Just a quick Religion of Peace roundup.

First, in a companion story to "Dan Who?" tee bee shows us that CBS is not the only media outlet subject to dhimmification.

Then, if you're doing the happy happy joy joy dance over the "anti-terror fatwa" released yesterday, you need to read this from my homie Patrick.

Finally, we know how Islamofascist regimes treat women. Look at how they treat children as well. And sign the petition, please.

Posted by: Vinnie at 12:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

Rumor has it that Guardian Executive Editor Albert Scardino was sacked for his role in the Dilpazier Aslam imbroglio, but the Guardian is officially denying any connection. Aslam was a "trainee journalist" who wrote an incredibly inflammatory opinion piece soon after the London terror attacks. Aslam was later revealed to be a member of an Islamist extremist group. Sardino has been named by some blogs as the man responsible for hiring Aslam.

From the Timesonline:

Albert Scardino has stepped down from the post of executive editor of the Guardian newspaper, just a week after the controversial dismissal of trainee journalist Dilpazier Aslam over his undeclared Islamist interests.

Rumours had circulated last night that Mr Scardino was about to leave, but sources at the newspaper today were at pains to point out that the departure was entirely unconnected with the Aslam affair.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, the biggest non-story today still seems to be the Roberts nomination. Although it seems that today even the big media outlets are running out of different ways to say the same thing. What it all boils down to is this:

1. We don't know anything about Roberts. Anything that has been pointed out is been in the context of cases which he has argued. This does not necessarily express his own personal opinions, simply the opinion he was hired to argue.

2. Senate Democrats are looking for ANYTHING that they can use to hold him up or stop him. My initial prediction was that they will try to hold him up for several years so they can screw Bush out of even one Supreme Court nomination. With all the attention that this has garnered, I don't think they'll be able to do that now. And I think they know that as well. For once in their miserable careers, it seems that the press may be working against the Democrats. Whether they want to or not, they are bringing EVERYTHING out in the open. If you remember, the first thing the deplorable Dems attempted was an attack on Roberts' wife for being part of a Christian organization (or some such nonsense), but with the negative attention that garnered almost immediately, that seems to have been dropped like a hot potato. And now the gasbag Kennedy is being all but ignored in his latest attack.

According to Kennedy, Roberts' commitment to civil rights may be questionable. Of course to bring up an accusation like that Kennedy must have evidence, right? Let's take a look.

Aides to Mr. Kennedy distributed documents from the Justice Department in the Reagan administration that show Mr. Roberts expressing criticism of an extension of the voting rights act, support for a court ruling narrowing the civil rights requirements on colleges, and doubts about a law to combat discrimination in housing.

Now I'm not familiar with the three instances stated above, but I do know that a lot of the laws that are written to help minorities tend to have the opposite effect. They keep minorities from being able to advance as they should and continue segregation whether intended or not. If those are the kinds of laws being referred to, then it's no wonder he argued against them. And even if they aren't, the things that he argued during his stint with the Regan administration reflect the views of the Regan administration and not necessarily Roberts' own views. Kennedy's attempt at using this to smear Roberts is weak at best and simply shows how desperate he is to find ANYTHING to disqualify Roberts simply because he is a Bush pick. Interestingly enough, the mainstream press seems to hold the same opinion, although they don't come right out and say it. The above story in the New York Times, which is amazingly non-partisan, and another small story on the AP wire that doesn't even go into as much detail as the NYT story are the only two that I find this morning to even mention it.

Of course Kennedy isn't the only despicable Dem attempting to hold back Roberts. According to the same NYT article, Boxer and Clinton are leading the cry to disqualify him because a) he's not a woman and b) he might take away their precious "right" to kill their children.

And of course the women aren't alone. Senator (traitor) Durbin had this to say:

WASHINGTON, July 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reported today in an LA Times op-ed that Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill) asked Judge John Roberts last week "what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral."

Which is just about the stupidest question I've EVER heard. Are you seriously trying to tell me that every judge on the bench agrees with every law on the books? Can you really say that with a straight face? If so, then why do we have dissenting opinions written on almost every decision put forth by the Supreme Court? Let me fill you in on a little secret, Durbin (and all the rest of you mamby-pamby liberals). Everyone believes something. Even if you don't have faith, you have a sense of right and wrong. And whether you want to admit it or not, all of your decisions are based on that sense of right and wrong. They HAVE to be. Where else would you get a base for making any sort of decision? By attempting to force me to accept things that go against my value system, such as abortion, you are doing the exact same thing that you are so afraid Christians are going to do to you. Do you know what the word for that is? Let's try hypocrite. That's right, you're a bunch of lying, sorry hypocrites.

