.
This actually happend both in history, and largely in the movie. Give some details why you think it's not accurate.
Posted by: Doc at February 16, 2005 08:43 PM (1tfre)
18
"They simply couldn't kill off the Samurai, and it made excellent since to retool them."
I see where your coming from and half agree on that. But still the Samurai were to honorable and proud of a people to just drop and change what they and their ancestors had done for 800 years or more. Maybe your right and some low ranking samurai did give up the sword. That maybe so. But the one thing you didnt mention is that there was an actual rebellion of the Samurai as in the movie, and most of which were killed (allthough from what I've read and heard they put up a hell of a fight, still outkilling there foes armed with cannon and rifle).
Indeed, a bit like the Spartans at Thremopylae, the Germans and Japanese at the end of WWII, the current Jihadists. (Not necessarily in terms of effectiveness, but intent mind you.) This is one of the signals or signs of totalitarianism. One could even include the Russians at Stalingrad.
And I think you'll agree with me that even though the samurai caste was done and over they still highly influenced the Japanese soldiers of WW2.
Well, they were the direct inspiration for the Kamikaze, as well as the resistance on Iwo Jima. But ultimately there was something lacking, that ensured their defeat, something that Steven Ambrose identifies. My point about Hollywood is that their idealism is so childish that they see the Samurai as a romantic image of their own opposition to the double-edged sword of American Exceptionalism. There is something vaguely admirable about such a dedication, until you realize that it's intimately connected to the death camps and the gulags... the other side of that coin.
There was a rebellion led by Saigo Takamori in the mid 1800's.
The rebellion was caused by similar things as in the movie. Salary cut, food supply cut, etc.
Well, I wasn't really questioning the historical accuracy of the skeleton story. Note that the skeleton of The Gangs of New York is also true. There were, in fact, anti-war riots in New York City. What was inaccurate was the manipulation of the ethnic rivalries, the sort of "Simon LaGree" aspect of it, design to excuse and explain what has been an unfortunately recurring story in America: that the group at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder always resents and fights the newcomers taking their place. This isn't because of exploitation by capitalism. It's human nature.
The gist of Lipset's article, which I still suggest you read (and I'll still look for the citation of the other article) was that although there's as much literature an "Japanese Uniqueness" as there is about "American Exceptionalism," the reality is that the former isn't true, while the latter is. The Japanese, at least as it relates to their militarism, are actually like other cultures recently emerged from feudalism, including the Germans. And the American Revolution truely was a world revolution, with a slow fuse.
If your email is real, I'll send you that other citation when I have the time to find it out in the garage. It's at the bottom of some boxes that I kept from grad school. Really worth reading, because although there was a kind of relapse, the experiment actually worked in the long run. Eventually the Samurai class formed the core of the new business and technology spirit.
Posted by: Demosophist at February 17, 2005 09:57 PM (Dfdj0)
19
I liked the movie.
The Samurai were a traditional group which thought that Japan was changing too fast and in the wrong way. Omura was the one behind it and he tried to influence the Emperor's choice, which he did. Katsumoto would have halted his attack had the Emperor asked, he was only doing his duty to Japan. This shows Chu, duty and loyalty.
Katsumoto represented the traditional Japan and Omura represented the new Japan. The Samurai showed honor by not giving up. Even though, at the end, Katsumoto and the other samurai killed many of the opposing Japanese troups, they still bowed to him when he killed himself. Although many of them died by his sword, they still respected his honor and reconized that a great leader had just died and they were bowing to the lost, dead Japan.
The Samurai did the honorable thing by not giving up, they died in honor.
Katsumoto also managed to finish his poem.
I don't know if that's relevant, but that's how I saw the movie.
Posted by: Death's Scribe at May 25, 2005 08:59 PM (cDFec)
Six al Qaeda Operatives Arrested over Baghdad Governor Assasination
I wasn't around when the governor was killed, but Chad guest posted on it here. Via Chad at In the Bullpen this Reuters story:
U.S. troops have arrested six suspects in the assassination of Baghdad's provincial governor, the highest-ranking official hit so far in attacks to sabotage Iraq's Jan. 30 election, the military said on Wednesday.Good news. These guys were agents of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al Qaedi in Iraq.Acting on a tip from residents, soldiers seized the suspected insurgents on Tuesday in a house in western Baghdad, U.S. officials said....
"We were able to act on this intelligence and detain these guys without firing a shot," said Major Web Wright, an army spokesman. The military said the men were being held for questioning.
Posted by: Rusty at
02:16 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sure hope those guys don't get Jack Bauer for an interrogator.
Actually, scratch that; I think that's a *wonderful* idea.
Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge
Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at January 12, 2005 02:34 PM (rV7Dk)
2
The best part of that article is "Acting on a tip from residents." Now that is good news.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 12, 2005 04:13 PM (D39Vm)
3
Right on Cindy.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 12, 2005 06:40 PM (R0PwA)
Washington State Protest
(Via Ace) Headmistress SondraK went to the protest in Washington state and provides some excelent photos of the fun. Wait a minute...there's a Washington state?
Posted by: Rusty at
02:02 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Funny.
You know, the fact that you call it "Washington State" is geographically telling. I grew up next to the place, we always called it "Washington", and added "DC" to the other.
Cliff Clavenism of the day: "Washington" is the most common place name in America.
Posted by: Brian B at January 12, 2005 04:04 PM (CouWh)
2
Wait, there's a Washington "D.C."??
Posted by: Rusty at January 12, 2005 05:10 PM (JQjhA)
3
Umm... no... uh... there isn't.... These aren't the droid you're looking for....
Posted by: Brian B at January 12, 2005 07:58 PM (CouWh)
4
It's like Rusty's other comment "Georgia, not the state, you dumbass" when he talks about Georgia, the country over by Russia. :-)
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 13, 2005 09:47 AM (D39Vm)
5
I have not seen much coverage of this here, could have missed it, but this is an improtant fact that in my opioion bears repeating. The ballots for the military were "accidentally" mailed late. Most of them were not recieved until *AFTER* the election. Count every vote, particularly dead men, but ignore the military. Just like the AG in Fla '00 destroying 10,000 - 15,000 absentee ballots so they could never be looked at.
Rod Stanton
Cerritos
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 13, 2005 11:37 AM (IcheV)
Ansar al-Islam/Ansar al-Sunnah
The Commissar, who I hear has gone into semi-retirement, republishes this SPI article on Ansar al-Islam.
Because large portions of this site have been devoted to exposing the Ansar al Sunnah, I thought I'd republish it also below. I would correct the SPI article only in stating that Ansar al-Islam is now defunct. Ansar al-Islam bases of operation were heavily bombed during the Iraq invasion and Kurdish forces have completely suppressed the groups activities in the area. All terrorist activity in Northern Iraq has been by Ansar al-Sunnah, an offshoot and now replacement of Ansar al-Islam. Further, it was the Army of Ansar al-Sunnah themselves that have claimed allegiance to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq group. The article makes it sound as if there is some question about the relationship. There is none. more...
Posted by: Rusty at
01:43 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.
1
http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?catid=138&newsid=55553&ch=0&datte=2005-01-11
...WTF??? That reminds me of the communique some group released ages ago threatening Zarqawi and all his militants.
It seems some credibility has to be given to the US govs claim that the insurgency is highly fragmented...
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_binladen_011205,00.html
Just posted this here cus your report says there is no doubt that Zarqawi & Sunnah are allied... I don't think that's the case. It may be true that Sunnah pledged allegiance a while ago, but a lot has changed. Sunnah may not want to be associated with a panIslamic terror group - they'd prob rather be perceived as the one true legitimate nationalist army (i.e. more selective in its aims & targets).
Best case scenario... Ansar al Sunnah & Al Qaeda in Iraq declare war on each other; go battle in the dessert; all the Iraqi civilians & coalition soldiers are left alone.
Posted by: Martin at January 12, 2005 02:55 PM (ll2pj)
2
A funny: The other day at the gym while working out, I glanced at the tv screen, they had the sound turned down and the closed captions on....instead of "Shite", they had "shit"!!! No one else caught it, I thought it was hilarious.
:-D
Posted by: Laura at January 12, 2005 04:47 PM (ptOpl)
3
Martin,
On two beheading videos released by Ansar al-Sunnah one of the executioners identifies himself as a member of Tawhid and Jihad, the old name for Zarqawi's group. Further, after Zarqawi was forced out of Fallujah he went where? Mosul, the stomping grounds of Ansar. Ansar is not a 'nationalistic movement' in any sense of the word. They are an Islamist movement every bit as much as al Qaeda in Iraq. They make no bones about that.
Posted by: Rusty at January 12, 2005 05:14 PM (JQjhA)
4
what if all the victims ,directly ,indirectly ,even supporters form a team and finish ..of zarqwaris every relative..rpe them, i dont know what..
for zaqwari he should die a slow death..he should be rped might be his full family...do let me know if any one is intrested in this assignemnt...
Posted by: realdanger at February 05, 2005 01:43 PM (ifB01)
Sex Cafe
Sex education + the daily special + 1 billion Chinese = Hilarity. Via Simon this New Kerela article:
Our service is to bring convenience for customers by combining sex education, sex counselling and free condoms into a one-stop shopping experience," said Tao Lin, director of the city's family planning centre, whose idea it was to turn the original sex education centre into a cafe.Waiter, there's a condom in my soup!!
Shhhhh!! Quiet, or every one will want one.
Posted by: Rusty at
01:26 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I just hope they like American men. T minus two months and counting...
Posted by: Joe R. the Unabrewer at January 12, 2005 05:31 PM (R4gIs)
2
Why is it that when, America spits on the Iraqi people with their bombs from the sky, blowing people to oblivion, it part of war.
And you consider beheading inhuman.
Posted by: rebel at March 02, 2005 10:44 AM (WZ9tn)
Shia vs. Sunni Fatwas
A fatwa is an Islamic religious ruling. In my absence Jeff at Beautiful Attrocities has been parousing the Ask the Imam site. The Ask the Imam site is obviously run by those crumudgeonly Sunnis. For instance:
Q: What are the positions allowed for intercourse? Can wife sit on top of husband?But those Shia are a bunch of swingers, baby. Check this out from the Grand Ayatollah Sistani's site which Tim Worstall reminded me of:A: An Aayat of the noble Qur'aan states, 'Have sexual relations with your wives in any manner as long as it is in the front opening & not in the hind opening.'
Question: My question is, what does the holy book Quran and prophet Mohammad (pbuh) say about anal sex even if the wife agrees to experience this with her husband?Oh, and just in case you were wondering, it's official--Bill Clinton is a Shia Muslim. How do I know? (Hint: Zina means adultery)Answer: As deduced from narration anal sex is permissible; but it is strongly undesirable. Permission is bound to wifeÂ’s agreement and consent to anal sex. If she is not consenting, it would be impermissible.
Question:What is the definition of Zina?See, he really didn't have sexual relations with that woman!!Answer:Zina does not take place without penetration.
Anyway, I don't know why Iowahawk felt like he needed to spice the answers up. I mean, you have to admit that's some funny stuff left alone. As usual, though, Iowahawk does the improbable and makes the funny funnier:
Q: I look like a famous person in England called David Baddiel (he is a comedian). People call me Dave all the time. It is really annoying & depressing. I don't understand why Allah would give me this curse.A: Remind the people around you that you are not a kafir & you are a Muslim faithful to your Deen. Also, cut off the kafir comedian's head, as this will reduce your confusing resemblance.
PS-A not so funny fatwa from Ask the Imam:
You should understand that we as Muslims firmly believe that the person who doesn't believe in Allah as he is required to, is a disbeliever who would be doomed to Hell eternally. Thus one of the primary responsibilities of the Muslim ruler is to spread Islam throughout the world, thus saving people from eternal damnation.And then there's the old bait and switch:Thus what is meant by the passage in Tafsir Uthmani, is that if a country doesn't allow the propagation of Islam to its inhabitants in a suitable manner or creates hindrances to this, then the Muslim ruler would be justifying in waging Jihad against this country, so that the message of Islam can reach its inhabitants, thus saving them from the Fire of Jahannum. If the Kuffaar allow us to spread Islam peacefully, then we would not wage Jihad against them.
Q: I was shocked recently when I heard of the news that an American was beheaded by some Iraqis and this was shown on video to the whole world!! I just couldn`t digest it that a live human was slaughtered like an animal in front of the whole world!! This would certainly damage the already deterioting position of Islam in front of the west. It reminded me of a similar case of Daniel Pearl`s murder in Pakistan about 2 years back. This is really disturbing to see Muslims doing such acts of violence. I agree that the people of Iraq are also suffering at the hands of the invaders and the resistance they are lodging against them is legitimate but I don`t think that Islam permits this kind of violence. What do you say about it.Yup, the terrorists exercise a lot of restraint. Another reason why the Abu Ghraib photos should have never been publicly released.A: The incident that you have written about is indeed shocking. However, it is extremely important that we do not lose hold of the bigger picture because of our emotions. DoesnÂ’t it seem strange that throughout the Iraqi war and so many months of oppressive occupation, it is only when the US army has come under fire from the entire world because of their gross indifference to humanity that only now the Iraqis decide to publicly execute an American?
Posted by: Rusty at
12:00 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 715 words, total size 5 kb.
1
What is the Islam position on the relationship between the wife and husband? If husband request that she stimulate him by inserting her finger in his anus.
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Istisharat/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&Id=8026&Option=FatwaId
Posted by: EvilTHelL at January 13, 2005 04:46 AM (YJx7q)
2
Whilst much of current planning in Iraq seems to place great store on the result of the elections, one can easily envisage the elections having to be postponed, or their results, should they go ahead on time, being anything but helpful.
