If the NY Times can get away with misleading headlines, why can't I? Newly released documents confirm that the Saddam Hussein regime actively funded al Qaeda linked terror organizations. Abu Sayyaf is al Qaeda's Southeast Asia wing--all emphasis mineWeekly Standard:

SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq. An eight-page fax dated June 6, 2001, and sent from the Iraqi ambassador in Manila to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad, provides an update on Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and indicates that the Iraqi regime was providing the group with money to purchase weapons. The Iraqi regime suspended its support--temporarily, it seems--after high-profile kidnappings, including of Americans, focused international attention on the terrorist group.

A SECOND internal Iraqi file obtained by The Weekly Standard concerns relations between Iraqi Intelligence and Saudi opposition groups. The document was apparently compiled at some point after January 1997, judging by the most recent date in the text, and discusses four Saudi opposition groups: the Committee for Defense of Legitimate Rights, the Reform and Advice Committee (Osama bin Laden), People of al Jazeera Union Organization, and the Saudi Hezbollah.

The New York Times first reported on the existence of this file on June 25, 2004. "American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden's organization, before al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization." According to the Times, a Pentagon task force "concluded that the document 'appeared authentic,' and that it 'corroborates and expands on previous reporting' about contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Mr. bin Laden in Sudan, according to the task force's analysis."

The most provocative aspect of the document is the discussion of efforts to seek cooperation between Iraqi Intelligence and the Saudi opposition group run by bin Laden, known to the Iraqis as the "Reform and Advice Committee." The translation of that section appears below.

We moved towards the committee by doing the following:

A. During the visit of the Sudanese Dr. Ibrahim al-Sanusi to Iraq and his meeting with Mr. Uday Saddam Hussein, on December 13, 1994, in the presence of the respectable, Mr. Director of the Intelligence Service, he [Dr. al-Sanusi] pointed out that the opposing Osama bin Laden, residing in Sudan, is reserved and afraid to be depicted by his enemies as an agent of Iraq. We prepared to meet him in Sudan (The Honorable Presidency was informed of the results of the meeting in our letter 782 on December 17, 1994).

B. An approval to meet with opposer Osama bin Laden by the Intelligence Services was given by the Honorable Presidency in its letter 138, dated January 11, 1995 (attachment 6). He [bin Laden] was met by the previous general director of M4 in Sudan and in the presence of the Sudanese, Ibrahim al-Sanusi, on February 19, 1995. We discussed with him his organization. He requested the broadcast of the speeches of Sheikh Sulayman al-Uda (who has influence within Saudi Arabia and outside due to being a well known religious and influential personality) and to designate a program for them through the broadcast directed inside Iraq, and to perform joint operations against the foreign forces in the land of Hijaz. (The Honorable Presidency was informed of the details of the meeting in our letter 370 on March 4, 1995, attachment 7.)

C. The approval was received from the Leader, Mr. President, may God keep him, to designate a program for them through the directed broadcast. We were left to develop the relationship and the cooperation between the two sides to see what other doors of cooperation and agreement open up. The Sudanese side was informed of the Honorable Presidency's agreement above, through the representative of the Respectable Director of Intelligence Services, our Ambassador in Khartoum.

D. Due to the recent situation of Sudan and being accused of supporting and embracing of terrorism, an agreement with the opposing Saudi Osama bin Laden was reached. The agreement required him to leave Sudan to another area. He left Khartoum in July 1996. The information we have indicates that he is currently in Afghanistan. The relationship with him is ongoing through the Sudanese side. Currently we are working to invigorate this relationship through a new channel in light of his present location.

Hat tip: Captain Ed and The Commissar.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:25 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 842 words, total size 6 kb.

I plan on visiting Parliament in May. I hope this guy isn't around. Apparently Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh was out of jail, living at the British equivalent of a half-way house. He met up with a member of the House of Lords at a local mosque, who was more than willing to help him get into Parliament. The al Qaeda fundraiser actively lobbies against British anti-terrorism laws which he calls 'unjust'. Which is funny, since I just watched an old episode of South Park last night in which the leader of NAMBLA decried putting child-molesters in jail as 'discriminatory'.

The Sun via Charles Johnson:

A TERROR suspect allegedly linked to al Qaeda has visited the Houses of Parliament — as the guest of a Labour peer.