And it seems that Durbin isn't alone in his thinking along these lines. According to GOPUSA, the call to ostracize Roberts for being a Catholic is going out from others as well.

Lynn Neary
National Public Radio
7-20-05
"And he is Roman Catholic, and that might affect the way he views an issue like abortion, for instance."

Barbara Walters
ABC Good Morning America
7-20-05
"John Roberts is a Roman Catholic. How important to him is his religion? Do you think it might affect him as a Supreme Court Justice?"

Miles O'Brien
CNN American Morning
7-20-05
"He's, by all accounts, a Roman Catholic who adheres to the tenets of that faith. Do you suspect that he will advocate, when the opportunity comes up, reversing some of the key aspects of Roe v Wade, which provide abortion rights in this country?"

I still don't know anything about Roberts except that judging from what little of his personal life I've been able to see he seems to be a good, faithful man who stands by his convictions. But the way things look now, I'm pretty sure he's going to get confirmed despite the smear and scare tactics of a few extremist liberals. And those same liberals are going to come out on the other side with egg on their face for even attempting their dirty tricks.

Posted by: Drew at 07:48 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1048 words, total size 6 kb.

A snippet:

Now, the following letter is from Sgt. Michael O'Rourke. It was forwarded to me by Tom Fecher and Kyle Smithson. Please read the letter in its entirety as it is powerfully written and gives a vivid picture of what our troops must endure. It also gives us an opportunity to see into the heart of a soldier.

Sgt. O'Rourke: Thank you for allowing me to post your letter. Thank you for your service. Please know that I and countless others support you and your mission. Please be careful and come home safely.

It's been a time since I last wrote any account of my pleasant adventures here in Iraq. Naturally I'd like to write more oft, but slow computers and little time obviates that endeavor. Just so, I still manage to punch out a few words every now and then, as the following lines will testify:

Read the rest

Posted by: Vinnie at 02:03 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

This is utterly stupefying.

When I saw this image at Clarity and Resolve, I thought that it was one of Patrick's making. He's no slacker when it comes to Photoshopping:

Imagine my surprise when I followed a link to discover that it was actually included in a CBS News online article.

An article, by the way, about the so-called "fatwa against terrorism" issued today by representatives of the Religion of Peace residing in the United States.

If NBC is Must See TV, then CBS can rightfully claim Dhimmi TV....

Posted by: Vinnie at 10:27 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

Rusty, all set to pop caps in someone's ass:

Posted by: Vinnie at 09:27 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

You call this vacation? I swear I'm about to pop a cap into someone's ass.

UPDATE: Just to clarify, I'm on a working vacation. My frustration has nothing to do with people getting banned or not. I have 8 bosses all reminding me that I keep missing important publications deadlines.

Posted by: Rusty at 06:35 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

(Genting Highlands, Malaysia) It seems the followers of Islam can easily show contempt for people who eat pork.

The Muslims on staff at the First World Hotel in Genting Highlands showed their disrespect for 600 Chinese tourists by imprinting their meal tickets with images of pig's heads. Scuffles even broke out between the Muslims and the pork-loving Chinese visitors.

The hotel denied any racism was involved and apologized. Nonetheless, it appears that believers in the religion of peace become less peaceful when they smell pork cooking. And, it also seems the Muslims get nasty even when neither Americans nor Iraqis nor Brits are involved.

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 05:14 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't usually listen to Rush Limbaugh. Nothing against Rush, but the local station runs his show from 1 to 3 in the afternoon, and I'm usually doing other things. But today I happened to be driving down to Target to get some new golf spikes, the better to tread on the faces of the proletariat like a good capitalist pig.

Roger Hedgecock was filling in for Rush and he said something so outrageous that I thought he must be joking. Hedgecock claimed that the problems with the insulating foam on the Space Shuttles only cropped up after Freon was replaced with other materials due to environmental concerns. It doesn't get much press, but apparently Hedgecock was right.

From Richard Bennett's Mossback Culture (February 2, 2003):

So concerns about the effects of freon on the ozone layer lead directly to the crash of the Shuttle, apparently. You'd think NASA would be able to get some kind of a waiver on this stuff.

As recently as last September, a retired engineering manager for Lockheed Martin, the contractor that assembles the tanks, told a conference in New Orleans that developing a new foam to meet environmental standards had "been much more difficult than anticipated."
The retired Lockheed engineer, who helped design the thermal protection system, said the switch from a foam based on Freon — also known as CFC-11 — has "resulted in unanticipated program impacts, such as foam loss during flight."