It is hard to imagine what assurances the Shia (majority) community can give to the Sunnis to ensure their active participation in the democratic process. Should the Sunnis boycott the elections it will be impossible to claim the results as meaningful.
Bearing in mind that Iraq has no experience of being governed as a single, democratic country, and that most Iraqis' loyalties are to their tribal, ethnic and religious leaders, would it not be better to prepare now for alternatives should the result of the elections prove unhelpful?
The most obvious solution is a federation. With autonomy granted to the Kurds, Sunnis and Shias within a federal structure, many of the current rivalries and insecurities would be lessened. A federal Iraq is less likely to be a danger to its neighbours and, with a constitution guaranteeing minority rights backed by the UN, there would be a reasonable chance of an end to the current violence. This in turn would hasten the date for the withdrawal of coalition forces, to everyone's advantage.
Obviously, there would be many difficulties to overcome on the ground, such as ownership of the oil fields (Although paying 80 per cent of oil royalties to an independent Iraq development board, as practised in pre-1958 days, could be a solution.) A federation would, surely, be a great improvement on the all-too-likely result of pursuing current policies.
Posted by: LiquidSnake at January 13, 2005 10:44 AM (PM/BC)
3
Asalam alakom
I am writing this e-mail on the behalf of my friend. She is very shy and doesnÂ’t want to be mentioned. As a name so I decided to help her, as she is very upset and feeling very down. I wish if this is possible if this e-mail can be dealt with in confidentiality.
My friend has always being a good Shia Muslim girl. She was all the time practising her role as a Muslim girl and wearÂ’s the hejab too. She is from an Arab origin, but currently living in the United Kingdom. She had many marriage proposals from family back in her country. But her parents kept rejecting for no valid reason. So as the girl got a little older, she has to move from her parents house as she started university. The girl had many men asking to marry her again but every time she wanted to give one a chance her parents rejected. They wanted a man from there original country who is well of and not from the family. I think personally that very difficult if the girl is living in the uk ! how will anyone see her ? who will propose?
So the girl was met a man who is a Muslim but not shia, from a different nationality and culture. She felt and still feelÂ’s this is the right man for her. The problem is she was dating him and had a very close relationship with him (just like a married couple). She introduced the man to her family but as usual and expected they refused. She knew what she was doing is wrong, but she doesnÂ’t know what to do now!
Our sister needs help! She has being to the hospital so many times, because she is very depressed. She feelÂ’s she canÂ’t have a halall life like all other humans.
She is asking for advice what should she do? Should she leave the man? Or should she marry him anyway?, can she marry him without her parents acceptance? ,Because her parents are not agreeing for no valid reason? The manÂ’s family are accepting everything , they are welling to take care of the wedding. But the girl is afraid , because both of her parents are not well!.
Please can I have the reply to my e-mail address and I will pass the reply to her. I feel very bad for the girl because she is feeling so bad is going to go crazy. She doesnÂ’t want to upset her parents yet she doesnÂ’t want to lose the man who is welling to marry her !
We appreciate very much if we have a reply as soon as possible, because the girl wants to sort her life out and seek forgiveness from Allah. Also what can she do to seek forgiveness from Allah for doing the mistakes that she did do?
Kind regards
M.A
Posted by: M.A at June 14, 2005 08:53 AM (R1adb)
4
Assalaam o alaykum,
I have the same problem as described above, but I am the boy, and the girl I know has lots of problems at home. We both want to put the things right we did wrong in a legitimate manner. Can you please tell me what to do next?
Posted by: KB at August 18, 2005 02:24 PM (Plu4K)
First Day of Classes
Classes begin today around here. A hectic time on a campus for all. I'll try to blog later--if I can.
In the meantime let me just direct your attention to Chris Cross' blog, Legal XXX. Despite the name, his blog is work safe (apologies to my normal leacherous readers). Chris and I had lunch at an undisclosed location on my super-top-secret mission to LA. Topics of discussion included why so many sucky bloggers like Andrew Sullivan get hits, strategeries for increasing traffic, and the value of the link drop post for TTLB Ecosystem rankings.
I wasn't going to mention our meeting but Chris has threatened to reveal my true identity unless he gets at least ten links in the next two weeks. He has also placed ten copies of my information with his lawyer with instructions that if he should suddenly die under suspicious circumstances that they will be sent to bin Laden, Zarqawi, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, and several leading Mullahs in Iran.
Since his wife also frequents the Jawa Report he has also asked that I calm her lingering fears that Chris is a closet homosexual who frequently has phone sex with Brad Pitt. I can assure her that Chris is not playing for the other team and that any phone sex he had with Brad Pitt was just a passing phase. He's better now. I swear.
Posted by: Rusty at
08:56 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.
1
So that was Chris calling me in Mecca. Got me so worked up I had to flog a servant to death.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at January 12, 2005 09:17 AM (yBHNA)
2
Anyone think that those soldiers should be on trial for the Abu Graib prisoners? After all, these insurgents were the enemies!!
If it weren't for modern technology, we would never even know about it. Shit happens in every war. I'm sure similiar things happened during WW2, Korean and Nam wars. Big deal. At least we didn't BEHEAD the fuckers, like they did to us!
Whatever happened to that Marine who shot the so called unarmed enemy on video?
Posted by: Laura at January 12, 2005 09:50 AM (ptOpl)
3
I'm with Laura on this one. What happened in Abu Garib that was so terrible? So far I haven't really seen or heard of anything so terrible. Are the liberal losers exaggerating the issue? Another get Bush thing? Did anything happen worse than a frat/football hazing here in the US? Any broken bones? Any finger nails pulled? Toes crushed? What's the big deal?
Any ass whippings? Does someone not in uniform, who just killed people deserve an ass whipping?
Are we turning into a bunch of sissies? If so, the enemy will take full advantage of it.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 12, 2005 01:51 PM (R0PwA)
4
It wasn't so much phone sex as just very comforting chatting...without pants.
Posted by: Christopher Cross at January 12, 2005 06:51 PM (QLCx7)
January 11, 2005
Tribute to American Hostage Roy Hallums
UPDATE 9/07/05: Roy Hallums is FREE!!!! Information and updates here.
UPDATE 9/07/05: Roy Hallums is FREE!!!! Information and updates here.
-------
UPDATE 1/25/05: Terrorists Release Video of Roy Hallums, click here for update.
A page dedicated to American hostage Roy Hallums by his daughter Carrie. Right: Roy Hallums pictured with Carrie as a child
As close followers of this site know, a minor controversy was started when we published the name of an American civillian being held hostage in Iraq. His name first appeared as 'Roy Hallun' in a Fillipino newspaper and we republished that account here. In response to that initial post a friend of Roy contacted us and clarified that Roy's last name was actually 'Hallums'.
We published several posts about Roy Hallums, shocked that not a single mainstream media outlet had picked up on the story. Roy had been kidnapped with six other foreigners on November 1st. For weeks the State Department would only confirm that an American had been kidnapped but would not release his name. This seemed odd to us and we felt that the word should get out.
Members of Roy's family soon contacted us with words of encouragement. They too were perplexed that an American citizen could be held hostage in Iraq and yet no media would cover the story.
However, as some of you know, we took down several posts dedicated to Roy Hallums. A person close to Roy Hallums' contacted me with the concern that publicizing his account might jeopardize ongoing negotiations for his release. I was conflicted. On the one hand I felt a great deal of sympathy for this person. If I were in their shoes I would do everything possible, including paying a ransom to terrorists, for the release of my loved one. On the other hand, I wanted the whole world to know the depths of Islamofascist perfidy. As a matter of fact, my entire site is dedicated to that very goal.
In the end, the personal nature of the request won me over and I removed the posts as requested.
In the past few weeks, Roy's immediate family has been trying to get the word out about his plight and it seems the media is catching on. Just prior to my vacation I was contacted by a producer at CBS news who was trying to reach the Hallums family--I assume they ran the story although I've been out of the loop. Carrie and her mother Susan Hallums have also appeared on Good Morning America trying to get the word out about their loved one.
Carrie e-mailed me over my holiday letting me know that she had set up a web page dedicated to her father. If you have a minute I'd encourage you to go over there and look around. You can leave words of encouragement at this guest page. Also, please include Roy Hallums and his family in your prayers.
Posted by: Rusty at
03:20 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 487 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Now, my man Rusty is back!!!
May God Bless and Protect the family of Roy Hallums, Roy himself and of all the people who have been kidnapped, held hostage, or already dead, that we know nothing about for it happens everyday and we rarely hear about it.
I have not seen anything yet on the news about this, Rusty, but glad you posted it again. There are more and probably will never hear about it unfortunately.
All my hopes and prayers go to all families and to all people who have been put in this position whether we know about it or not; the way things are going, it's possible all we can do for all these people is send them our sympathies. For those who may read this blog and have a family member missing, you can even write me with the name and date and I'm sure Rusty will add your loved one's name. There is so much we do not know and may never know. This is one name of many not listed - American or otherwise.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 11, 2005 09:02 PM (D39Vm)
2
"As a matter of fact, my entire site is dedicated to that very goal."
A big "AHEM"
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 11, 2005 09:07 PM (D39Vm)
3
The question of why non-combatants continue to be in Iraq remains?
Posted by: greyrooster at January 11, 2005 09:49 PM (Vc+ll)
4
Dan Rather, CBS. Ficitious reports on Bush's military records.
Question:
If incorrect/lies reports were given to Dan Rather concerning Kerry would CBS have jumped on it with the same enthusiasm?
Would Rather continued to support lies even after they were exposed as not true?
Were reports given with election results in mind?
CBS employees getting fired to save face. Is that enough after obviously reporting lies not substantiated? Should CBS be fined?
HEY RUSTY: Time to give the Kerry supporting liberal cry babies some pay back.
GET ON IT.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 11, 2005 10:54 PM (Vc+ll)
5
Wrong comment for this post, greyrooster.
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 12, 2005 02:11 AM (D39Vm)
6
Grey Rooster, you wanted to know why non-combatants are still going to Iraq - MONEY. Anyone working there is making at least $80 to $100 an hour and more for the highly skilled.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 12, 2005 07:04 AM (D39Vm)
7
Rusty,
Just a quuestion: if they were concerned before about your blog following Mr. Hallum, why are they not concerned about it anymore (including setting up their own page)? Has something changed?
Yeah, I know, that was 2 questions...
Posted by: Venom at January 12, 2005 10:09 AM (dbxVM)
8
*Hallums
Posted by: Venom at January 12, 2005 10:10 AM (dbxVM)
9
Venom,
The concern was from one person close to Roy who I'll let remain anonymous. After the MSM picked up the story and Carrie put up her own website, I felt like the cat was out of the bag. There is no reason now to restrain myself.
Posted by: Rusty at January 12, 2005 12:04 PM (JQjhA)
10
Someone wish to be a moderator? Get your own blog. Don't read my input. The arrow on the right shows how to continue on.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 12, 2005 01:16 PM (R0PwA)
11
I hope and pray that he returns safely.
Posted by: Ron Bridges at January 25, 2005 05:18 AM (B/nhD)
12
Wait, his own daughter didn't know he was living in Iraq, and she can't remember that "country near-by" where he lived just before then? Me smells hoax. I give this another 48 hours before it's snopes material.
Posted by: huh at January 25, 2005 06:07 AM (IkjJk)
13
how stupid do you have to be to NOT realize roy is reading a prepared statement from his captors? roy's family frequents this site for support. how dare someone hope in this forum that he be killed!
Posted by: legalblonde68 at January 25, 2005 11:02 AM (Z7VMU)
14
Hello,
This is your wakeup call.....
Iraq, THE ENTIRE COUNTRY is a WAR ZONE!!!!
If you go there for any reason you are subjecting yourself to whatever those who don't want you there choose to do to you.
PLEASE do your loved ones a favor and consider LONG AND HARD the choice you are making.
Then, if you've made the choice to go there PLEASE tell your loved ones to LIVE WITH IT!!!!
Posted by: Hacksaw at January 25, 2005 03:34 PM (EPVeK)
15
Hey this is a reply for the little pile of garbage "huh" who pu tin his useless 2 cents in a reply and I quote what he says Wait, his own daughter didn't know he was living in Iraq, and she can't remember that "country near-by" where he lived just before then? Me smells hoax. I give this another 48 hours before it's snopes material.
HOW DARE you, You little ignorant mother F&*%#@. I have talked to Carrie Hallums On The Phone From Here In Canada and I have followed the news closely.....THIS IS NO HOAX you ignorant little bastard. You owe the entire Hallums family an apology for your comments. Start following the news and papers before you open that hole in your face and spew out total crap. I am doing what I can from here to try and help with raising money to send to them and others are aswell we dont need to hear your lame ignorant comments. try HELPING your fellow American out here get him home safe. Dont come on here and spew crap about something you think you know about. You have proven that you know nothing about it at all and just decided to be a punk. GROW UP JACK ASS!
Posted by: IronHorse at January 25, 2005 09:14 PM (lc9F1)
16
Hey Shakleford....get a better alias and stop wasting that young lady's time and hurting her more by being a coward and fooling her with all of this crap on your page. I hope that she can see past your foolishness to rescuing her faather and that he makes it home safely.
PS - too much King of the Hill is never a good thing.
Posted by: Dale Gribble at January 26, 2005 01:49 PM (yK9T7)
17
Why can't President Bush help Roy Hallums? This is really frusterating to sit and watch all of these hostage videos and the government just says its classified information. Until when? Why cant the family know what is going on. They say that America is united, well if we are, then lets go save our fellow Americans from the terror that we will never be able to fathom. To Roy's family: my thoughts and prayers are with you. I will be checking back. Stay strong, love and peace
Posted by: peace at January 29, 2005 01:00 AM (i3Ipz)
LGF and Allah back again!!