Former detainee Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh even sat in the Commons public gallery for a debate.

He was invited to Westminster on Tuesday by Lord Ahmed, who met him at Regent’s Park mosque three weeks ago. The father of five — suspected of being a money man for terror groups — was given a SECURITY sticker for his Parliamentary visit. And he boasted yesterday of sitting in the Commons gallery, adding: “It was very interesting.”

Posted by: Rusty at 03:02 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

Mike Malloy from Air America:

This is on a level with the Hitlerian attitudes towards the Jews and towards the Russians. This is just butchery, this is just murder, my God.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:52 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

More here (hat tip Dean)

Posted by: Rusty at 02:32 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Since I make an effort to follow certain terror groups in Iraq, I thought I'd post some comments on this Washigngton Post article which tries to explain the various terror organizations fighting our troops and allies. It's pretty disgusting that WaPo chooses to term those who break the Geneva Convention on a daily basis 'insurgents'. While the article in general is informative, there are a number of points they miss. Some of them very big points. Much of what they miss can only be interpretted as a deliberate whitewash of the insurgents we fight. Hopefully the explanations below will be helpful to those interested in the war in Iraq. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 02:00 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1826 words, total size 13 kb.

It's almost as if they wanted us to lose in Iraq.....

Posted by: Rusty at 12:37 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

The headline fairly drips with that patented New York Times air of moral superiority: Symbol of Abu Ghraib Seeks to Spare Others His Nightmare, and the copy is written in their smarmy and lugubrious the-evil-that-we-do style: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 10:22 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

IRAQ: DEAL ON NEW PRIME MINISTER, SAY REPORTS

Baghdad, 17 March (AKI) - The representatives of the Kurdish list, the Sunni Iraqi Concord Front and much of the Shiite Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution (SCIRI) have reportedly reached an accord on a new prime minister. Their agreement not to reconfirm Ibrahim al-Jaafari as prime minister and instead nominate Abdel Mahdi, a leading SCIRI figure and currently vice president, was reported by the al-Arabiya network and confirmed by Sunni deputy, Salman Jumeiri. The nomination of a new prime minister is the main sticking point in efforts to forge a new government in Iraq after the elections in December.

more

Posted by: Traderrob at 09:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

Simply put, fatwas, or Islamic legal pronouncements, are confusing to many people. Understandably, non-Muslims have a general unfamiliarity with fatwas, but it's somewhat surprising that Muslims also have frequent questions about fatwas. Islamic scholars called muftis issue fatwas but there's no coordination among the muftis, so it's not uncommon for contradictory fatwas to be issued.

Consequently, the editors at Arab News decided to address the subject of fatwas to clear up any misunderstanding.

Nobody's fatwas or rulings are binding on all Muslims. A fatwa is binding only to the scholar issuing it. It is he who considered a particular case, looked into all the relevant evidence and formulated his ruling on the basis of his research and study that is committed to it. If I give you a ruling saying, for example, that music is not forbidden, while you read in Dar Al-Ifta's publications or on their website that it is forbidden, you need to look into the evidence supporting each of the two views. Neither ruling is binding on you, but my ruling is binding on me, and the Dar Al-Ifta's ruling is binding on the scholars who issued it. [Note: Dar Al-Ifta is an Islamic authority for issuing religious edicts, but it does not oversee all edicts. There is more than one Dar Al-Ifta.]

What should be the position of a person who cannot distinguish the validity of evidence, or does not understand the intricacies involved in arriving at a ruling? The answer is that he should simply follow a scholar whom he trusts to be sincere, honest, and would not compromise his religious standpoint in order to please any human being.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 09:19 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 456 words, total size 3 kb.

1 It's unfortunate we have to share the planet with these nutjobs.

Posted by: Richard at March 18, 2006 09:24 AM (7KF8r)

2 Unfortunate, yes. But you must admit, they are darn fun to photoshop! *giggling over my latest pic of the Iranian Pez climbing into the well*

Posted by: Princess Kimberley at March 18, 2006 09:30 AM (9xjdU)

3 Nothing else in islam makes sense. Why should fatwa protocol be any different.

Posted by: Graeme at March 18, 2006 11:05 AM (aliJQ)

4 I'm not sure if this makes it easier or harder to get my fatwa. My new strategery: Maybe instead of trying to insult the whole religion, I'll focus instead on insulting a particular mufti.