NASA officially blames foam loss during flight on hand spraying techniques that leave voids in the foam in this document, but this News Max story lays the blame squarely on the Freon substitute:

As recently as last month, NASA had been warned that foam insulation on the space shuttle's external fuel tank could sheer off as it did in the 2003 Columbia disaster - a problem that has plagued space shuttle flights since NASA switched to a non-Freon-based type of foam insulation to comply with Clinton administration Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto

Posted by: Bluto at 04:57 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

It was bound to happen sooner or later - finally, it appears that we are begining to see a few rays of truth about Islamic terrorism appear on the printed pages of the mainstream media, and albeit it's an opinion piece, nonetheless, it's a good one and damned timely.

So let's get right to the point:

Islam is linked from the beginning with the practice of divinely sanctioned warfare and lethal injunctions against apostates and unbelievers. Islam experienced no period of wandering and exclusion; from its inception, Islam formed a unitary state bent on military conquest.

(...) Most commentators argue that Islamic terrorism is a fanatical perversion of Islam which deviates from its true teachings. They call for a Western-style modernization of the Muslim world, hoping thereby that radical Islam will be tamed.

(...) This analysis misses the point. The nature of the terrorist threat is unambiguously Islamic and is not so much a deviation from Muslim tradition as an appeal to it.

(...) the oft-quoted remark that Islam is a religion of peace is false. It is historically illiterate to claim that war is foreign to Islam and it is theologically uninformed to argue that jihad is merely a personal inner struggle with no external military correlate.

(...) The Prophet died a successful military leader who created a single Islamic polity that expanded - through warfare - all over the known world. The caliphate combined the double logic of a religious community and an imperial state.

(...) While the Koran enjoins that there shall be "no compulsion in religion," Islam still regards it as a holy duty to extend militarily the borders of the House of Islam against the demonic world of unbelievers.

(...) When extremists say they are killing in the name of Islam, they are in part appealing to Islamic traditions of long standing.

(...) Al Qaeda sympathizers avidly read European fascist literature and pursue religious ends via atheist methods. Recruits to the cause are not the excluded uneducated poor, they are intellectuals with a radical critique of Western society and its impact on Islam.

(...) there can be no accommodation with an ideology that seeks to fashion the whole world in its own image. The essentially Islamic nature of this terror demands nothing less than a reformation in the name of an alternative Islam.

Read the entire article, then sit back and ask yourself, "isn't time to lock and load?

Cross posted by Hyscience

Hat tip - Mark In Mexico

TAGS: Islam, Muslim, terrorism, Al Qaeda

Posted by: Richard@hyscience at 03:34 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 502 words, total size 4 kb.

As the MSM continues to be focused on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East, the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) has warned that the West should begin paying more attention to Somalia because this East African country, torn apart by rival warlords and tribal gangs, provides a logistic center for al-Qaeda.

The warning was contained in a recently published research report entitled "Counter-terrorism in Somalia, Are we loosing hearts and minds?", edited by Suliman Baldo, the ICG's Africa programme director:

"Away from the spotlight, a quiet, dirty conflict is being waged in Somalia." writes Baldo in the introduction. "In the rubble-strewn streets of the ruined capital of this state without a government, Mogadishu, al-Qaeda operatives, jihad extremists, Ethiopian security services and Western-backed counter-terrorism networks are engaged in a shadowy and complex contest waged by intimidation, abduction and assassination." The United States "has had some success but now risks evoking a backlash." It is not surprising: after the huge failure of the international peace efforts carried out between 1992-1995, Somalia still finds itself in total chaos, despite an October 2004 agreement reached to establish a transitional federal government.

You may recall that on Dec. 12, 1992, about five weeks before the expiration of his term as President of the United States, George H.W. Bush launched Operation Restore Hope and committed the Clinton Administration and 26.000 American troops to a humanitarian effort in Somalia. Twenty other nations committed 13,000 troops to provide both food supplies and security to war-torn Somalia. Gen. Mohammed Farah Aideed, whose rebels controlled most of the beleaguered nation, welcomed the relief effort, believing he would be able to successfully exploit the Americans into helping him defeat his arch rival, the al Qaeda-backed warlord Ali Mahdi Mohammed who controlled the city of Mogadishu. When Clinton took office, his Defense Secretary, former Wisconsin Congressman Les Aspin, cut the UNOSOM-2 force to 4,000 regular Army troops(3000 of which were support troops, NOT combat troops) and 400 Army Rangers. Earlier, in September, 1993 Gen. Colin Powell, Bush-41's carryover Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, asked Aspin to let him beef up the weakened American forces in Somalia with tanks and armored vehicles.