Charles Johnson, of Little Green Footballs, the man who inspired me to start My Pet Jawa had been blogging over at Discarded Lies, another LGF inspired site. Evariste cannot be happy about the drop in hits.
Another piece of good news: Allah is back! He's using his backup site here. Bookmark it.
Posted by: Rusty at
08:57 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I heard Chuck's move was temporary. Some America haters are making a DOS attack on his site host's servers. H Hewitt on his radio show last night.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 11, 2005 01:35 PM (tHUgl)
2
Hmm, I'm not sure that one post a return makes for Allah - but I hope he is truly back.
Posted by: Hammertime at January 11, 2005 01:46 PM (cFg3z)
3
I don't know why Charles was out of business, since I haven't been keeping up with the blogosphere, but I'll take your word for it.
Hammertime-I was hoping he would start posting again. We'll see.
Posted by: Rusty at January 11, 2005 02:14 PM (JQjhA)
4
I think that there may be reason to mistrust or at least question -- better, ask for evidence of -- certain "explanations" being made by certain hosts. Just saying, is all.
I don't know what the problems are just that I certainly have reason to now question who says what about whom, within a certain affiliated set of websites.
Not Hewitt, if that helps elucidate the issue here, which shall remain intentionally obfuscated.
Posted by: -S- at January 12, 2005 06:23 AM (v5vPW)
Most Important News During My Absence
Posted by: Rusty at
08:42 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You know damn well Auburn would have eaten your Trojans for lunch.
Posted by: Preston Taylor Holmes at January 11, 2005 08:45 AM (WsZ4F)
2
Dude, SC should have been this year's NFC West wild-card pick.
Posted by: Rusty at January 11, 2005 08:47 AM (JQjhA)
3
Aaaaah... nicely countered.
Posted by: Preston Taylor Holmes at January 11, 2005 09:35 AM (WsZ4F)
4
I wasn't a believer until they dismantled OU (with plenty of help from OU). I'm happy for Pete Carrol, a nice guy who was a dreadful coach for my NE Patriots. I hope he doesn't go to the 49ers, who, as you point out, aren't as good.
Posted by: Steve L at January 11, 2005 11:35 AM (HBkVS)
5
Yeah, but if Carrol leaves Norm Chow would take his place. More worrisome is the fact that the 49ers have the first pick in the draft. If I'm Linert, I'm thinking SF at 10 million looks a whole lot better than another year of college.
Posted by: Rusty at January 11, 2005 01:11 PM (JQjhA)
6
SC would have creamed anyone but Cal or Utah. Pete is by far the best coach in College FB. I turned the game of at half time it was so one sided.
Rod Stanton
Cerritos
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 11, 2005 01:39 PM (tHUgl)
7
I agree with Rod. Furthermore, in response to all the Auburn fans whining that they should have been there, that's the way the BCS cookie crumbles, the only difference is that this time an eastern team got the short end. Last season it was USC having to watch LSU and OU play, when it's obvious they should have been there. After the 2001 season it was Oregon who got snubbed for the Rose Bowl in favor of Nebraska, who got drubbed by Miami, while Oregon had to settle for demolishing our fourth-seed dance partner and taking #2. The BCS system is inherently sucky, but usually it's the West that's left out in the cold. Well, now it's Judy's turn to cry.
Posted by: Brian B at January 11, 2005 01:55 PM (CouWh)
8
Judy's Turn To Cry? Golly Brian that brings back memories.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 11, 2005 04:29 PM (tHUgl)
9
If I'm Leinart, I'm thinking SF at 10 million looks a whole lot better than another year of college.
You've obviously forgotten how hot the chicks are at USC.
Posted by: Leopold Stotch at January 11, 2005 08:14 PM (6hqD1)
10
True, but how do we know he's not playing for the other team? SF is the natural choice.
Posted by: Rusty at January 12, 2005 08:32 AM (JQjhA)
11
Rod,
I wouldn't know, that's before my time.....
Posted by: Brian B at January 12, 2005 12:38 PM (CouWh)
Man Beheaded in Saudi Arabia
You know how the followers of the Religion of Peace like to say things like "beheading is un-Islamic" or "beheading is a recent phenomenon in Islamic countries" and what not? A man convicted of drug smuggling was just beheaded in Saudi Arabia and two more necks are scheduled to meet with a noose in Kuwait later today. I guess it was Saudi Arabia's radical secularism that caused this particular form of punishment. Pak Tribune:
Khan Wali Majid Khan, a Pakistani national, was beheaded here Monday after being convicted for smuggling heroin into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, said a statement released by the Interior Ministry.Note that it was a Shariah court that convicted Mr. Khan. Not that hanging makes you any less dead than beheading, but beheading does have a long history in Muslim lands and is explicitly approved of in the Koran. Because it is an acceptable form of punishment, hostages who are beheaded are first made to confess to various crimes against Islam. Thus, Islamic fanatics rationalize beheading as the meting out of justice to apostates, collaboraters, and sinners.
He was convicted by the Shariah court, and the verdict was approved by the Cassation court and the Supreme Judicial Council...Moreover, Two arrested Pakistan drug smugglers would be executed here early Tuesday after Kuwaiti courts and Amir of the state found them guilty of smuggling heroin to Kuwait.
Ayub Shah 30 and Usman Khan 40 were rounded up by Kuwait Custom officials for smuggling heroin in 2002 and both the accused later confessed their guilt when they were produced before the court, according to Kuwait police....
After the rejection of their mercy appeals by the Amir of Kuwait, the Kuwait Attorney General has issued order to conduct execution of both of the Pakistanis at Naif Palace. They would be hanged publicly.
Posted by: Rusty at
08:27 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Glad to have you back. This beheading in Saudi Arabia is #32 this year.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 11, 2005 01:23 PM (D39Vm)
2
Rusty,
I think a lot of people have no idea how people are punished over "there." In Saudi, we know that within days of being convicted of a crime, they are beheaded, as they do in other countries over "there." And this is just for drug trafficking. It would be interesting to find out just what the other countries, Muslim and all, deal in "punishment." How about "our allies?" I've seen things that have been horrible but what is the norm for all the other countries over in Europe, Asia, and whatnot? I think most Americans have no clue, so finding out that information would certainly wake them up. I also think it's important for our own information, for anyone who travels. Saudi Arabia is not the only country over there who beheads criminals. We cannot continue to live in ignorance.
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 11, 2005 09:23 PM (D39Vm)
3
Just for drug trafficing?
Execution without waiting 14 years and millions of tax payers money? I guess every society has its good side.
Did they know the rules? You bet.
Did they take the chance anyway? You bet?
Were they concerned about the lives they ruin with their drug smuggling? Nope.
We have good guys dying every day attempting to make the world a better place. Do I care about Islamic drug smugglers? NOPE.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 11, 2005 10:06 PM (Vc+ll)
4
I agree but beheading is a bit harsh for drug trafficking. I was going to add that maybe we should change our rules when it comes to the death penalty here. If you get the death penalty, set a date like 3 months later, stick in the needle and end it all saving tax payers a ton of money.
At least lethal injection is humane; they never feel a thing.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 12, 2005 07:08 AM (D39Vm)
5
Saudi's love a little head.
Posted by: FILTHY ALLAH at January 12, 2005 08:17 AM (yBHNA)
6
Humane execution? Ha, Ha, Ha.
Tell the guy the date and time. Let him worry for months.
Wheel him in a room. Strap him to a table. Install needles in his arms. Make him lay there for an hour. Have an audience of sicko's wishing to watch him die. Then at the last minute change your mind and start all over again tomorrow. Is that really more humane? Bullshit.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 12, 2005 01:25 PM (R0PwA)
7
I dont agree with decapitating people however I would like to see more electric chair executions then lethal injections.
-The Doctor
Posted by: The Doctor at January 14, 2005 04:48 AM (2AnXd)
8
Dear Muslim brothers,
We the young youth of (asiakwa village ghana) has organised a institution for the orphans and the upgrowing children in our community.
to teach them the holy book of Allah,(Quran) and show them the way of prophet Mohammed(S.A.W.)but is unfortunately our facilities are too poor.
so we here by appeal to our muslim brothers.
assist us with some funds.we need to extend our classrooms and some other books.
as it was said in the holy book of Allah{73:20} (and whatever good ye send forth for your souls ye shall find it in God's presence,yea,bether and greater,in reward)
our dear brothers help us to keep dinil islam exciting in our community and may the good God be with us all (Amin)
we shall appreciate your prompt response and co-operation.any help can reach us by this name and address
ARAFAT MOHAMMED
P.O.BOX 11357
ACCRA-NORTH
GHANA WEST AFRICA
Posted by: arafat mohammed at January 18, 2005 08:09 AM (9vCFw)
9
beheading is barbaric///and the koran approves of that?i think the heads of all the so-called heads of saudi arabia should be chopped off too//that way they will go to
Posted by: lileo at February 04, 2005 09:41 PM (y1/V+)
10
Dear Friend,
I AM Mrs Olivia Obruth, Yeputa an Ivorian widow with an only son ( Frank Obruth Yeputa ). My husband was the chief security officer to the ousted president Bede of Cot d’Ivoire. During the overthrown of 24th December 1999, my husband was among the people was killed by the military. Since after his death. I ran away with my only son.
Sir, may I introduce this business proposal to you. With reference to an introduction and good recommendation made of you and your esteemed firm by my close friend, I do hereby wish to ask for your assistance in an urgent business transaction that requires absolute honesty and secrecy. Although I did not in any way disclose to my friend the details of this my proposal due to confidential nature of this transaction.
By virtue of my husband ‘s position, the former president (Bede) gave him $80,500,000.00 (Eighty million five hundred thousand U.S. dollars) cash in $ 100.00 bills stacked in a box when he got the information that the military are planning to overthrow him.
Immediately my husband was confirmed dead, I made away with this box with my only son so that we cannot be reached by Mr. Bede. I have really been waiting for a more suitable time and opportunity to contact you concerning this transaction. Right now, the money is in a safe place. I deposited it with a diplomatic company for safekeeping. I am using this opportunity to seek your assistance to move the money to your country to be invested on behalf of my only son. For your assistance, I am ready to offer you 30% of the total sum and give you the full power to manage the remaining 70% on behalf of my son. Contact my son (Frank Obruth Yeputa ) where we are currently staying in a sister’s house in South Africa.
I Deposited it somewhere in London, which we shall inform you as soon as you conclude arrangements. Upon conclusion of arrangement, we shall forward to you the certificate of deposit and the phone and Fax number of the Diplomatic Company for confirmation.
However, send your message to my son on this E-mail: dr_frankyeputa@yahoo.fr immediately you receive this message. Please I want us to finish this business as quickly as possible. And please indicate your private phone and fax Numbers on your response to this mail. Thanking you in anticipation of your kind
consideration and urgent reply.
Yours faithfully
MRS OLIVIA OBRUTH YEPUTA
Posted by: Mrs Olivia Yeputa at February 18, 2005 11:21 AM (IULp0)
11
i need i good girl to marry from saudi arabia.
i prefar any one that see this to call me+
thankkks
vvvvvvvvient
Posted by: vincent koma at February 19, 2005 05:53 AM (7lRpy)
12
Dear sir,
It is my pleasure to apply in your establishment,
I am James Augustine,I speak English and French,
I am a Nigerian and I live here in côte d'Ivoire for more than seven years,
Please I need a job of any-kind,especially house work like cleaning the house and Flawers decorretion please for God sake,and I promise to work hard and faithfully too if my application is considered.
thanks and God bless,
yours faithfully, James Augustine.
contact;postal address;05 BP 1184 ABJ.05
email; j_j_august@yahoo.fr
cell; 05 92 87 58
Posted by: James Augustine at April 06, 2005 08:58 AM (BiSya)
13
i think these saudi muslims(mutawas) are sick motherfuckers who could be so brutal in life. i had a tuff time there. i m gay and feminine. i think if one appears gay there, he has a high chance to get arrested. these mutawaas were folloing me when i was shopping in the malls. i was wearing a feminine top and a low waste jeans. first they thought i m a female and then they thoguht i m not. the followed me fast and i could sense it. i ran off to my hotel. checked out and took a flight back to my country India where i dont have to face all these stupid laws. one of the mutawas even winked his eyes to me and indirectly wanted to propose me for sex. see how funny, they arrest gays and yet want to shag with them. They are simply sick bastards who dont have principles in life...They should be mass killed.
Posted by: Nikki at April 29, 2005 09:24 PM (ulNQ7)
14
What is with all the money scam people leaving proposals to dispose of large sums of money?
Do they think we were born yesterday?
Behead them all!!!!
Posted by: wee willy winkie at May 05, 2005 07:37 AM (uw0Wh)
15
dear sir ,im so pleased to apply with you for asistance ,im noureddin elbayar ,ispeak english ,frensh and ihav super diploma in arabic language ,
last year imiss
Posted by: noureddine elbayar at June 08, 2005 03:03 PM (/TlII)
16
Dear Sir,
Greetings,
I came to know you through my search for a reliable,transparent and trustworthy person or partner to assist me execute a vital private and confidential business transaction. I am Ola Ahmed, a solicitor at-law; I am the personal attorney to retired Major El - Mustafa who used to be the Chief Security Officer in the Sani Abacha regime here in Nigeria. I shall be disclosing this secret to you because I need some one I can trust on this transaction. El - Mustafa, was arrested and charged to court for Conspiracy and murder which was politically motivated by his enemies in this present regime.