Posted by: Rusty at March 18, 2006 12:39 PM (JQjhA)

5 Now you're getting somewhere, Rusty! And I'm praying you get your fatwa very, very soon. And a fatwa you would be proud of, too.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 18, 2006 12:54 PM (rUyw4)

6 I focus on trying to offend Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with pics like this... (NSFW... well, it's just his bum bum) He sure has a thing for that dead guy in the well. http://static.flickr.com/54/114114601_9b563aff07.jpg Which mufti shall you insult? And please add pictoral goodness!

Posted by: Princess Kimberley at March 18, 2006 01:05 PM (9xjdU)

7 In other words, the whole concept of fatwas is just a free-for-all.

Posted by: Oyster at March 19, 2006 07:32 AM (YudAC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Letter written by Saddam's son Qusai, four months before his richly deserved demise:

Republican Guard Secretariat Presidential Office
Special Security Organization
Republican Guard Chief of Staff Security
Number: [blank]
Date: March 14, 2003

Regarding the execution of Mr. President, Commander Saddam HusseinÂ’s (God protect
him) orders, according to the decision of the Revolutionary Command Council on Friday,
March 4, 2003.

Transfer all Kuwaiti POWÂ’s / a total of 448 captured Kuwaitis who are located at the Al-Nida Al-Agher Prison and the Intelligence / General Center and Kazema Prison in Al-Kazema, to make them human shields at all locations that are expected to be attacked by the American aggressors. Put them in communication locations and essential ministries, radio and television, Military Industrial Commissions, and all other locations expected to be attacked by the criminal Anglo-American aggressors.
Transporting them should be in coordination with:
Intelligence Services Directorate
Republican Guard Chief of Staff
Under direct supervision of the Special Security Organization / Organization Security

[Signature]
Qusai Saddam Hussein
Supervisor
of the Republican Guard Secretariat
March 14, 2003

A copy to:
Intelligence Service Directorate / Office of the Director
Republican Guard Chief of Staff / Office of the Chief of Staff

From Foreign Military Studies Office Joint Reserve Intelligence Center.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:02 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

SOme chicks die after taking the kill your child pill.

Think they will ban it like they did that arthritis meds?

Two more women have died after using the abortion pill RU-486, regulators said Friday in a warning that brought renewed calls for pulling the controversial drug from the market.
The organization that provided the pill to the two women said it would immediately stop disregarding the approved instructions for the pill's use.
The Food and Drug Administration warned doctors to watch for a rare but deadly infection previously implicated in four deaths of women who had taken the drug. The drug, also called Mifeprex or mifepristone, has not been proved to be the cause in any of those cases-

Funny, but.............. it is a pill designed to kill your baby and yet on occasion, it kills the taker.

Go Figure.

Posted by: Filthy at 09:22 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

Attack the Useful Idiots, that is.

Yeah, I linked my own blog again, but what else am I supposed to do? It's not like the guy posts here.

Sheesh, give me break, and stop looking at me like that.

Posted by: Vinnie at 07:39 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

The George Mason University Patriots, the poster-child of a libertarian-oriented university... and unique in its niche, is playing in the NCAA tournament tonight at 7:10PM againt evil statist anti-libertarian Michigan State University. Your assignment is to root for the underdog... (and I don't mean the Spartans).

Whisper in Evolution's or God's ear, whichever appeals to you... We aren't above appealing to dumb luck either, if you happen to know her telephone number. Sucking down more beer than is strictly healthy is optional...

Posted by: Demosophist at 05:42 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

Here is a link to a Powerpoint presentation saved by John Donovan that accompanied a lecture given by Rear Admiral Bill Sullivan, the Vice Director for Strategic Plans & Policy on The Joint Staff (the J5). The venue was the Executive Lecture Forum, Radvanyi Chair in International Security Studies, Mississippi State University, entitled “Fighting the Long War--Military Strategy for the War on Terrorism”.

Go check out John's take here.

My initial response is WOW. The military seem to actually get what is at stake in Iraq. Admiral Sullivan discusses the long-term goal of Salaafism as the restoration of the Caliphate and the al Qaeda strategy of turning Iraq into the central base of operations for the future Islamic empire.