Aspin declined Powell's request, and we all know what followed. There was no military response to the resulting humiliation, and there was no resolve to see the new mission goals to fruition. The only remaining superpower in the world withdrew from Mogadishu with a whimper, and left like a beat dog. Hopefully, we have since learned the lessons and repercussions of such a 'cut and run' decision - now, we have the potential of having to go back and finish the job Clinton ran from. Our friends on the left calling for a hasty retreat from Iraq should heed well the lessons of Somalia, and strongly consider what's happening now in Somalia, and it's contribution to worldwide terrorism. more...

Posted by: Richard@hyscience at 01:22 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 1501 words, total size 10 kb.

Yeah I had a few minutes to give to the blog today so here goes.

Is or was Air America supported by dollars intended to feed the hungry? Michelle Malkin has more. Hey maybe weÂ’ll make Air America again.

Also see MichelleÂ’s post on the leftover bombs from the 7/7 terrorists.

Is terrorism a perversion of Islam? Mark in Mexico has more. Mark has tracked back to the Jawa several times before. Reciprocation is called for here.

Here is another story from Mark, about an Iraqi boy who learned first hand about America. He does not want to go home. LetÂ’s all wish him a safe and happy return home and an invite back.

Also for those of you who have noticed IÂ’ve been pretty busy and unable to blog much. But the good news is. I got that adapter and at least now I have a keyboard I can live with. Yep no more chicklets for me.

If you guys would like to annoy a terrorist supporter. Check this guy out, on this thread. IÂ’ll post a partial quote below the break. Spoofer?? I'm not sure but the email address certainly sucks. There are also several other candidates to annoy on this thread. As for his wish against the south and great midwest. Lick me freedomkiller.

more...

Posted by: Howie at 11:53 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 391 words, total size 3 kb.

Captain's Quarters writes in his "Further Collapse Of AQ Bombing Cell," that British investigators have now added nine more people to the list of those arrested after the botched bombings of July 21, where all four bombs failed to detonate properly and left a treasure trove of evidence for police. Police confirm that they have arrested 20 suspects, including one of the erstwhile bombers.

As offered by Captain Ed in his post, the investigation has occured with great speed and effectiveness. However, the deeper investigators delve into the nests of the terrorist underground the deeper and wider the pit appears and the more we realize just how far amuck a captured religion has departed from reality. It's now obvious that the London cell(s) are extensive and that participants, collaborators, and supporters are literally spread out across the globe, with suspects having fanned out beyond Britain to Morocco, Pakistan, Zambia, with connections to all the way to Oregon in the U.S, Egypt, and elsewhere. This as India is reporting that terror camps are being revived in Pakistan. And this is only a small part of an incredible series of connections that have continued to exist since prior to August 2004 between the remote and harsh border regions between Pakistan and Afghanistan, the burning land of Iraq, and Europe, and particular France, Spain, Italy, and Great Britain. Networks such as these don't collapse over a few weeks of investigations and arrests of low level ground troops that are expendible - after all, that's their job, to expend themselves while killing as many other people as possible.

And while terrorists have been 'nesting' all over Britain and the rest of Europe, the EU is just now waking up to the idea that gee, they ought to stop the funding of terrorists!

For a possible remedy for all of this madness, and an approach to truly collapsing al-Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist-conducted war on civilization, Efraim Halevi's "Rules Of Conflict For A World War" are begining to make more sense:

Efraim Halevi (Jerusalem Post) The multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place on the London transportation system were the work of perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope. There was careful planning, intelligence gathering, and a sophisticated choice of timing as well as near-perfect execution. We are faced with a deadly and determined adversary who will stop at nothing and will persevere as long as he exists as a fighting terrorist force. We are in the throes of a world war, raging over the entire globe. We are in for the long haul and we must brace ourselves for more that will follow.

The executives must be empowered to act resolutely and to take every measure necessary to protect the citizens of their country and to carry the combat into whatever territory the perpetrators and their temporal and spiritual leaders are inhabiting. The rules of combat must be rapidly adjusted and international law must be rewritten to permit civilization to defend itself. There is no doubt that international cooperation is essential. Yet this cannot replace the requirement that each and every country effectively declare itself at war with international Islamist terror and recruit the public to involve itself actively in the battle.

Cross posted by Hyscience

Posted by: Richard@hyscience at 09:16 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 585 words, total size 5 kb.

***Note, this poll is non-binding. It's up to the good Dr. as to what he wishes to do with his own blog. That being said, however, it's become rather obvious that someone has become quite the pest.