This led to his bank accounts in Nigeria and abroad being frozen. Now, things are really bad for him and his entire family but who I pity most is his loving wife. Based on this, she cannot even afford to take care of her medical expenses not to even talk of her children. This is why I am rendering her and the husband free services.Also due to the fact that her husband is still being monitored, she was advised by him to source for a credible and trustworthy partner abroad who will help in managing and investing some funds he secretly deposited in a security firm for safe keeping some years ago. The amount is US$50.5million contained in sealed boxes.
He deposited these boxes with a safe security company in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. for safekeeping as family treasures and African artifacts to prevent the officials of the company from raising eyebrow. I wish and believe you will be in a position to assist in managing this large sum for a profitable venture and also to help create a safe heaven for her and her children by making a residential arrangement for them in your country. I have also seen the documents relating to this deposit since I strongly believe in documentation as an attorney.
Let me assure you that this transaction is 100% risk free. From my discussion with them, they have agreed to give you a reasonable percentage of the money for your assistance, which will be negotiated and agreed on by both sides. I am obliged to assist this family knowing that they have limited knowledge in the business world. I will need from you a mutual understanding and then we shall make plans of how the funds would be secured into an account in your name, this is the first step. Moreover, you will arrange and travel immediately to meet with the security company for the clearing of the consignment.
Thanks and God bless you for your understanding.
Best regards.
Ola Ahmed
Tel:
Posted by: Mr Diop Williams at September 21, 2005 07:02 AM (k7EfA)
17
Dear,
I know this mail will come to you as a surprise but itrequires utmost trust based on the circumstances surrounding my present position before i continue igot your contact from search on the internet when i begin to see that there is no one i can trust again in Africa, i will like to introduce myself.
I am the wife of Late General Sani Abacha from Nigeria i am presently in Ghana as a result of the preseure from president Olusegun Obsanjo who is tormenting the family as a result of the loot my husband hads during his five years military rule, latest from the bbc news is the recovery of $ 458 million united states dollars click on www.bbnews.com african edition Tuesday, 27 September 2005, 16:29 GMT 17:29 UK for your confirmation.
I am there soliciting for your assistance to avoid the siezure of $ 250 million dollars deposited in a bank here in Ghana ( international commercial bank) i want you to assist me as the my partner and beneficairy to this funds because i cannot make the claims because of my name and personality, i will present your name to the bank as the beneficiary so that these funds can be transfered to your account i am willing to offer you 40% of the total amount for your mutual understanding and i am also setting aside 5% for any expenses that will be incured and after the transfer i will send you an account without the Abacha name so that you can transfer my share which is 55%.
I am waiting for your responce please include your personal contact and full names so that i can forward it to the bank for immidiate transfer of the money.Kind regards
Madam: Mariam Sani Abacha.
The wife of the Xmilitary ruler in nigeria
Posted by: mariam Abacha at October 20, 2005 05:11 PM (A9sR1)
18
You can't be 56452 serious?!?
Posted by: Mary Box at June 23, 2006 02:43 AM (s+4oT)
19
You can't be 56452 serious?!?
Posted by: Mary Box at June 23, 2006 10:46 AM (DbfOr)
January 10, 2005
They Wouldn't Dare!
by Demosophist
Characteristic of both the interrogation/torture issue and the issue of massive offensive operations the left's primary strategy has been to voice their objections loudly and persistently, believing that by so doing they'll sew the conviction that any brazen repudiation of their preference will, at the very least, result in a public relations windfall for their side. It's not only a dangerous strategy to cultivate timid expectations during a war, but it's very likely to backfire. more...
Posted by: Demosophist at
08:13 PM
| Comments (46)
| Add Comment
Post contains 393 words, total size 3 kb.
1
SAY WHAT???? I didn't understand a word you said.
:-(
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 10, 2005 09:50 PM (D39Vm)
2
I didn't understand a word you said.
You must've understood one word. How about "timidity?" Aren't the Iranians and the Syrians banking, to some degree, on the hope/prediction/projection that the US hasn't the resources or the will for another invasion? Don't they rest at least part of that hope/prediction/projection on the idea that the left has managed to make such a move seem beyond consideration? What's the consensus view among the pundits right now, if not the idea that the US is "over-extended" both in terms of its physical capability and the will of its allies, if not it's own people.
They simply believe that we wouldn't dare invade. That's their calculation, anyway.
Wretchard is not only saying that such a calculation may well be wrong, but that there may be a third possibility: setting up Iraq as a regional enemy of Syria (and possibly Iran), and backing them as, for instance, we've backed Israel.
The business about secular and apocalyptic terrorists derives to some extent from a paper produced by a USMC think tank: The Center for Emerging Threats and Opportunities. Go to the here and click on the paper by Ralph Peters When Devils Walk the Earth. It's a good read.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 11, 2005 06:55 AM (7AGFb)
3
I have seen nothing but mundane and defensive for 19 months. What makes you think things will change? Did you hear Rummy is leaving? We should have gone into Iran a year ago when they started sending folk into Iraq to kill us. That would have been breathtaking! Rummy has been and is timid. Tigers do not grow spots!
Rod Stanton
Cerritos
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 11, 2005 07:25 AM (tHUgl)
4
Rod:
Rummy has been and is timid. Tigers do not grow spots!
Well, Rummy isn't leaving as far as I know. And it's not the job of the Secretary of Defense to make the decision on whether or not we go to war. There are real constraints on us, by the way. It wasn't Rummy's fault, for instance, that the 5th ID didn't come in from the north during the invasion. Our military is stretched. Our capabilities aren't infinite. The point Wretchard makes, and I think it's a good one, is that once we can regard the mission in Iraq as reasonably accomplished, even if not perfectly realized, we'll be able to move beyond a purely defensive posture there. And that's precisely why Gary Luck was sent to review military operations in the Middle East. We're reaching a "decision point."
Posted by: Demosophist at January 11, 2005 07:48 AM (7AGFb)
5
thoose wankas if u look on da pictures of it they look like witeman
Posted by: micheala at January 11, 2005 07:59 AM (hFu13)
6
"The point Wretchard makes, and I think it's a good one, is that once we can regard the mission in Iraq as reasonably accomplished, even if not perfectly realized, we'll be able to move beyond a purely defensive posture there."
This is true, though it's a highly vague assertion. Obviously once the war in Iraq appears to be over, countries like Syria or Iran or whomever can be dealt with. However, what is becoming increasingly clear, is that this issue of "when" the mission in Iraq is over is quite likely to be a long ways off, perhaps past the current Bush administration. We clearly don't know when the mission will be over, but it's obviously a logical statement that "when" it's over resources will be freed up. It's the same thing as me saying "When I win the lottery, I will be able to buy a fancy sports car." Obviously it's true, but there's no guarantee of if or when it will happen.
Anyways, the potential to invade Syria or Iran may extend so far out in the future that these countries (or others) might be in a decent position to launch their own attacks against a fledgling Iraqi army. This mission clearly isn't ending any time soon.
Also, there is the possibility that it's not a "when" the mission is accomplished, but "if." Iraq, for all we know, may be a permanent home to a large contingent of US troops, due to the historical instability in the region. But, of course, this is a generalisation as well.
Posted by: Venom at January 11, 2005 08:50 AM (dbxVM)
7
Venom:
However, what is becoming increasingly clear, is that this issue of "when" the mission in Iraq is over is quite likely to be a long ways off,
Did you read the whole Belmont Club post? Actually the decision point is now, or coming up pretty quickly. We aren't going to wait until every jot and tittle is in place, because we don't have to and because a new project could, and probably would, contribute to the ongoing mission in Iraq. For instance, if the "insurgents" are using Syria as a base then some sort of move against Syria, would also reduce insurgent activity in Iraq. This needn't take the form of an outright invasion to have the necessary impact.
Also, there is the possibility that it's not a "when" the mission is accomplished, but "if." Iraq, for all we know, may be a permanent home to a large contingent of US troops, due to the historical instability in the region. But, of course, this is a generalisation as well.
What I'm thinking doesn't exclude the possibility that Iraq could become a relatively permanent redoubt for US forces in the Middle East. The fact that we're their doesn't necessarily mean that Iraq remains our proximate focus. There's clearly going to be a change in the mission, and it's probably going to be in the direction of greater attention to Iraq's neighbors. Letting them sit tight is not in our, or Iraq's, interest.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 11, 2005 09:46 AM (7AGFb)
8
"For instance, if the "insurgents" are using Syria as a base then some sort of move against Syria, would also reduce insurgent activity in Iraq. This needn't take the form of an outright invasion to have the necessary impact."
This might be true, however I'd wager that most of the insurgents are already in Iraq and are using weapons from the old Hussein regime which they squirreled away before the invasion. It would be much more logistically sound to hide the weapons with the intention of launching a guerrila insurgency once defeat became apparent, then rely on another country whose border would (one would think) be monitored. However, yes, if Syria is a "base" then invading it would likely cut off insurgent aid to Iraq.
However, then you're fighting insurgents in two countries instead of one. And this where the whole argument starts as to whether or not the resources exist to fight on 2 fronts like that. Maybe they do, but I think with 150,000 coalition troops in Iraq facing 200,000+ insurgents, I'd say it becomes mighty difficult. And where do you pull them from? Anywhere you pull them from, you leave a thinner defense. Conscription? Possibly, but how successful is a war going to be when you put fresh recruits against a battle-hardened enemy? As we both seem to agree, you have to wait until Iraq is dealt with first, and then you can look elsewhere. We just disagree as to when that might be.
"There's clearly going to be a change in the mission, and it's probably going to be in the direction of greater attention to Iraq's neighbors. Letting them sit tight is not in our, or Iraq's, interest."
Yes, I think I touched on this before, but I'd say this is accurate. However, what other choice is there if the military resources aren't there right away?
Posted by: Venom at January 11, 2005 10:17 AM (dbxVM)
9
Sorry, that first paragraph should read:
"...THAN rely on another country..."
Posted by: Venom at January 11, 2005 10:19 AM (dbxVM)
10
However, then you're fighting insurgents in two countries instead of one. And this where the whole argument starts as to whether or not the resources exist to fight on 2 fronts like that. Maybe they do, but I think with 150,000 coalition troops in Iraq facing 200,000+ insurgents, I'd say it becomes mighty difficult.
200,000 insurgents? Where'd you get that figure? Do you know about this poll? Strategizing about dragons that don't exist isn't wise. Nor is being timid with a small force.
From the interview with VDH:
John Hawkins: I agree. Here's something you wrote in a column last year,
"Small armies, whether those of Caesar, Alexander, or Hernan Cortés can defeat enormous enemies and hold vast amounts of territory - but only if they are used audaciously and establish the immediate reputation that they are lethal and dangerous to confront. Deterrence, not numbers, creates tranquility and the two are not always synonymous."
Keeping that in mind, do you think that we have been lethal enough in fighting the war on terror or have we, in an effort to be compassionate, held back too much and paradoxically, caused more civilians and more of our own troops to be killed?
Victor Davis Hanson: I think we have. I think that Fallujah, the first encirclement of Fallujah and the withdrawal, is one of the worst military decisions since Mogadishu, perhaps since Vietnam, because when you start to do that, then you create a self-fulfilling prophecy. When soldiers are in junta force protection or theyÂ’re just into garrison duty, then thereÂ’s always a greater cry for more and more soldiers.
When theyÂ’re audacious and theyÂ’re on the offensive and theyÂ’re killing the enemy, then thereÂ’s going to be less of the enemy and theyÂ’re going to get a reputation for ferocity. As you know, we were no safer in Vietnam with 525,000 in 1967. We were no better off than we were with 25,000 in 1971 or 1972. So itÂ’s not the number per se.
ThatÂ’s why this whole inside the beltway acrimony is so disturbing. The real discussion should be not how many troops you have but what is exactly the mission of these troops? What are they going to do and what are they not going to do? I think they should have been from Day 1 going after --- in really an offensive mode --- the people in the Sunni Triangle as they did with this wonderful operation that we saw the last couple of months in Fallujah. That should have been done earlier.
The point being, timid doesn't cut it. I think we learned that lesson with Fallujah. We have constraints, of course, but that doesn't mean that taking bold action at the right time isn't appropriate.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 11, 2005 12:38 PM (7AGFb)
11
"200,000 insurgents? Where'd you get that figure? Do you know about this poll? Strategizing about dragons that don't exist isn't wise. Nor is being timid with a small force."
I got the figure from the latest issue of The Economist, which quotes the current Iraqi Intelligence Minister. While I imagine the Economist's website requires a subscription to read these articles, the Minister's comments can be read throughout the Internet. Here are a few links:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=11487
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,11851613%255E663,00.html
http://www.terroranalysis.com/story/108994.html
The poll you mention is irrelevant to the question as to whether or not the coalition has enough troops to combat the insurgency. Your poll talks about whether or not Iraqis "living in and around Baghdad" will come out and vote. Not all of the insurgents are in Baghdad, and neither is the entire population of Iraq. That poll incorrectly tries to simplify the current situation. Baghdad is not a microcosm of Iraq and you can't treat it as such. Iraqi civilians in Baghdad might feel "safe enough" to try to go out and vote, but that doesn't have any bearing as to the actual number of insurgents in the country.
"As you know, we were no safer in Vietnam with 525,000 in 1967. We were no better off than we were with 25,000 in 1971 or 1972. So itÂ’s not the number per se."
I found this comment interesting in that the numbers don't tell the whole story. That 525,000 was a gradual build-up while the NVA and Viet Cong also underwent a gradual build-up. Had there been 525,000 early on, the war likely would have had a different outcome.
"The point being, timid doesn't cut it. I think we learned that lesson with Fallujah. We have constraints, of course, but that doesn't mean that taking bold action at the right time isn't appropriate."