The military also seems to get that two of the main tools used by terrorist networks are the media and internet. However, I see nothing in the presentation on how those two tools of the enemies can be removed.

My own personal view is that the internet jihad needs to be counterattacked. Up to now, there has been virtually no real effort made to treat the terror presence on the internet as a military matter.

Many law enforcement arrests have been made (not nearly enough), but if this is a war we are in then we must treat the internet as an instrument of war. You do not fight a war with indictments. It is precisely the fact that there is no due process in war that differentiates it from normal police work.

So, how does the military fight the internet jihad? It can't.

We must understand our enemies as non-hierarchically organized networks of like minded individuals. There are literally thousands of websites, chat rooms, and forums which spread the jihadi doctrine. Law enforcement cannot hope to close down all of these websites and the military is simply not designed to fight it. A centralized command structure cannot fight such a network since each cell is not connected to the others.

So, is there a way to fight the internet jihad? Yes, there is. Cyber-privateering.

Fight fire, with fire. The only way to win the cyber-war is by removing the propaganda outlets of the enemy. State actors, though, are limited in what they can get away with on this front. However, there are millions of hackers out there who do have the tools necessary to take down these websites. They could actually be more effective if a) government resources and programs were added to their arsenals b) like privateers of old they were shielded from the retribution of the laws of foreign countries.

Privateers of old were private citizens given free reign to wreak havoc on enemies. Unlike privateers on the high-seas, there is no financial gain to be had from shutting down an enemy website. That is why cyber-privateers ought to be given a bounty for each terrorist website they take down. In addition to bounties, cyber-privateers could be given immunity from prosecution both abroad and at home. Expect to hear more about cyber-privateering from me in the future.

Along with taking the long-war seriously, we must also take the cyber-war seriously. Winning both will require new ways of dealing with threats.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:34 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 548 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Heh. How Chinese of you, Rusty. Peoples War. You are espousing the exact approach the Chinese propound. And are executing, every day.

Posted by: John of Argghhh! at March 17, 2006 04:26 PM (rBMZ5)

2 Cyber-Privateer, that appeals to me both professionally, and personally on so many levels!

Posted by: davec at March 17, 2006 04:53 PM (CcXvt)

3 That's is fricken brillant. CYBER PRIVATEERS, HELL, I even like the name. And Congress could grant "Internet Letters of Marque." That is a suggestion outside the box, BIG TIME. Kudos for thinking of it, and kudos for having the savvy to conjure up the whole idea. I'm going to call some Congressmen on Monday and refer them to your website, and your suggestion. I also suggest that you email this post to Thomas P. Barnett, who can be contacted through his website. I don't agree with everything that Barnett says, especially his idea of accepting the mullahs getting nukes, but the guy is connected, and he definitely has an eye for ideas that are outside the box. So contact him.

Posted by: Dan at March 18, 2006 12:50 AM (GAtBS)

4 Fantastic idea.... Run with it.

Posted by: blert at March 18, 2006 02:17 AM (zqIhB)

5 Rusty, this is an interesting idea, and normally, I agree with you, but in this case, I think you make a few incorrect assumptions. You said, "Up to now, there has been virtually no real effort made to treat the terror presence on the internet as a military matter." Do you know this for sure? I think it is being very much treated as a military matter, and in fact, the military is both trained and equipped to fight a cyber war, and they exercise their capability quite often. Simple ideas espoused on foreign websites are not the danger, and even though some sites traffic in the exchange of jihad videos or executions and beheadings, it is still open expression of ideas. Really cruddy ideas, but thats all. Jihadists, like liberalism is better if it is exposed and in the open. Leave it to people to judge it for themselves and reject it. Also, launching attacks and taking down websites would likely be very counter-productive. They are free open sources of intelligence, and the US intelligence agencies are paying attention and using them to gather intel. Shutting down the sites would eliminate those sources. All this said, there are real cyber dangers posed by jihadists, and I'm not talking about defacements of pro-Israeli websites or sabre-rattling on a message board. The real dangers are the same that face us every day- Using the internet to launch denial of service attacks or intrusions against the national critical infrastructure that may be connected to the internet, including the banking system, SCADA systems and others. Also, there are dangers posed by jihadists using phishing and other techniques to steal the identities and ultimately, cash from Americans and then using the stolen loot to finance real world attacks against Americans and their allies. These are attacks that you cannot see happening very well. And unfortunately, there is not much that average citizens can do to privateer against this- except to deny hackers the use of your own PC as a participant in a botnet, and you do this by patching and keeping your system clean.