Posted by: Vinnie at 11:20 PM | Comments (105) | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

The man arrested for his involvement in the "Millenium Plot" has been sentenced today for a whopping 22 years. Twenty-two years?

SEATTLE (AP) — An Algerian [Ahmed Ressam] who plotted to bomb the Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium was sentenced to 22 years in prison Wednesday by a judge who used the opportunity to sternly criticize the Bush administration's anti-terrorism tactics.

"We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant or deny the defendant the right to counsel," U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour said. "The message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart."

Wrong! A man who attempted to kill hundreds of Americans gets sentenced to twenty-two years in prison is an outrage. Not only was this case blown in terms of an inadequate sentence, a connected case in England and one in Germany will not be able to proceed without the testimony afforded. If this had been a military tribunal, there may have been a way to provide testimony to these other two cases.

When taken into context of another case which wrapped up this past month, that of Islamic cleric al-Timimi out of Virginia was sentenced to life in prison for encouraging jihadis to fight U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, this is a slap on the wrist. Ressam intended on setting off explosives, found in his trunk by an alert Border Patrol agent, at LAX which again would have killed hundreds of U.S. citizens. This plot is believed to be connected to Al Qaida, so now we've sentenced an Al Qaida henchman who has tried to kill U.S. citizens to 22 years in prison. Good job.

In other terrorism-related jurisprudence, a man believed to be connected to the brutal killing and decapitation of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was found and arrested in Pakistan.

Cross-posted at ITB

Posted by: Chad at 09:20 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 3 kb.

With the majority of precincts reporting, San Diegans voted overwhelmingly yesterday to transfer the historic Mount Soledad cross site to the federal government. The site contains a 43-foot concrete cross that has been at the center of the controversy since a 1989 lawsuit.

The city-owned land has long been recognized locally as a war memorial. Surrounding the cross are more than 1,600 plaques commemorating military veterans who have participated in the defense of America. By attaching an amendment to a military appropriations bill last November, area congressmen Duncan Hunter and Randy "Duke" Cunningham provided a way where a federal transfer of the site could occur, provided the city would allow such a move. The vote on Tuesday (July 26) -- in which more than 75 percent of voters chose to transfer the property to the federal government as a national war memorial -- sent a clear message that the public supports the move.

In 1989 attorney James McElroy, representing atheist Philip Paulson, sued the City of San Diego for maintaining a religious symbol on public property. McElroy made it clear before yesterday's vote that he intends to continue challenging the case in court. "This will be resolved in the courtroom where it deserves to be resolved -- and not in front of the voters," McElroy told the North County
Times.

Typical liberal moonbat mindset, don't let the people decide, let courts overrule the public will through some nimrod judge with a similar ideology. For the most part the left can't win at the ballot box on most issues, their last and only refuge is the courts.

Companion OpiniPundit

Posted by: Traderrob at 09:04 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

Lori Allen, a University of Chicago anthropology graduate student, conducted research in the West Bank under a Social Science Research Council-GSC Program fellowship and wrote an article that first appeared in Middle East Report 223 (Summer 2002). In that article she wrote that the "Average Bomber" was not driven to self destruction by dispair, all Palestinians living under 'occupation' are desperate, and that neither does poverty explain the motivation for self destruction (to which I add - 'and the murder of innocents'), rather, that a combination of faith and conviction motivates (suicide) bombers: "Religion is the factor that creates the bravery in [the suicide bomber] to be a martyr. And religion makes him (or her) highly sensitive to the issue of justice [to which I add - a perverted blind since of his/her distorted (by the Islamist's definition and teachings)] view of what constitutes justice.

After reading Lori's article, I reread the words, "Religion is the factor that creates the bravery in the bomber to be a martyr. And religion makes him highly sensitive to the issue of justice." Subsequently, the first thought that came to mind was, "That's one hell of a distortion of reality to get out of a 'religion,' and when did murder, suicide, and maiming innocent people have anything to do with God or a religion? But of course we're not talking about just any religion, where talking about Islam. And, we're in the year 2005, three years after Lori's report, so are the motives the same?

Today, for a more up to date analysis, we can look to Andrew Cochran writing at The CounterTerrorism Blog on his appearance on MSNBC's "Connected" program to discuss the 7/7 London attacks (you can see video of the segment on the linked page). One of his fellow guests was Pierre Rehov, a French filmmaker who has filmed six documentaries on the intifada by going undercover in the Palestinian areas. Pierre's upcoming film, "Suicide Killers," is based on interviews that he conducted with the families of suicide bombers and would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it. It's a post that I think you'll find very interesting and informative.