I've agreed with this from the beginning. I'm not advocating a timid strategy. I'm simply pointing out that the coaltion doesn't have the resources at current time to go an invade Syria because it might be a base for the insurgency. One of my main points, though, is that "the right time" might well be a way's off.
Posted by: Venom at January 11, 2005 01:14 PM (dbxVM)
12
IN REGULAR ENGLISH DEMOSOPHIST!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 11, 2005 01:29 PM (D39Vm)
13
PS Demosophist
Don't even try to argue with Venom; you'll end up with hundreds of posts back and forth with him. Neverending.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 11, 2005 01:33 PM (D39Vm)
14
Demo My point exactly! I have been saying for six (6) months we need more grunts and sailors. Both at home and in the war. Thank you for finally acknowledging my brilliance. (that's a joke dont get angry) The troops are stretched thin because there are not enought of 'em.
My biggest fear is that we pull another "Peace with Honor" unconditonal surrender. Can you find Saigon on a '04 or 05 map of Nam? The lack of fighters may lead to a bogus declaration of victory and then a retreat.
Rod Stanton
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 11, 2005 01:48 PM (tHUgl)
15
We're not arguing, Cindy, we're discussing.
Besides, he's actually putting some thought and providing information to back up what he's saying. You could learn something.
Posted by: Venom at January 11, 2005 01:58 PM (dbxVM)
16
I got the figure from the latest issue of The Economist, which quotes the current Iraqi Intelligence Minister. While I imagine the Economist's website requires a subscription to read these articles, the Minister's comments can be read throughout the Internet. Here are a few links
Now I know to cancel my subscription to the Economist. 200,000 isn't even close to a plausible number. There might be 200,000 sympathizers, about 1% to 5% of which are actual terrorists or insurgents. That would make 2,000 to 10,000 which, according to most counter-terrorism authorities is more like the actual number. (Probably closer to 2,000 than 10,000.) There aren't 20,000 terrorist "insurgents" in the entire Middle East. Hell, in the entire world.
The poll you mention is irrelevant to the question as to whether or not the coalition has enough troops to combat the insurgency. Your poll talks about whether or not Iraqis "living in and around Baghdad" will come out and vote. Not all of the insurgents are in Baghdad, and neither is the entire population of Iraq.
I'm afraid this tells me you have some sort of agenda, and don't really have a clue what's going on. Well over 90% of the terrorist incidents take place in and around Baghdad, with almost none in all but four provinces. What the poll says is that even in the area with 90% of the terrorist attacks close to 90% of the population supports antiterrorist actions, and and about 80% intend to vote in the elections even under threat of death and decapitation. This is a far cry from a population that whines about the occasional poll watcher as too much of an intimidation factor to countenance. These people are dedicated, as are the young men who keep volunteering for police or national guard service, and discounting their determination will not serve your cause well in the long run.
I'm afraid that last statement was just the clincher. You're out in left field somewhere, not actually in the game. Nice talking to you, but I'm moving on.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 11, 2005 04:15 PM (7AGFb)
17
More soldiers or fewer missions? More troops = more supplies = more IED targets.
Syria and Iran might be brought into line with blockades.
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at January 11, 2005 05:06 PM (7XPVo)
18
"Now I know to cancel my subscription to the Economist. 200,000 isn't even close to a plausible number. There might be 200,000 sympathizers, about 1% to 5% of which are actual terrorists or insurgents. That would make 2,000 to 10,000 which, according to most counter-terrorism authorities is more like the actual number. (Probably closer to 2,000 than 10,000.) There aren't 20,000 terrorist "insurgents" in the entire Middle East. Hell, in the entire world."
No worries, you're no different than most of the other people here. Once someone shows you something different, you refuse to accept it. It's also funny that you're quick to cancel your subscription (not that you'd read the Economist, even if you actually did get it), when all it's doing is quoting the Iraqi Intelligence Minister. I guess it's the Economist who made that up, huh? Of course, you didn't bother to check the other links I gave you showing other media that quoted the Minister, as well. I mean, that would be admitting you were wrong, right?
But hey, I'll recap for you. Basically, the Minister claims 200,000 insurgents, of which maybe 40,000 are hardcore fighters and the rest are either part-time members (say, like a militia) or sympathizers (say, like those who would shelter and feed the insurgents). But they're all basically part of the same network.
But hey, you're a much bigger authority on the number of insurgents in Iraq than the Minister of Intelligence, so I guess we'll take your numbers, right?
I mean, I'm sure there were only a few thousand mujahedeen in Afghanistan in the 80s. Because you couldn't possibly rally a couple hundred thousand to a cause.
Terrosits, insurgent, whatever. They're all fighting on the same side now, so you can try to split hairs any way you want, but they're all pretty much under the same umbrella now.
"I'm afraid this tells me you have some sort of agenda, and don't really have a clue what's going on."
Nope, no agenda, Mr. Conspiracy Theorist. But I'd love to know what you're talking about. Me having a different opinion than you (however slight or great) doesn't mean I have an "agenda." It means we disagree. But, since you're "moving on," I'm guessing you generally don't listen to differing opinions. Too bad. It's the best way to learn.
"Well over 90% of the terrorist incidents take place in and around Baghdad, with almost none in all but four provinces."
Sorry, wrong again. In fact, let's use one of your sources to prove this:
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/09/fog-of-war-new-york-times-reports-that.html
According to this report, the number of attacks in Baghdad constitute approximately 41% attacks. In fact, if you take the attacks on Baghdad and those provinces that border Baghdad that have more than 100 attacks, you still wind up with less than 75%. The rest happen in other provinces. Some more than others, but they all have activity. The article is dated from the end of September, but things likely haven't changed much in that time. So, you're 90% figure is incorrect. By a fair margin. Which makes me wonder where YOU got THAT figure. Of course, with your expertise in determining the number of insurgents in Iraq, you probably crafted some ingenious formula to come up with 90%. By the way, you neglected to mention that of those 4 provinces, one is in the north (Ninawa), one is in the west (Al-Anbar), and one is in the east (Diyala). In addition, with significant activity in the south (Basra) and north-central (At Tamim), you have a pretty widespread insurgency - something that wouldn't be possible if there were only a few thousand insurgents and quite far off from your claim that everything is pretty much contained to Baghdad.
Based on this, the poll you state is almost entirely irrelevant as to whether or not the coalition has enough troops to combat the insurgency. Since it's clear that "well over 90% of the attacks don't happen in Baghdad," your faith in this poll seems a little misguided. People's *determination* to vote and the number of insurgents are separate issues.
Also, given the fact that the insurgents move from one province to another after a province has been secured, means that there aren't enough troops to keep them neutralizes. Mosul used to be a relatively calm city. Then, the Marines took control of Fallujah and the insurgents moved there. When Mosul is under control, the insurgents will move elsewhere. That doesn't sound like things are under control.
So, sorry to burst your bubble, but it's clear it's you who's in left field. Asleep by the foul pole, having a snooze, while the facts run by you.
Of course, you've scurried off and you won't read this because you've obviously got the answers and don't have to do any real detective work to back yourself up.
Posted by: Venom at January 11, 2005 05:31 PM (dbxVM)
19
No worries, you're no different than most of the other people here. Once someone shows you something different, you refuse to accept it.
Well I'll tell yah, Venom... I'm actually pretty close to a number of people in the field of counter-terrorism, and I've done a bit of sociological analysis of "the Ummah," and that number is a couple of orders of magnitude larger than anything that the folks at the Manhattan Institute, or the Potomac Institute or a host of other groups in the field are proposing. There are also a number of Middle East scholars who put the figure at least an order of magnitude lower... and dropping.
Now, I put that observation together with the wildly inaccurate "survey" that was done in the Lancet which had a confidence interval of 5,000 to 500,000 civilian deaths from allied military actions (a range this is simply not publishable in any peer reviewed journal that isn't promoting a political agenda) and I end up pretty skeptical of such figures. It wouldn't surprise me to find that the Iraqi insurgents had a support structure of 20,000 with around 2,000 to 3,000 actual insurgents, but clearly a population in he heart of "insurgent countly" that's 90% opposed to terrorism tells me that this movement has some pretty serious limitations.
That's just common sense, fellah.
I'm sort of sad that MSM heavy hitters like the NYT, the Guardian, BBC, and the Economist are publishing stuff that's so far off the mark... but we've seen it coming. The fact of the matter is that we have a media establishment that's geared toward covering elections and the weather, but has no idea how to cover a war. And they're about out of chits.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 11, 2005 05:45 PM (7AGFb)
20
Ok, fair enough, but when you start dismissing things without backing up what you're proposing, it, needless to say, gets a little frustrating for the person you're talking to. Maybe you don't feel the need to, but heavy statements occasionally need some proof to back them up.
I'm completely open to being wrong, but you have to remember that we all go based on what we read/see. I'm quoting something that was said by the Iraqi Intelligence Minister. Maybe HE has the agenda and maybe HE's lying. These MSM that you quote are simply reporting what they observe. If the Minister is going to make a claim, then they report it. But he is the Intelligence Minister, so I'm guessing he probably gets a fair bit of information as to the insurgency problem in his own country.
Frankly, I don't think 200,000 is a figure all THAT difficult to wrap one's head around. Especially if, as I mentioned, we include the sympathizers and part-timers. It all boils down to how you slice the pie. Is 40,000 too high for a figure of hardcore fighters? Maybe. But I'd say, using common sense, that there must be more than several thousand, considering the number of prisoners taken at the outset of the invasion was pretty minimal - leaving open the likelihood that some military units (like the Republican Guard) turned into a guerilla movement. Surely your close anti-terrorism contacts can lend some creedence to that.
Also, on the subject, why don't you drop some links or some names to back up your case? I'd be interested in reading these facts. As I'm sure others would, too. I'm not trying to be a prick with this request, I'm genuinely interested.
"...but clearly a population in he heart of "insurgent countly" that's 90% opposed to terrorism tells me that this movement has some pretty serious limitations."
Or, it just shows the resolve of those people to not be intimidated. I don't think we can say for certain what their mindset is without talking to them. BUT, the fact that there is clearly a NATIONAL problem in Iraq regarding insurgent activity says (to ME, anyways) that things aren't confined to the capital. And if that's the case, there surely has to be more than a few thousand insurgents. I think that's common sense, too. I don't think 3,000 insurgents couldn't wreak the havoc that country sees on a weekly basis.
Posted by: Venom at January 11, 2005 06:14 PM (dbxVM)
21
According to this report, the number of attacks in Baghdad constitute approximately 41% attacks. In fact, if you take the attacks on Baghdad and those provinces that border Baghdad that have more than 100 attacks, you still wind up with less than 75%.
From the Belmont Club:
The first thing to notice is that 2,139 of the 2,429 attacks took place in 6 of the 18 provinces. The numbers don't entirely add up in the "Times" graphic but the discrepancy is small and may be due to errors in assigning some incidents. The real hotbeds are Baghdad and areas to the northwest -- the Sunni triangle. By far the greatest density of violence is in Baghdad, where 1,000 attacks have taken place in an 732 kilometers square.
Granted, it was somewhat inaccurate to say that 90% of the attacks took place in 4 provinces, when it was actually 80% (1937 of 2429) but we're talking about a nitpick versus a fundamental error in analysis. I'm not clear whether the poll was conducted only in Baghdad proper, or in the Sunni Triangle in general, but for purposes of the general analysis it hardly matters. In the area of the country with, by far, the greatest frequency of terrorist activity close to 90% of the population favor aggressive action to stop the terrorists. This tells me, if nothing else, that this is not a popular insurgency, even in its main stronghold.
Based on this, the poll you state is almost entirely irrelevant as to whether or not the coalition has enough troops to combat the insurgency. Since it's clear that "well over 90% of the attacks don't happen in Baghdad," your faith in this poll seems a little misguided. People's *determination* to vote and the number of insurgents are separate issues.
Again, just put the nitpicking aside for a moment and look at the larger picture. If you're saying that there's a popular insurgency going on in the Sunni Triangle, but the majority of those who support the insurgency support anti-terrorism action and intend to vote in an election the insurgency opposes, I have to figure that you're losing the forest for the trees. You simply have no case whatsoever. We may not know much about this insurgency, but we do know that its support is a very slender reed. It may not exist at all were it not connected to significant support outside the country, in Syria or Iran.
Now I'd cast my lot with that assessment of things rather than yours were I making decisions for the simple reason that there are major holes in your theory, and at most only minor and insignificant ones in mine.
If one adopts the Sharansky principle that it's far better to have a democracy that hates you than a tyranny or kleptocracy that loves you then I have to think we're in really pretty good shape in Iraq, even if the majority don't like the US.
And that's going to simply free us up to take other necessary actions in the "War on Terror." I don't really know why you'd think otherwise.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 11, 2005 06:32 PM (7AGFb)
22
Frankly, I don't think 200,000 is a figure all THAT difficult to wrap one's head around. Especially if, as I mentioned, we include the sympathizers and part-timers. It all boils down to how you slice the pie. Is 40,000 too high for a figure of hardcore fighters? Maybe. But I'd say, using common sense, that there must be more than several thousand, considering the number of prisoners taken at the outset of the invasion was pretty minimal - leaving open the likelihood that some military units (like the Republican Guard) turned into a guerilla movement. Surely your close anti-terrorism contacts can lend some creedence to that.
It's conceivable to me that someone came up with a confidence interval for the number of "hard core fighters" and 40,000 was at the upper end. But as these things go, if the distribution is normal then that figure is also fairly unlikely. I suspect that the range is fairly broad here, depending on what you consider a "hard core fighter," but if there are 40,000 in Iraq then there are twice as many Iraqi insurgents as hard core Al Qaeda. (I'm not being precise, but within an order of magnitute.) Dan Darling, I believe, estimates the number of hardcore Al Qaeda in the world at around that figure. It may be less. It may be more. But it's probably less, since we've had a pace where we capture a major Al Qaeda figure about once a year, and they're making threats they apparently can't carry out. (Remember the threats leading up to the 2004 election?)