Posted by: Pat at March 18, 2006 11:33 AM (3LGfC)

6 hackers do not create botnets.

Posted by: davec at March 18, 2006 04:54 PM (CcXvt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I hope this is true, but don't count on it. Didn't we hear the same report from Michael Ladeen, who also got it from an Iranian source back in January, claiming bin Laden had died of kidney failure in Iran? Via Dan Riehl this from Newsmax:

Weldon made the stunning claim during an interview Wednesday with the Philadelphia Inquirer, which reported: "Weldon is making explosive new allegations. He says a high-level source has told him that terrorist leader Osama bin Laden has died in Iran, where he has been in hiding."

Weldon cited as his source an Iranian exile code-named Ali, telling the paper: "Ali's told me that Osama bin Laden is dead. He died in Iran."

Posted by: Rusty at 02:48 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

Critical UPDATE 3/17: A new Rasmussen poll has the numbers reversed! 45% opposed and 38% in favor of censure. A poll by the American American Research Group, released yesterday, had claimed that more Americans want Bush censured than didn't want Bush censured for alleged misdeeds committed in spying on suspected terrorists telephone calls. Is it possible the American people simply don't know what the word "censure" means?

Here is how Rasmussen worded the question:

Senator Russ Feingold has introduced a measure to censure, or publicly reprimand, President Bush for authorizing the NSA wiretapping program. Should President Bush be censured for authorizing the NSA wiretapping program?

Dan Riehl has further analysis. My original post from yesterday in which I questioned the legitimacy of the poll is below. I said something was fishy, and I guess I was right!

------------------------- more...

Posted by: Rusty at 02:47 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 576 words, total size 4 kb.

1 oh god. Another non-scandal.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 16, 2006 05:33 PM (8e/V4)

2 Please, Republicans don't answer the phone and if they do they have hung up before the pollster get's through their first sentence. How many Republicans (like myself) are never polled because we have no home phone....... I look forward to seeing how wrong the polls are for the 06 elections

Posted by: Fred Fry at March 16, 2006 06:11 PM (HJnrm)

3 Newflash to these morons, Bush isn't running for reelection.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 16, 2006 06:15 PM (8e/V4)

4 Rusty Have any info on the potential and future impact on any kind of polling by those (like myself) who now depend solely on cell phones. I'm out of the loop on any kind of landline based polling/sales etc.

Posted by: hondo at March 16, 2006 06:24 PM (9pQ6D)

5 I LOVE THEY WAY THE QUESTION IS WORDED! I already know that if the wording on THIS question is altered - the results would do a 180!!!!! IS THAT IT? IS THIS ALL YOU GOT? I'd love to go the Censure Hearing" route on this - preferably a few months prior to the '06 elections! Please! Do it! Any wonder why the Dems sheepishly slithered away from this one. My God! Who's in charge over there? they really have no clue whose turn it is to wipe.

Posted by: hondo at March 16, 2006 06:40 PM (9pQ6D)

6 Does anyone ever take these wacko, fringe group polls serious?? Well, other than the Wackos!

Posted by: Mike at March 16, 2006 07:18 PM (2tRi8)

7 Wowser. Pixy Misa commented? This must be serious. ;-) Don't shoot me, just teasing. It's my understanding that the word "wiretapping" is inaccurate. And the question only addresses the fact that an American is on the phone. Not some scum sucking, American hating, got-my-citizenship-only-so-I-could-sue-someone, ACLU loving a**hole.

Posted by: Oyster at March 16, 2006 08:29 PM (YudAC)

8 Oyster! GAWD! THE LANGUAGE!

Posted by: hondo at March 16, 2006 08:45 PM (9pQ6D)

9 Hey! I drank wine tonight. I have an excuse. [burp]

Posted by: Oyster at March 16, 2006 08:59 PM (YudAC)

10 You go on with your bad self girl.

Posted by: Imprbulus Maximus at March 16, 2006 09:10 PM (0yYS2)

11 Oyster, I remember Pixy Misa coming in here one time with a gang of playful otters. Or is that herd of otters? Whatever, I can't even remember what we were talking about, but it might have been religion. She can eviscerate you if she wants to, I can tell you that. Oh, hi, Pixy Misa, how do you do?