Cross posted by Hyscience

Posted by: Richard@hyscience at 08:29 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Those cursed suicide bombers are blowing things up for clearly secular-nationalist goals.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 27, 2005 09:57 PM (ScqM8)

2 "Terrorists may indeed be driven by hate and resentment, but their actions are also determined by geopolitical considerations, as professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, among others, has pointed out. Many terrorists—and they include persons with formal educations—have reasons for carrying out their horrible deeds: “The central fact,” notes Pape, “is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland” (interview in The American Conservative , July 1 . This statement, far from empathy, is an effort to explain terrorism—which we have no choice but to understand if we want to overcome it."

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 27, 2005 10:59 PM (ScqM8)

3 Your medication you idiot. Take your medication.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 28, 2005 06:19 AM (eVGfQ)

4 KlanRooster, Racist hog-beating prairie Rove-Bidet, medication will not help you. Only Jesus can bring you back.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 28, 2005 06:30 AM (ScqM8)

5 Let me tell you a story: Once upon a time there was a devoted Muslim, He was a quiet one and never bothered anybody. He prayed 3 times a day towards Mecca, dismissed un-believers and quietly read his Quran. Until one day when an old Muslim friend returning from Afghanistan came by and told him another aspect of Islam. He said; this is how you interpret Jihad and it's something every faithful Muslim must do. Nonsense! would be the first thought that should come to mind he didn't want to kill anybody, but the devouted Muslim had thoroughly read the Quran, memorized every bit and it was all there, he had to do it.. They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back [to their homes], then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. Mein Quran, excerpt 004:089 Comming up next: DSM manages to get banned from Jawa report, tries to harbour secular suicide bombers and gets beheaded in reward.

Posted by: Ren at July 28, 2005 07:24 AM (a9tRx)

6 there is poverty in South America,Central America, Mexico, Africa,and yet i dont see any suicide bombers in those countries???....and also most of these countries are mostly of the Christian faith which prohibits suicide and murder....hmmmm, the Middle East and most of South ASia is what religion????oh yea, ISLAM....and MOST of it is poor, excluding Saudia Arabia and Kuawait which seem to be very well to do including its rulers....gee, ISLAM does allow murder of the infidel, and even though the Koran states that suicide is forbiden it laters says that suicide is okay if done for the glory and spread of ISLAM, so the Muslims have a thin but possible excuse for suicide/mass murder bombings and slaughters....seems to me and many others that the problem is what is taught from the Koran/ISLAM

Posted by: THANOS35 at July 28, 2005 09:44 AM (9gFP6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Dr. and Mrs. Shackleford take a well deserved romantic stroll alone at the pool.

(Note to Rusty....Dude, lay off the In-n-Out Double Doubles) more...

Posted by: Vinnie at 05:49 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I have concluded that Dr. Shackelford is a wealthy man.

Posted by: Brad at July 27, 2005 06:04 PM (pO1tP)

2 Is that a keffiyeh on Rusty's head?

Posted by: See-Dubya at July 27, 2005 08:32 PM (IDj0S)

3 That would be the hood of his Jawa cloak. He never takes it off, not even in the shower. But really, See-Dubya, what the hell you lookin at Rusty's head for? sheesh!

Posted by: Mad Dog Vinnie at July 27, 2005 08:50 PM (Kr6/f)

4 He looks good in a thong.

Posted by: Mike at July 28, 2005 05:24 PM (6krEN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Somebody, please actuate the nanny-state overload alarm. Alcohol ads may no longer feature sexy guys because it makes a connection between drinking and seduction. It's considered to be the cause of binge drinking.

From Timesonline:

Drinks companies have been ordered to hire paunchy, balding men for advertisements to meet new rules forbidding any link between women’s drinking and sex. Watchdogs have issued a list of undesirable male characteristics that advertisers must abide by in order to comply with tougher rules designed to separate alcohol from sexual success.

But there's more. The British Committee of Advertising Practice ruled:

"We would advise that the man in the picture should be unattractive -- overweight, middle-aged, balding etc."

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 04:29 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 2 kb.

Arthur Chrenkoff posts today on what he calls. "A fascinating glimpse on the authorities' search for the common intersection in the otherwise diverse lives of the eight London bombers," and reminds us that the same pesky Finsbury Park mosque with the hate-spewing mouthy imam was "also the launching pad for the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid and the "19th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui."