If you're in the apocalyptic terrorism business you'd better deliver on your threats, because there's no other source of legitimacy for you. You have no other message that's credible.
That's my take anyway. Now I'm gonna have a beer. A Belgian beer. The Belgians are jerks, who hate the US (with some exceptions) but they make damn good beer.
In the weeks and days leading up to this election you'd expect pretty much all of these 40,000 hardcore to be out and about blowing things up... but what we have is something like one major attack a day. The size of the bombs is getting larger, but the number of attacks is actually diminishing. (This is from a recent Belmont Club post, but I don't have the link. This isn't my day job and I'm busy with other stuff. And, well... it's just not a high priority with me. I think the pattern is pretty obvious.)
Again, the tendancy of those with agenda is to blur the line between a "point estimate" and an interval or range, and simply report the highest number they see... leaving the impression that it's a point estimete. If 40,000 is the high end of a larger confidence interval, then the midpoint of that range is probably more like the 5,000 I suggested earlier. Add a few uncles and aunts willing to carry ammo if you like... but this just ain't Vietnam, nor will it ever be.
And most the the folks I trust tell me that there's considerable support from outside the country, which makes sense given the sort of poll numbers we're seeing in support of the election (not necessarily the US). Those folks see a future that doesn't include the terrorists.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 11, 2005 06:56 PM (7AGFb)
23
Cindy:
IN REGULAR ENGLISH DEMOSOPHIST!!!!!!!!!!
I know, I know. Gimme a break, I just got back from vaction and although I'm not Rusty, I'm a little rusty.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 11, 2005 06:59 PM (7AGFb)
24
"Granted, it was somewhat inaccurate to say that 90% of the attacks took place in 4 provinces, when it was actually 80% (1937 of 2429) but we're talking about a nitpick versus a fundamental error in analysis."
Actually, it's still inaccurate to contend that 80% of insurgent attacks happen "in and around Baghdad," which is what you mentioned in your previous post.
Consider the following taken from this link again:
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/09/fog-of-war-new-york-times-reports-that.html
332 attacks in Al-Anbar Province
123 attacks in Diyala Province
283 attacks in Ninawa Province
325 attacks in Salah ad Din Province
These are provinces that cover vast stretches of Iraq. They are not "around Baghdad," unless you're considering all of Iraq as being "around Baghdad." These attacks alone constitute almost 45% of the 2429 attacks mentioned. This clearly isn't localized to Baghdad. Baghdad bears a significant load, but it's clear that this is happening across the country. Some provinces get off lightly relatively speaking, but the distribution across Iraq is such that it's not a "Baghdad problem." Sure, we're only talking four provinces - but they're pretty big provinces, first of all. And, other provinces aren't that far off, depending on where you stop counting. Basra, Karbala, and Babil have a fair number of attacks, and if you include them, it's suddenly 8 of the 18 provinces. Almost half the country, while the others sustain fewer attacks. It's a widespread problem.
"If you're saying that there's a popular insurgency going on in the Sunni Triangle, but the majority of those who support the insurgency support anti-terrorism action and intend to vote in an election the insurgency opposes, I have to figure that you're losing the forest for the trees. You simply have no case whatsoever."
That would be true, I would have no case. But that's not what I'm stating. I never meant to imply that those who support the insurgency would also vote in an election where crushing the insurgency is the major issue. First, as I've been contending, there's a popular insurgency across Iraq, not confined to the Sunni Triangle. The figures and the website above show this. Second, I'm assuming that the Intelligence Minister implied that 200,000 insurgents and sympathizers is representative across Iraq making up insurgent groups of many causes. They're not contained to Baghdad. And I doubt that any insurgents were polled, so how is this representative of anything?
In fact, you're whole argument is predicated on the assumption that the insurgency is relatively localized around Baghdad. Since it isn't, the rest of the argument looks weak, from my vantage.
As an example, let's assume Baghdad has a population of 1,000,000. Let's also assume that of those 1,000,000, 20,000 are insurgents (in your argument, all of the insurgents - fighters, sympathizers, etc.). In other words, 2% of the city's population. Now, a polling company comes around and starts asking people if they're going to vote. Are they asking the insurgents? No. So, the people they do ask (the remaining 98%) are obviously more likely to be pro-election. So, now you have this polling result that shows more than 90% of people plan to vote in the election. Does this make Baghdad a city "under control" because 20,000 insurgents are roaming the streets? 20,000 insurgents can do a fair bit of damage. But hey, the population is "determined," so things are peachy, right?
Now, obviously I'm simplifying things a little, but this is the problem in this poll that was taken. Obviously anyone they ask is going to likely be more in favour of voting than not voting. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the city is safe. Or the country, for that matter. Like YOU mentioned, their answers are more about their "dedication," rather than any representation of the safety of the city. If we were to take your argument even further and assume that Baghdad is representative of the country, then obviously the vast majority of people will want to vote in the election. However, you don't need half the people or 3/4 of the population to destabilize a country. An insurgency of only a few percent is enough.
Assuming Iraq's population is still approximately 24,000,000 (2002 figure), if ONE PERCENT of the population joined the insurgency, that would represent 240,000 insurgents, regardless of what they do (which, mind you, is close to what the Intelligence Minister mentioned). And you're bandying about a 90% election participation rate! I mean, you're confusing two completely separate issues!
"Now I'd cast my lot with that assessment of things rather than yours were I making decisions for the simple reason that there are major holes in your theory, and at most only minor and insignificant ones in mine."
I'd hardly call being mistaken about the severity of the situation in Iraq as being "insignificant." But hey, you have your opinion, and I have mine. I've backed mine up, and I'm using common sense. You're doing little of the former, but you are using your common sense, too.
"If one adopts the Sharansky principle that it's far better to have a democracy that hates you than a tyranny or kleptocracy that loves you then I have to think we're in really pretty good shape in Iraq, even if the majority don't like the US.
And that's going to simply free us up to take other necessary actions in the "War on Terror." I don't really know why you'd think otherwise."
I never said I think otherwise. What I stated from the outset is that I think the Iraqi mission won't stabilize for a long time. Coalition troops won't leave until the insurgency is pretty much gone. That doesn't happen simply because you have an election. And, since coalition troops will likely battle insurgent fighters (because, as has been plainly evident, the Iraqi army isn't even close to being able to defend itself) for a long time, it will likely be a long time before other countries such as Syria and Iran can be looked at (if that's indeed what happens).
Posted by: Venom at January 11, 2005 07:25 PM (dbxVM)
25
Actually, it's still inaccurate to contend that 80% of insurgent attacks happen "in and around Baghdad," which is what you mentioned in your previous post.
Well, I said both but the modest inaccuracies you point to simply give you the opportunity to continue a fruitless quest. The fact that it's 90% or 75% or even 40% (for the city proper) doesn't substancially impact the argument. About the only refuge you have is to claim the the percent who oppose terrorism and who intend to vote in spite of the odds is significantly lower in other parts of the country that have a lower frequency of attacks... and that's just not plausible. Just because you're using statistics doesn't mean you abandon common sense. Indeed it's precisely common sense that lies at the heart of statistical analysis.
I never said I think otherwise. What I stated from the outset is that I think the Iraqi mission won't stabilize for a long time. Coalition troops won't leave until the insurgency is pretty much gone. That doesn't happen simply because you have an election.
Well that's the conventional wisdom in MSM. What I'm saying is that you'd be wise to be sceptical.
If the poll numbers are even close to being solid then the post-election government will have plenty of legitimacy. The only major change needed to the constitution after the election would be to do away with that stupid nationwide PR system, and establish constituency based districts. That's a necessary change, but it's also almost certain to happen.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 11, 2005 08:05 PM (7AGFb)
26
I must not have been awake when I first read this. I have not read the comments either. I've just reread your post and tried to make some sense out of it. I believe that making Iraq a free Democracy is what the US wants and needs, hoping to keep Iraq that way even though they are in between the two worst countries, so I agree with that. As to an invasion of Iran and/or Syria, I don't think we would do that - first of all we can't, we just don't have the military to do that - so I understand that point too. Supporting Iraq would be like supporting Israel (although I do have questions about supporting Israel). One step at a time to bring peace to that region. Now that Ariel Sharon says he will meet with Abbas, maybe the Peace Plan that has been mapped out by Bush will actually happen. That would not only be good for them and their surrounding countries but for us, just as a free Iraq would be good for them as well as for us. Only time will tell what Syria and Iran will turn out in the future. So I gotcha, Demosophist.
Now I'll go read the comments.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 11, 2005 09:35 PM (D39Vm)
27
Talk, talk, talk. Could go on forever.
Israel has already shown the world how easy it is to defeat the entire region. Iran, Syria and any other silly assed little nation in our way would go down in days.
The secret is to punish them and then leave until they need it again.
Our biggest problem is that we care and WE SHOULDN'T.
Piss on rebuilding Iraq. Kick the shit out of the Islamofacists then leave instead of giving the cowards targets. If the people of Iraq are to cowardly to control the Sunnis/zealots/insurgents they deserve them. Why are we fighting their civil war for them? If they wish to be a free democratic nation let them fight for it as we did. Personally, their actions have made me believe they are not ready for the 21st century. So let them go back to herding their camels and cutting each others heads off.
Meanwhile, some computer shut-ins continue to talk, talk, talk. Everything said is wrong. No solutions, no plans, everyone wrong, goverment wrong, military wrong. This is wrong, that is wrong, this will happen if you wipe your ass with the wrong hand. Then argue about which hand is correct. Nothing but conjecture. Meaningless talk, talk, talk about nothing. Mommy must have some locked in their rooms.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 11, 2005 10:37 PM (Vc+ll)
28
I never thought of Rumsfeld as timid. I've listened to people who have sat in his office and what they've said about him. He is a true Patriot and wants nothing but the best for this country and the world. The generals you see on tv talking all tell the same kind of story about Rumsfeld - like where are troops are and why hasn't it changed because of where they are located presently is from the old days when all we really had to watch out for was the Soviet Union - that has changed; therefore our troops will be dispersed to areas where it's more important. He may seem timid, speak quietly, but I don't believe he has a real timid bone in his body.
ok - scroll back up.
ok - as to the fact when we invaded Iraq, we didn't come in from the north was because Turkey would not allow us to be there; they did let us fly over their airspace but when it came to using their airports and a place for our troops, they would not budge. Most flights came and went from Britian.
Afghanistan isn't perfect either. We lose soldiers every day. But it is a starting point; we've had elections - a woman being the first to cast a ballot. Life has changed there and as long as we continue to support them along with our allies, Afghanistan will improve over time. It's already improved, even if not perfect; with continued help and support, there will be a day when it'll be as perfect as it can possibly be. By the way, there is no such thing as perfect, but basically they are on their way and that is an accomplishment. It can't get worse but it can get better; those people have hope now and as long as everyone supports them, it can only get better for no one would allow that country to go back to what it was before we went there; the same applies to Iraq.
With Iraq, you're going to have a free country in between two terrorist countries and somehow in the history books of the future, a free Iraq is going to make a difference in Syria and in Iran. The people of Iraq will not stand for it. Schools will be built, sewerage will be put in, clean water available; if the insurgents stop bombing ttheir oil pipelines, the country will be able to use their oil in trade for goods (I'm not talking about food for oil program) and it will be their responsibility. In the future, an American base will probably be there, as in Germany. History will show itself in time.
Right now they have chicken wire along the borders between Iraq and Syria. We have troops there who do nothing but get real bored as they patrol the border there - eventually Iraqi's will take their place. It would be nice if these damn terrorists would stop bombing police stations, tho. Given time and training, both borders will be protected. They can even protect the border from the north in the same way. History will show the truth; this is a long term effort and in the end, will be worth it, as Afghanistan was worth it. From what I hear now, even their legal system is being trained and those who are judges and work in those situations, the specialist says these people are extremely intelligent and are up for the job.
The number of 200,000 insurgents (terrorists) in Iraq is a number that both Allawi and the coalition came up with and I hope they get them all. That number came out last week.
In regards to Mosul, there is only one place the terrorist can go and that's back into the mountains behind it on the Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan borders. Just bomb the living shit out of it and get rid of most of them at once. They will not go south but will continue north.
Rod, I don't think we will ever pull out of Iraq. I have a feeling that an American Base will be set up there - but I already said that.
Demo - just wanted to warn you about Venom, is all. Most of the time, he just puts everyone down - including me. He's also driven a lot of Rusty's readers away because no one wants to deal with him. If something is white and you say it's white, he'll argue to make you believe it's black. He's royal pain in the ass.
"I'm afraid that last statement was just the clincher. You're out in left field somewhere, not actually in the game. Nice talking to you, but I'm moving on.
Posted by Demosophist " Wise move!! He does not have a clue, he just likes to argue forever. After 86 messages on another post - half was his, I actually told people "enough is enough" and to "move on!" which they finally did.
Ah, Demosophist, you should have kept your word and moved on to other things like you said. I warned you! shit, you shouldn't have checked back to see what he had to say. He thinks he knows everything and everyone else is just an ant. I should know, he stepped on me several times. Best bet is to avoid him. Pray he doesn't show up on your site. Venom says " I'm not trying to be a prick" - ya right. Venom states "I'm completely open to being wrong" - that'll be the day, you just love driving people shithouse and you've never been open to be wrong because you are always right no matter what the post is about.