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 16, 2006 09:45 PM (rUyw4)

12 And one more comment to fix my URL...

Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 16, 2006 10:03 PM (RbYVY)

13 I don't know what you find so hard to believe about 29% of Republicans wanting censure. It was your party that was saying for years the president is not above the law. It seems 29% of your base must believe it.

Posted by: Dick Tuck at March 17, 2006 03:13 AM (lZePN)

14 Too many people use poll results to help influence their own decisions. Those that do are intellectually lazy. I'm not saying anyone here is, but you get my drift. This poll question, in particular, was asked with an assumption that the people responding knew enough about the issue to answer knowledgeably. BTW: I commented on several threads last night after a wine tasting. I tend to get snarky when drunk. Do I owe anyone an apology?

Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 06:46 AM (YudAC)

15 Maybe a lot of people didn't read the whole question - I think he should be censured, but for signing McCain-Feingold and for overseeing profligate spending.

Posted by: Glenmore at March 17, 2006 06:56 AM (loaB2)

16 This place is a scream. What a sewer. Your Dear Leader is spying on domestic calls without a warrant, between Americans. This isn't in dispute. But hey - cry about "poll bias" or whatever denial game you cultists play. It's just amusing to watch your sinking ship and the antics you go through in the process.

Posted by: Bud Grant at March 17, 2006 09:34 AM (/gcFd)

17 Can we realy trust any poll taken by the liberals anyway? polls like CNN/TIME AP/UPI and the rest of them are a little suspecious to me

Posted by: sandpiper at March 17, 2006 09:52 AM (D9h75)

18 Uh, Bud, we're all on the same ship. Sorry to be the one to break the bad news to you. And didn't you die, or at least retire? Whatever, get to bailing!

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 17, 2006 10:13 AM (rUyw4)

19 "This isn't in dispute." Yes it is.

Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 11:21 AM (g9UJq)

20 A significant plurality of Americans can't spell "censure", much less explain what it is.

Posted by: Theocrat at March 17, 2006 12:44 PM (daAGo)

21 Boy! Now that's a winning strategy! I'm lovin' it! Oh! But you can spell it .... sooooo .... the message (claim) is ..... what exactly? Please! Pile on more of this winnin' formula!

Posted by: hondo at March 17, 2006 02:21 PM (9pQ6D)

22 I think I understand what Theocrat means. Start asking around to your colleagues what the word means and see how many are right. I'm sure it would depend on the environment one works in, but where I work we have a lot of double digit IQs and the first digit is "0".

Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 02:26 PM (g9UJq)

23 Libtards like Bud can't seem to grasp that though he's entitled to his own opinion, he isn't entitled to his own facts. Jesus H., liberals are stupid.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 18, 2006 05:29 AM (0yYS2)

24 Thanks Rusty. When the pundits started quoting this poll over the weekend. Cokie Roberts, whom I like but she quoted it anyway, for example. I knew exactly which poll and how it was taken and how it was skewed. Rusty kicks ass no question.

Posted by: Howie at March 20, 2006 03:43 PM (D3+20)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I've been begging for a fatwa for years. The least you could do is ban this website!

Mother #^@@&%&*^*()&%*$#!!!!!!!!!

Because the occasional death threat just isn't good enough.......

Posted by: Rusty at 02:39 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Atleast you get an occasional death threat. I get muslim pervs threatening to rape my ear. That's just pathetic.

Posted by: princesskimberley at March 17, 2006 02:42 PM (9xjdU)

2 I get muslim pervs threatening to rape my ear. Well, at least you wouldn't be able to feel anything.

Posted by: Insomniac at March 17, 2006 02:47 PM (IEpte)

3 Wow, I've never thought of ear sex let alone raping an ear. Takes all kinds, I guess.

Posted by: Rusty at March 17, 2006 02:57 PM (JQjhA)

4 Keep trying Rusty. Remember, only the fatwa is written - not the journey.

Posted by: Graeme at March 17, 2006 03:13 PM (vmNuO)

5 We wuz robbed, I tell ya. Hey Kimberly, anyone tell you the devil would do meetballs from your bodies?

Posted by: Vinnie at March 17, 2006 03:13 PM (f289O)

6 I'm sure Google would be happy to help the Pakis with their censorship request. They(Google) do us proud, now don't they!