Although Arthur finds it "amazing how much trouble can come out of one place - and by extension, what a timely action of the type only contemplated now against those inciting jihad (such as deportation) could have possibly achieved to prevent the current troubles," I find it to be more an example of too little, too late. It's a weakly punative action following too much hate and violence that's been allowed to be taught to Muslim youth from mosque pulpits by Islamist clerics, for far too long.

On the other hand, few can disagree with Arthur's observation that "we shouldn't think there are easy solutions," because there aren't any. Yet, we have to start somewhere, sometime, doing what is necessary to end the insanity of Islamofascism and the mindset and actions of those that tolerate, support it, and facilitate it. As Arthur writes in his closing, "It's going to be a long, long conflict."

Just how long and how costly in terms of innocent lives lost and dollars spent on terrorism that could be much better placed on making our lives healthier, more comfortable, and more useful, may very well depend upon our immediate recognition of our enemy's agenda, our collective(as a civilization) willingness to speak and act as one voice against Islamofascism and all it's tenets and acts, and on the speed and actions taken to stop the madness of the Islamist's agenda to "establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law, the Shari'a. Or, "to cite the Daily Telegraph, their "real project is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe, and the establishment of a worldwide ‘caliphate' founded on Shari'a law."""

That agenda must be stopped dead in it's tracks!

As Mark Steyn has said, "Terrorism itself will end only when the broader culture refuses to tolerate it. There would be few if any suicide bombers in the Middle East if "martyrdom" wasn't glorified by imams and politicians, if pictures of local "martyrs" were not proudly displayed in West Bank grocery stores, if Muslim banks did not offer special "martyrdom" accounts to the relicts thereof, if schools did not run essay competitions on "Why I want to grow up to be a martyr."" To which I add, "and when we in the West stop tolerating such crap!"

Yet, on the matter of "tolerating the madness of that broader culture, the culture of Islam," aren't many in the West just as guilty when we look the other way or offer excuses and pretend that gee, it's just a few extremists and if only the moderate Muslims will speak up?

Even if truly moderate Muslims exist, which some doubt, again, borrowing from Mark Stein, "Why are we surprised that "Muslim moderates" rarely speak out against the evil committed by their co-religionists when the likes of Mr Paddick keep assuring us there's no problem? It requires great courage to be a dissenting Muslim in communities dominated by heavy-handed imams and lobby groups that function effectively as thought-police.""

It's true that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, or involved in terrorism, and this needs to be said strongly if people assert otherwise. But if the Metropolitan Police really believe what Brian Paddick says, if they really, truly think that the words "Islam" and "terrorism" must not be linked, then we have little hope of catching the killers, of understanding how the terrorism works, or of preventing new atrocities.

If you substituted the phrase, "politicians and apologists for Islam," for "Metropolitan Police" in the above paragraph, you'd be reading a statement that is 'right-on' target. Let's leave the issue of contribution to terrorism for just a moment to digress to the terrorism conducted by the IRA: more...

Posted by: Richard@hyscience at 03:28 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 2939 words, total size 20 kb.

1 “Oxford Law Prof alarmed at "police’s Mossad-style execution" of innocent ’suspect’ Police state: Like many of my fellow-Londoners I am less alarmed by suicide bombers than I am by the police’s Mossad-style execution of a ’suspect’ (who turned out to be a completely innocent passer-by) on Friday 22 July. This is not because we are at greater risk of death at the hands of the police than at the hands of the bombers. (Both risks are pretty tiny, but of the two the risk posed by the police is clearly smaller). Rather, it is because, all else being equal, it is worse to be killed by one’s friends than by one’s enemies, and worse to be killed by people in authority than by people not in authority. Here are some other important things to remember in thinking about the police actions of 22 July: (1) There is no general legal duty to assist the police or to obey police instructions. Rice v Connolly [1966] 2 QB 414. (2) There are special police powers to arrest and search. But there is no special police licence to injure or kill. If they injure or kill, the police need to rely on the same law as the rest of us. (3) The law allows those who use force in prevention of crime to use only necessary and proportionate force. Jack Straw and Sir Ian Blair say that officers are under great pressure. But this is no excuse. In law, as in morality, being under extra pressure gives us no extra latitude for error in judging how much force is proportionate or necessary. R v Clegg [1995] 1 A.C. 482. (4) Arguably, the police should be held to higher standards of calm under pressure than the rest of us. Certainly not lower! (5) The necessity and proportionality of the police use of force is to be judged on the facts as they believed them to be: R v Williams 78 Cr. App R 276. This does create latitude for factual error. In my view it creates too much latitude. The test should be reasonable belief. The police may be prejudiced like the rest of us, and may treat the fact that someone is dark-skinned as one reason to believe that he is a suicide bomber. But in court this reason should not count. (6) It is no defence in law that the killing was authorised by a superior officer. A superior officer who authorises an unlawful killing is an accomplice. R v Clegg [1995] 1 A.C. 482. (7) The fact that those involved were police officers is irrelevant to the question of whether to prosecute them. It is a basic requirement of the Rule of Law that, when suspected of crimes, officials are subject to the same policies and procedures as the rest of us. ( Some people say: Blame the terrorists, not the police. But blame is not a zero-sum game. The fact that one is responding to faulty actions doesn’t mean one is incapable of being at fault oneself. We may blame Tony Blair for helping to create the conditions in which bombing appeals to people, without subtracting any blame from the bombers. We may also blame the bombers for creating the conditions in which the police act under pressure, without subtracting blame from the police if they overreact. Everyone is responsible for their own faulty actions, never mind the contribution of others. This is the moral position as well as the position in criminal law.” Bellacio