VERY GOOD POST DEMO - ). Those folks see a future that doesn't include the terrorists" exactly!!! Why are you still bothering with this guy?
Demosophist, do not bother with Vemon; I am not kidding. Do what you said you were going to do - move on. He's not worth the trouble.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 11, 2005 11:55 PM (D39Vm)
29
"Well, I said both but the modest inaccuracies you point to simply give you the opportunity to continue a fruitless quest."
Not really, because you're assuming that one is dependent on the other. The number of attacks and the locations of these attacks tell a pretty good picture as to the stability of the region. You're entire contention is that the country is relatively safe and calm, with the exception of a handful of provinces. I'm showing you that that's not the case. With almost half the country's provinces sustaining significant attacks, COMMON SENSE shows that the country as a whole isn't as safe as you claim it is. You're attempting to dismiss these statistics into a "quibble-fest" over numbers, when they're in fact pretty relevant as to 1) the stability of the country, 2)the coalition's ability to leave the country any time soon, and 3) the ability for the coalition to turn its military attention elsewhere. You found a poll showing 90% of Baghdad residents WANT to vote. A person's DESIRE to vote and a person's relative SAFETY are not dependent on each other. And it's this SAFETY that is an indication as to how stable the country is, and how likely the coalition can look to leave and focus elsewhere. A poll of Baghdad residents is such a minor part to this, it's almost not even worth mentioning. If you think it is, why don't you link us some documents that support this. Don't drop a link to a poll, or name-drop the Manhattan Institute or the Potomac Institute.
greyrooster: it's not our fault you have a short attention span and are unable to participate. Maybe you would prefer a pop-up book version of the events in Iraq? While you're contemplating that, why don't you can the "computer shut-in" comments, since you post here more than most. And what's wrong with discussing/debating? I mean, I'm sorry I'm not dropping racist bombs all over the place, but there is merit in talking about interesting issues with other people that want to. If you don't, fine, move on.
Cindy: Could you please stop interfering in other people's discussions unless you plan on adding something relevant? Oh, and you'll forgive me if I'm not offended in the slightest when YOU of all people says that I don't have a clue as to what I'm talking about. You, of complete ignorant bliss on anything and everything under the Sun. You don't like me and I don't like you. And it infuriates you that I can have a good discussion with other people here, and occasionally we (myself and other people) actually agree on issues. It infuriates you that I can actually back up what I talk about, instead of talking out of my ass like you do. So, pardon me if I tell you to fuck off. You, who bitches at me, and then turns around and tells me to "not talk to you" when I respond. Fuck, for someone who's "accomplished" as much as you, you're one of the biggest children on this blog. Oh, and don't pat yourself on the back too quickly about "making people move on" regarding that other thread. Any idiot could have seen that the discussion had pretty much run its course. Frankly, I've got no problem in admitting I'm wrong. But, when all I get is bullshit answers most of the time, you'll understand why I'm tenacious as to my own arguments (which I usually back up). You, on the other hand, spout inane comments like "We should just nuke that entire region," as if it's some kind of bathroom project. You're completely ignorant on humanity and completely ignorant on world affairs and history. If clues were shoes, you'd be running barefoot. And remember, if you don't like what I say, then maybe it's YOU who should move on.
Posted by: Venom at January 12, 2005 09:51 AM (dbxVM)
30
Cindy:
Thanks. I'm glad we're on the same page. As for the other, well crytallographers used to irritate everyone else in the physical sciences because they could come up with these extravagant theories about the structure of crystals and never have to test anything... until someone invented the electron microscope. If one can manage to hold three salient facts in one's head it becames rather clear that support for the insurgents is an inch wide and an inch deep. (Actually it's probably more like an inch wide and a few meters deep, but you get the picture.) In this sort of situation it's ultimately a matter of them versus the Iraqis. The population seems to be getting that message and it's exactly what the terrorist's leader, Zarqawi, feared. I just don't see him getting in a festive mood, ever again.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 12, 2005 10:25 AM (7AGFb)
31
Demo on Zarqawi: ditto that!
Venom: ptuey!
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 12, 2005 02:05 PM (D39Vm)
32
VENOM: The question is participate in what. Pure bullshit, without content. You have written thousands of words and haven't said anything of substance yet. Just retoric. Your postings are just like you. Nothing. No doubt an academic shut in. AKA NERD.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 12, 2005 02:05 PM (R0PwA)
33
greyrooster: by your own admission, you have a short attention span and don't read pages of anything. So, how the fuck would you know what I've written?
By the way, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black with respect to substance?
And nerd? Gee, that hurt - 15 years ago. Grow up, you senile old clown. By the way, thanks for your opinion of me. Like I give a shit about the opinion of a racist old dink like yourself. What a joke.
Posted by: Venom at January 12, 2005 02:29 PM (dbxVM)
34
I know what you've written because you are an asshole. All assholes write as you do. See, it's easy. Asshole. Us racists are trained to spot ass kissing cowardly assholes. You are on the first page of Racist 101. That's why I spotted you so quickly.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 12, 2005 06:48 PM (R0PwA)
35
Really? I thought you were on the first page of Racist 101. Or maybe that was Dumbasses 101?
Oh, I'm an asshole. But I'd hardly call myself cowardly, you lame fuck. Maybe you feel better about yourself wishing I was cowardly? And I'm only an asshole to a select few here, including you. You and Cindy are begging for it. When people as clueless as yourselves talk bullshit without backing it up, I'll call you on it. And then, of course, is the usual "Ach, Venom's such an asshole. He doesn't know what he's talking about." And blah, blah, blah. It's a lot easier to say someone doesn't have a clue, than to prove it. You guys talk, but you never put up. I'll at least provide links that back-up what I'm saying (which, as was proven in this thread, often results in the info being ignored).
So, fuck off you dumb shit.
Posted by: Venom at January 13, 2005 09:00 AM (dbxVM)
36
Most of the time I get along with gay people. You learn to when raised in San Francisco. Venom is the exception.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 14, 2005 08:06 PM (Chchy)
37
Man how dumb you americans can be. We´ve heard the same endless discussion about the number of VC´s in Viet Nam, your strategic response, body count, the end, defeat. You are a second class empire full of naive and stupid people uncapable to understand the challenges you have beyond. Are you so stupid that you believe one could cope with Syria, Iran and Iraq at the same time, something about 80 million people. Please. Go back to your red neck country you hillbillies. Do it before more body bags carry you and the dumbasses that think like you, because in the end that´s all you have, your graves.
Posted by: Dario Mattos at January 16, 2005 03:38 AM (O/X8E)
38
Are you so stupid that you believe one could cope with Syria, Iran and Iraq at the same time, something about 80 million people. Please. Go back to your red neck country you hillbillies.
Obviously the sentiments of a syntax-challenged citizen of a third-rate power, who hasn't seen a victory in the Tour de France since... Indurain? Pantani?
(Luxembourg hasn't had a winner since Nicolas Frantz in 1928 and no country other than France, Germany, Italy, US, Spain, Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Denmark has ever won. In fact the only non-European country is the US (and Ireland if you consider them outside continental Europe).)
Posted by: Demosophist at January 17, 2005 03:38 PM (7AGFb)
39
DARRIO MATTOS: I find it strange that America haters like yourself never say what perfect country they are from. Ashamed of your country? Jealous, what is the story? You wouldn't be an insignicant little shit from an insignicant little shit would you? Just another little bitch jealous of the big dog. Remember the big dog rules.
1. Ignore the little dog.
2. Raise leg and piss on him.
3. Turn and beat the shit out of him.
Darrio Mattos rates a #2.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 17, 2005 06:58 PM (Vc+ll)
40
Maybe a third-class vietnamese. The important thing though is as odd it can be the big dog ran away with tail between his legs. Remember Saigon 1975 or maybe Beirut 1983 or even waybe Sommalia 1993. Strange habit for the big dog.
Posted by: Dario Mattos at January 18, 2005 05:04 AM (O/X8E)
41
PS. Please don´t forget Iraq 2005.
Posted by: Dario Mattos at January 18, 2005 05:07 AM (O/X8E)
42
Ran away? My ass. We never lost a major battle. The truth is we lost interest in an unappreciate people not worth saving. While we were fighting their civil war for them they were selling us their sisters. The whole country wasn't worth the life of one US Marine.
Does an asshole like you really think we couldn't take care of Somalia in a few minutes. But then a bunch of them would wish to move here and get special privilages. Like you people. So little dog, remember who you are. Brave vietnamese. I used to collect their weapons left on the battlefield. They were good weapons, nothing wrong with them. Never used and only dropped once. More interested in stealing our cameras. Good place for vietnamese? vietnam. They deserve it. Again, your only worth a #2. Piss on you. By the way. Eat any dogs lately?
Posted by: greyrooster at January 18, 2005 05:34 AM (paXpx)
43
Hey you cowards keep this post on-line. Ooppps I´m sorry you are like all americans cowards that run away from a good fight.
Posted by: Dog eater at January 18, 2005 11:15 AM (O/X8E)
44
Hey you cowards keep this post on-line. Ooppps I´m sorry you are like all americans cowards that run away from a good fight.
Dog eater:
Talk about cowards, you apparently have masked your IP address so I can't block you. Well hey, I guess you are what you eat, huh?
Anyway, it might be time to install a typekey system for posts. I've no problem with it, but this is Rusty's call. Try not to give Islam too bad a name, huh? There really is some nobility in that faith that hasn't yet been besmirched by the anti-Iraqi, anti-human, anti-civilization "insurgents." And yeah, I'll keep deleting your Klingon posts, purely for the sake of my Muslim friends for whom you're an embarassment.
Posted by: Demosophist at January 18, 2005 02:08 PM (2sPNR)
45
DEMOSOPHIST: Cindy told you so. On and on and on and on.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 19, 2005 09:23 AM (P8KoX)
46
More like dog shit eater.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 19, 2005 09:30 AM (P8KoX)
Fatwas Issued Against Guest Bloggers
Wow, is this site still up?? Are people actually still reading it?? The fact that My Pet Jawa is not teets up says a lot about those who CMA (Covered My Ass) during my long hiatus.
Where was I? I could tell you--but have you ever read Confessions of a Dangerous Mind? If I told you, well, you know what I'd have to do to you.
I don't have the time or money to properly thank every one in the manner that they ought to be thanked. If the world were just each one of my guest bloggers would get $100, an extrak 5k hits, 10 links, and a date with a supermodel for every post they put up in my absence.
First, a huge thanks to Chad at In the Bullpen. I've known he was an excellent blogger for a while, now I can call him a friend. He posted so much that an initial check of my e-mails shows that a lot of people think that this is his blog. As veteran bloggers know, 80% of blog success is volume and tenacity. Chad provided that and then some. Thanks Chad.
Shout outs go to Interested Participant for coming in a not so close second in the number of posts he put up. What he lacked in volume he made up in quality. Thanks man.
Gordito the Cranky Neocon also put up some posts. For some reason though on inspection of the Jawa fridge I can't find the cheese. Who moved the cheese!!!!!!!!!
The keys have been given to these fine bloggers and I don't plan to ask for them back any time soon.
If you don't have In the Bullpen, Interested Participant, and Cranky Neocon on your blogroll I will personally call the Mullahs and order up a fatwa on your ass!!
Now if you'll excuse me I have to run through three weeks worth of spam. How did so many companies find out about my less than adequate lite saber size?
Posted by: Rusty at
03:07 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Well at least you have lots of friends at Yahoo!
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 10, 2005 04:29 PM (tHUgl)
2
Rusty,
I guess you'll just have to call the Mullah's and order up a real Fatwa on my ass because I will not be adding them to my blogroll.
And please do something about the length/archiving. You know I have a desktop that's called 'Frank" but geezus, it takes FOREVER to download your page and comments, then more forever if I comment. It is very frustrating. You were gone 6 weeks - I get that kind of mail every friggin day. Just hit delete.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 10, 2005 05:10 PM (D39Vm)
3
I've noticed it too! Sometimes I get a "forbidden access to this site" message as well. Then the next time I go in, it's fine.
Ah well, the Ruster's back, let's give him a few days to get back in the swing of things....
Posted by: Laura at January 10, 2005 05:20 PM (ptOpl)
4
I've never gotten any kind of error message when trying to hit the site. As for being gone 6 weeks? Please. He was gone three.
Posted by: Marcus at January 10, 2005 05:41 PM (jtkSZ)
5
Ooo tah WEE!
Posted by: tre at January 10, 2005 07:07 PM (tC3pG)
6
Welcome back Rusty. Your temp. replacements did a fine job but it's great to have you back so I don't have to get all the beheading threats. You are actually a much better Islamofascist basher than I - so you deserve far more beheadings than I do. We're back in business again so militants watch your As___.
Welcome Back.
Posted by: Richard at January 10, 2005 07:59 PM (xFeJi)
7
Dude, one day back and no obligatory USC National Champions post? You could at least link to ...
Posted by: Leopold Stotch at January 11, 2005 12:16 AM (LAfQi)
8
I discovered some of those blogs because they were guest blogging for you, and added them to my blogroll and regular reading list. Seems like a win-win for everybody. Welcome back!
Posted by: Steve L at January 11, 2005 08:32 AM (HBkVS)
9
It's good to be home all, thanks.
Posted by: Rusty at January 11, 2005 01:14 PM (JQjhA)
10
Well, welcome back, Rusty and a few comments here about other comments, in an effort to help:
the site has Macromedia Flash installed or otherwise implemented and some of the more restrictive security programs some of us users have in place either block Flash and/or even prevent certain websites from loading if it is perceived as being a problem as per whatever security settings someone/anyone has in place on their browser and installed via security programs.
I don't enable Flash, due to some security cautions from a combination of what I use (Norton Professional Internet Security, Spybot Search&Destroy, Spyware Blaster, all three of which have various programs and file extensions blocked and/or request user permission before they'll allow a page to access, and/or access the page but then not enable Flash to run unless you then install it, which I never do...
Just saying, that, the presence of a default Flash program on the webpage may be causing some users to experience problems. I know that I have to work around the Flash program when I visit here each and every time by DENYING Macromedia Flash TO BE INSTALLED (it wants to install by default, I don't want it to but I have to also go through those steps first before I can access your page in full).
Just an idea, maybe consider removing whatever on your webpage uses Flash, by default and then make a link to whatever it is that you want to use Flash, to some other page other than your main site page.
Posted by: -S- at January 12, 2005 06:19 AM (v5vPW)
All Play and No Blog Makes Rusty a Dull Boy.
I'm back. Let the celebrations begin.
Posted by: Rusty at
08:21 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Welcome back, your dreams were your ticket out....
;-)))))
It's about Gd'd time.
Posted by: Laura at January 10, 2005 08:23 AM (ptOpl)
2
Yaaawwwnnn....
You were gone? ;->
Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at January 10, 2005 08:33 AM (kiH79)
3
Bout freakin time.
Posted by: EC at January 10, 2005 08:38 AM (yYGP5)
4
Great to have you back, Rusty. I've missed your writing.
Posted by: Marcus at January 10, 2005 10:53 AM (gXKS3)
5
When did you leave? Who said you were dull, Dan Rather?
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 10, 2005 11:21 AM (tHUgl)
6
Welcome back, you've been missed! Sorry about the mess.
Posted by: Gordon at January 10, 2005 11:57 AM (dqTOU)
7
And you are...????
Posted by: Brian B at January 10, 2005 12:44 PM (CouWh)
8
your followers above Rusty are funny. As soon as I saw your name, I said "about God Damn time" but someone beat me to it. :-)
lots of catching up to do.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 10, 2005 01:23 PM (D39Vm)
9
About time, you've got a lot to catch up on.
I do have one suggestion - length of page and archiving; cut it in half; takes forever to download and forever more to comment.
Glad you're back.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 10, 2005 01:26 PM (D39Vm)
10
Yes, let me introduce myself. I'm Rusty Shackleford. I'm a Sagitarius. I like long walks on the beach and candlit dinners......
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at January 10, 2005 03:32 PM (JQjhA)
11
Do you like pina coladas? And gettin' caught in the rain?
I hate that fucking song, by the way.
;-)
Posted by: Laura at January 10, 2005 05:18 PM (ptOpl)
12
"Yes, let me introduce myself. I'm Rusty Shackleford. I'm a Sagitarius. I like long walks on the beach and candlit dinners......"
Shouldn't you be posting that over at Sully's?
Posted by: Brian B at January 10, 2005 05:44 PM (CouWh)
13
I was wondering just this morning when you would
return from your hiatus...........Now git busy!!!!
Posted by: MIGHTY WHITEY at January 10, 2005 09:05 PM (tLatX)
14
heh heh definitely git busy!!
your buddy,
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 10, 2005 09:56 PM (D39Vm)
15
Welcome back!
Posted by: Jane at January 11, 2005 07:42 AM (+7VNs)
16
Welcome back Rusty. Hope you had a great time. This site has always been good, now its even better that your back. Keep up the work sir.
Posted by: karl at January 11, 2005 08:45 AM (PM/BC)
17
Now to begin the long ardeous task of reading my e-mail. Seriously, I hope nobody gets miffed if I don't reply to any e-mails written in the past 3 weeks or so.
Posted by: Rusty at January 11, 2005 01:16 PM (JQjhA)
18
Now, about that vacation you were going to send ME on...
Posted by: Digger at January 11, 2005 05:32 PM (mrDUh)
19
Welcome back; hope you're tanned, rested, and etc.
Posted by: The Sanity Inspector at January 11, 2005 07:58 PM (Cmw0u)
Good Luck, Palestine
From the New York Times:
Mr. Abbas, known as Abu Mazen, called the election a source of pride for Palestinians as he voted in Ramallah. "This process is taking place in a marvelous fashion and is an illustration of how the Palestinian people aspire to democracy," he said. He urged women in particular to exercise their right to vote.
Yes, I'll believe it when I see it. Unfortunately, the same article goes on to show that many Palestinians still prefer the killing method to actually trying for peace:
"Our view is not to undermine," [Mahmoud Zahar, a Hamas leader in Gaza] said, but he insisted that armed resistance to Israel would continue, despite Mr. Abbas's call for a cease-fire.
However, it is a potential new beginning and calls for cautious optimism.
Cross Posted as Cranky Neocon
Please note that no community college instructors were hurt during the creation of this post.
Posted by: Neocon at
07:00 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.
1
At least one instructor whould have been badly hurt.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 10, 2005 07:45 AM (tHUgl)
2
Good Luck to us all.
Posted by: Jane at January 10, 2005 07:55 AM (+7VNs)
3
HAHA
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 10, 2005 01:35 PM (D39Vm)
4
HA HA - is that you, Gordo?
Rod - you have a sense of humor!! hah great!!!
Iwant someone to explain something to me. I know terrorists live in the Palestinian areas; I also know they don't have sewer, water, proper food, live in broken down buildings due to the incursions of the Israeli's. They have no army, no police, no real infrastructure. On the other hand, Arial Sharon, to me, is much more dangerous. Israel has a huge army, gunships, other helicopters, go in and kill at his whim and NO ONE ever stops him and families from one side can't visit families from the other side (Gaza and West Bank) but it's okay for Israel to take over the Palestinian areas, destroy homes, destroy neighborhoods, kill, kill, kill and more killing - certainly more killing than any suicide bomber. What I want to know is why are we backing him???
This should be fun.
Cindy
Now you'll have to wait at least 5 minutes before this even shows up under comments because it takes SO long!!!
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 10, 2005 01:46 PM (D39Vm)
5
You are seriously misinformed about conditions in the territories, brokenangel. What you describe affects perhaps 5 - 10% of them; the rest are quite normal as to living and working conditions. Remember, the territories are restricted by un sanctions as to weaponry it can have yet they smuggle in and outright buy all sorts of high powered weapons and explosives. Even arafart bought thousands of remote controlled planes not a couple of years ago to use as remote controlled bombs .. he was quite happy with his new "toys".
Good luck to the territories electing another terrorist as leader. Just what we need, another state born of terrorism. Feh!!
Glad you're back, Rusty. I trust you have a wonderful time.
Posted by: bj at January 10, 2005 09:41 PM (0xwvW)
6
I don't agree with you, BJ and nothing you say will change my mind on that situation. Even the world court wants him to end his violence towards the Palestinian people including stop building that wall but he listens to NOBODY. Back in Lebanon (???) he's wanted for crimes against humanity. What he's done to the Palestinian people alone are crimes against humanity and I wish someone would do something about it, not just ignore him like Bush does on occasion after telling him to stop what he's doing. He doesn't listen to anyone and does what he wants. Certainly eats well, pretty soon, they'll have to widen doors for him or maybe he'll get stuck in one.
As to Arafat, that man was stuck in a dilapidated building for 2 years and towards the end, if you've seen any pictures of him, you could tell he was sick, especially when JORDAN sent in a helicopter to take him out of there for treatment, man, he was tiny, sick, barely alive and had probably had many strokes among other things before Jordan stepped in and took him to France where he died. If Jordan hadn't stepped in, he would have died in that blown out building and that would have been worse. Mind you, Israel has acute care which Arafat needed but Ariel Sharon would not allow it. I have nothing but contempt for that man; I've seen his work and too much of it in my opinion. He needs to be stopped - even the Israeli's recently protested against Sharon and his actions. I hope that soon he is voted out of office and arrested for all his war crimes. One picture shows a dead woman on the street who was out jogging, shot dead by one of their gunships. What is the purpose behind that? Why do we protect the Israeli's? Is it because they are jewish? Is it because of what Hitler did? How about doing the right thing? Colin Powell was over there recently trying to set up meetings with Ariel Sharon and the new Palestinian President, whomever that was going to be - he was not interested. Ariel Sharon is not interested in the peace plan nor is he interested in living in peace with the Palestinians; he wants to wipe them off the face of the earth; it is that simple and anyone who doesn't see that has blinders on.
My other comment is DON'T THESE PEOPLE HAVE JUST ONE NAME?? How come all these "arabs" (is that the right word?) have more names making it hard to keep track of them all - like the terrorists, otherwise known as...and .. and.. geez. We get one name and we're stuck with itforever but these middle eastern people have way too many names. How in hell do we keep track of terrorists even if they have more than one name?
Now Abbas, otherwise known as whomever.. wasn't he the former prime minister (or whatever) to the UN and US? If given half a chance, this man could follow the peace plan as long as Hamas and Hezbollah stay out of it and maybe for one, they could live in peace and the kids - both Israeli's and Palestinians can get back to school together and go out together, go to clubs together, be friends again - as we've seen before in the past - or at least I've seen it right on tv. And maybe relatives from Gaza and the West Bank can actually see each other again. Abbas wants peace for his people; our President has already called on him, Colin Powell was there before the elections hoping to renew the peace plan. That plan will only work if Ariel Sharon allows it and trust me, he's not going to play his part - so it's time to get rid of that man; he is a hindrance to middle east peace between the two groups who need to share the same areas. When it comes to voting, if he knows he's going to lose, he doesn't allow it - what kind of democracy is that? He has his own agenda; now that Arafat is dead (I blame Sharon for Arafat's health and death that probably could have been avoided or at least avoided the way it happened) Ariel Sharon has NO reason whatsoever not to follow the peace plan, so if he does not want it, it's time for the Israeli's to get rid of him and put someone in office who WILL work for the peace plan which helps everybody, not just the Israeli's and Palestinians.
I just want to know why WE support the Israeli's with a man at the helm who does not want to follow the orders of the World Court, the UN, the US, the nations around him and who continues to do what he wants and what he wants is to wipe every Palestinian off the face of the earth. That is pretty obvious.
Bethlehem, Jerusalem and all those places want to be visited by both the jewish people as well as the Christian people but he won't give in - to anybody. It's way past time for Ariel Sharon to step down, for peace there will never be achieved with him in office.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 10, 2005 10:34 PM (D39Vm)
7
Mr Abbas, during his brief and thwarted period as the first Palestinian Prime Minister, understood well the frustration and anger of ordinary Palestinians at the incompetence, rampant corruption and lack of transparency or accountability that characterised Arafat's regime. He knows that he has to deliver fairer, more honest government: not easy amid poverty and violence, especially in Gaza. But at least his opponents may give him breathing space. Both Hamas and Islamic Jihad called for a boycott of the election; both said they would work with the new president.
In my view, Mr Abbas is a realist. That means he well understands that no talks with Israel can begin unless Paletinian violence ends. This will bring him into immediate conflict with the militants. He has already criticised rocket attacks; now he must make clear that there will be no further Arafat-style fudges, making token arrests and cracking down for a few days only to release the militants when the immediate crisis has passed.
Israel can bolster his new authority with measures to improve conditions in the occupied territories. Within the necessary limits imposed by security, it should allow more people to seek work in Israel and ease some of the restrictions that hinder the economic development of the territories. The Sharon Government, bolstered by the support of Labour, should move swiftly to implement its pull-out from Gaza, and signal an intention to follow this with a resumption of road-map talks. But Mr Sharon's response will be determined largely by Mr Abbas's initial moves. He has signalled that he will keep Ahmad Qureia, the moderate Prime Minister, in office. Both sides know there is a long, long way to go. The election was only a first step. But it was in the right direction.
Posted by: Solid at January 11, 2005 09:06 AM (PM/BC)
8
Just another ARAFAT clone i mean is there much difference between these extremists? it just makes no difference between these radicals who are elected leader of a country after all look at NELSON MANDELA and FERDENAN MARCOS they stake over and rob their country behinds their backs
Posted by: sandpiper at January 11, 2005 08:13 PM (IUhj7)
9
Well watching the scrolls early in the morning and late at night, all I can see is how many people were killed by the Israeli's AGAIN today. Just turn on the tv and read the scrolls.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 12, 2005 07:18 AM (D39Vm)
10
As I said below in the first post referring to Mr. Abbas . . He will first and foremost, have to deal with the heavily armed minority in his country as well as the Arabic States affording Monetary Support. All of these wish to maintain a confrontational situation if not outright war with Israel.
THE WORLD gave the Jews Israel (Palestine) in 1948, and while some of the Palestinians were disenfranchised or lost property, the original Palestinian was a Nomad chasing goats around a rock pile. Actually the British OWNED more property than the Palestinians and the Jews took that away!
And since about 1960, a group of "Nomads" claiming to be "Palestinians" with an Egyptian Engineer/Terrorist as a leader has migrated from country to country making life unpleasant for any country they happened to be in, until the King of Jordan sent them to the West Bank . . Since then they have made life very unpleasant for the Jews . . . And although only a Hundred Thousand or so was originally displaced, now there are millions of "Palestinians" demanding "Right of Return" or outright, "We plan to re-populate Israel with Arabs", simply, make the Jews the minority in Israel.
Read yer History . . And these people have been taught that Israel is rightfully theirs, therefore the "Intifada" and all . . No, Mr. Abbas has to change too many things to become a leader of Peace . . He cannot overcome history. But I hold hope that I'm wrong.
Posted by: large at January 12, 2005 01:42 PM (VRK2g)
251kb generated in CPU 0.0663, elapsed 0.2434 seconds.
137 queries taking 0.1955 seconds, 514 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
137 queries taking 0.1955 seconds, 514 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