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 17, 2006 03:16 PM (rUyw4)

7 Hey Rusty, I think that means we are all banned since all of us have had the cartoons on our sites - so take comfort that you are just as big an infidel as NoisyRoom.net is. I get death threats all the time (and the occasional conversion argument) - if it would make you feel better, NoisyRoom.net can issue a Fatwa on you just on principal... Us infidels have to stick together...

Posted by: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton at March 17, 2006 08:30 PM (ytltE)

8 It makes me feel left out. I've got all the Danish cartoons on my website, but I've never been banned from anywhere. Maybe it's because my commentary notes that most of them were favorable caricatures?

Posted by: Owen Lorion at March 18, 2006 12:37 AM (su74D)

9 You just aren't trying hard enough, Dhimmi.

Posted by: CDR Salamander at March 18, 2006 05:47 AM (YEJjq)

10 The only hate mail I ever got was simple, but elegant: "Your a idiot."

Posted by: Oyster at March 18, 2006 05:59 AM (YudAC)

11 WorldSex Daily Updated Free Links to Hardcore Sex Pictures, Movies, Free Porn Videos and XXX Live Sex Cams

Posted by: SEXMENS at April 06, 2006 09:23 PM (fftc2)

12 Live Online Girls is a spot centered on providing you feminine webcam hosts and performers searching for some cam-to-cam action with you. The girls on our site aim to please you. You can easily chat using these feminine cam performers for free! If you like the girl you might be talking with, you can take her into a private session and tell her how to proceed. Almost all of our cam designs shall do almost everything you wish extremely don't be bashful. Most guests to our site sign up for a complimentary membership. With this membership, you can easily choose to feel notified when your chosen unit is online and prepared to do a cam show. We shall simply email you whenever the unit is online extremely all you have to try to do is login and she is there wishing for you. You could add performers on to a "My Models" section in order to easily discover your faves when logged in. Therefore what are you waiting around for? Subscribe to a free membership at liveonlinegirls.com and start talking with feminine cam designs for complimentary today!

Posted by: free live nude cams at December 14, 2012 07:05 PM (OUbFS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Yes, the fine gentle people of the Taliban visited Lodi, California, testimony during the terror trial revealed yesterday. An FBI report also reveals that one of the men who was in Lodi to raise funds for the Taliban was Ayman al-Zawahiri--al Qaeda's #2 man.

Via Cagey Mind this from the Sac Bee:

Prosecutors on Thursday turned over to defense attorneys four FBI reports that apparently reflect agents' interviews of Naseem Khan, the government's key witness in the trials of two Lodi men on terrorist-related charges....

The first report describes an interview of the source on Oct. 26, 2001, in Bend, Ore., where Khan lived at the time. The source told agents that during Ramadan in 1999, when Khan was living in Lodi, three Taliban members came to the Lodi Muslim mosque while the source was there and met with members who handled the mosque's financial affairs.

The source said the trio "traveled around to the other area mosques in Stockton, Yuba City and Live Oak," apparently on a money-raising mission.

"Source said that a very large amount of money is collected at the various mosques during Ramadan," the report says.

The source named the three Taliban members as Ayman al-Zawahri, Ahmed Mohammed Hamed and Abdelkarim Hussein Mohamed al-Nasser.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:14 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

A rooster in the former Soviet republic of Kyrgistan has begun crying out the name of Allah. No doubt a St. Patty's day miracle on par with the latest sighting of the Holy Mother in a tortilla and the oil stain on my driveway in the shape of St. Christopher. This avian miracle is proof that there is no God but Allah, and Muhammed is his Prophet.

Listen to the miracle cock crowing for Allah here.

Chad Evans has the backstory.

PS-I'm in department meetings all day. What a great way to kick off Spring Break....meetings.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:36 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

My eyes, they burn!

Ahhh, that's better.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:17 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.