Posted by: Menezes' Ghost at July 27, 2005 03:38 PM (/+dAV)

2 Greg, you better stop stealing other people's material. That's called plagarism and it's against the law. We're going to turn you over to the police. Think about all that dope you have in your possession. You will be found out to be a traitor for sure, and the Patriot Act looms large. I don't know it you can make it in prison, Greg. Think about this the next time you steal posts from the inmates at Indymedia.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 27, 2005 05:33 PM (DDXXI)

3 Jesusland, Go to Finsbury, I gave you the map earlier

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 27, 2005 06:49 PM (ScqM8)

4 No, DSM, you didn't give me no map. That was Greg you gave the map to. You know you and Greg have some business at the mosque with your jihad buddies. You probably want to beat up some girls and old women. That's about your speed.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 27, 2005 07:00 PM (DDXXI)

5 the death of that brazilian guy is exactly why the nuclear option fr mecca looks so good. we end up trading liberty for safety. we need to make the muslim terror problem a problem that muslims solve at their expense and not ours.

Posted by: Mr. K at July 27, 2005 07:20 PM (VudXl)

6 Haysooos, I gave the map to Finsbury to everyone, including you! Beating up old women and girls? That is immoral and illegal. However, BUSH says it's ok to gun them down at checkpoints in Iraq and call them collateral damage. I'm much more Christian than that charlatan is.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 27, 2005 07:57 PM (ScqM8)

7 "Both British and Pakistani officials were “FURIOUS” with the Americans for helping to unmask their spy, according to the New York Daily News, and the Brits had to launch a series of high-speed chases to catch Khan’s fleeing cabal. A senior Pakistani official told the Associated Press “this intelligence leak jeopardized our plan and some Al Qaeda suspects ran away.” BUSH, in all his clowning glory is a TRAITOR TO AMERICA!!!!

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 27, 2005 08:01 PM (ScqM8)

8 Greg is not after the young girls. Its the young boys. I see the crazy Downing Street Moron is in bed with him/them. Mr K: Okay, I agree. But how?

Posted by: greyrooster at July 28, 2005 06:11 AM (eVGfQ)

9 Klanrooster - racist pigskinner Rove-Bidet - the boys ran away from you and asked me where the police station was.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 28, 2005 06:32 AM (ScqM8)

10 I'd like to thank all those of you expressing your support for us here in London. It's nice to know we're not alone. I'd like to make an observation about the recurring threat here in London. Following 9/11, how many attacks have there been in the US? Nil! In London, we have been attacked twice in the space of two weeks and are being advised to expect further attacks. I think the reason behind this is our government's insistence on putting human rights, free speech and civil liberties above the basic right to life. 9% of British Muslims are sympathetic to the London Bombers. That's 45,000 people. Even if only 1% of those are fanatical enough to contemplate jihad, that means there are another 450 home grown bombers waiting to strike. We have so far tracked down 8 (4 suicide bombers and 4 in custody). Also we are consistently told by our government to carry on as normal and show that we are not afraid and that we will not be terrorised. That's OK for Tony Blair and his buddies to say but they don't have to travel on the London Transport System. They have armed guards and chauffeur driven cars. I am very afraid ! So much so that I am aiming to build up clients for my accountancy business as soon as possible so that I can work from home rather than in the city. We have tolerated this Islamic evil for too long but our politically correct government would rather stand up for the terrorists and their sympathisers than for decent law abiding British citizens.

Posted by: Lloyd at August 02, 2005 08:41 AM (mxFdI)

11 Lloyd: Take heart. Our prayers are with you. Right win triumph over these goons.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 02, 2005 11:35 AM (x+5JB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment