September 29, 2005
Score One for the Good Guys
New York Governor George Pataki finally reached down and grabbed a pair today. He has told the International Freedom Center that they are
not wanted at Ground Zero.
"Freedom should unify us. This center has not," Pataki said. "Today there remains too much opposition, too much controversy over the programming of the IFC. ... We must move forward with our first priority, the creation of an inspiring memorial to pay tribute to our lost loved ones and tell their stories to the world."
For those of you not familiar with this controversy, the International "Freedom" Center has been trying to exploit Ground Zero to build what amounts to an anti-American monument. They wished to build a museum to show how American intervention has ruined lives around the world and how the "peaceful Muslims" have been persecuted and terrified. Of course that's not EXACTLY how they put it, but the message remains the same.
In the spirit of cooperation, Pataki was even generous enough to offer to help find some other location for the IFC to build their museum. Of course their reply was much less gracious.
Pataki initially said the state would help the International Freedom Center find another home, but center officials said they weren't interested and considered the project dead.
As expected, not everyone is happy about the center being closed down. Mayor Bloomburg has been quoted as saying "Although I understand Governor Pataki's decision, I am disappointed that we were not able to find a way to reconcile the freedoms we hold so dear with the sanctity of the site." Of course if he thinks that the center had anything to do with freedom, he sould probably go back and read his literature again.
For more information about just what the IFC had planned, you can visit Take Back The Memorial or check out this Opinion Journal article.
Thanks to my ever-vigilant CF readers for bringing this story to my attention.
Posted by: Drew at
10:10 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Thank God they folded up their fellow-traveller's tent and are gone, dissolved in a pout.
Posted by: -keith in mtn. view at September 29, 2005 11:05 AM (T85lV)
2
They'll just take their chips and go home, huh? Good. And take that lamp shade off your head before you leave the party.
Posted by: Oyster at September 29, 2005 12:36 PM (fl6E1)
Posted by: Rusty at September 29, 2005 01:34 PM (JQjhA)
4
Just great no chance for the balme america bunch of nit wits to bale us for sept 11th 2001 blow it out your ear ANSWER and MOVEON and espeicialy Micheal Moore and his hollywood jackasses
Posted by: sandpiper at September 29, 2005 03:34 PM (FpZEl)
5
INTERNATIONAL FREEDOM CENTER: The name cracks me up. Bunch of silly leftards.
Posted by: greyrooster at September 29, 2005 07:38 PM (M7kiy)
6
Klanrooster - Chimp Worshipper with gravy-filled brillo pads fed to his neighbors' pigs.
Posted by: Downin Street memo at September 30, 2005 05:38 AM (A5eqb)
7
One wonders why this load of crap was ever approved in the first place. It says a lot about NYC. The moonbats and morlocks are still in control in the city, but at least the state came to its senses.
Posted by: jesusland joe at September 30, 2005 04:43 PM (rUyw4)
8
International Freedom Center a fake name by the usial blame america crowd of jerks and they wont get it what will they do now? hold a demonstration and occupying the area till they get their way? i hope the families go there if they do and plaster them with water balloons and paitballs
Posted by: sandpiper at October 01, 2005 02:03 PM (b1Fi6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 26, 2005
Al-Jazeera Reporter Convicted in Spanish Terrorism Trial
Buried far down in a report about the conviction of a Spanish al Qaeda cell leader is this nugget, which confirms what most reasonable people have suspected about the pan-Arab propaganda outlet al-Jazeera all along.
From the Associated Press via Yahoo! News:
Twenty-one others also stood trial, but on charges not directly related to Sept. 11. Of those, 16 were convicted of belonging to or collaborating with a terrorist organization and five were acquitted.
One of the 16 was Tayssir Alouny, a correspondent for the pan-Arab TV network Al-Jazeera. He was convicted of collaboration and sentenced to seven years in jail.
Al-Jazeera condemned Alouny's verdict.
"It was a black day in the history of the Spanish justice," Al-Jazeera news editor Ahmed al-Sheik told the broadcaster from Madrid. "We were all shocked because everyone expected Alouny to be freed. It is a regrettable event in the history of international journalism when a journalist who sought the truth becomes the accused."
Alouny is one of the "journalists" who interviewed Osama bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks and subsequently, al-Jazeera has become virtually the only "news organization" on the al Qaeda press release list. This is a good start, but now the civilized world needs to get serious with the rest of the terrorist sympathizers and collaborators at al-Jazeera.
Posted by: Bluto at
12:18 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.
1
If that doesn't put Spainish citizens back on al Qaeda's list of "legitimate targets" nothing will.
Don't get me wrong - I'm glad they didn't kow-tow (again).
Posted by: Oyster at September 26, 2005 01:01 PM (fl6E1)
2
Of course, I'm sure there's some sort of appeals process.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 26, 2005 01:31 PM (RHG+K)
3
The bastard will probably walk before all is said and done. The Spanish will blink before they have to face the wrath of the Muslims. Where is the courage of the Conquistador?
Posted by: jesusland joe at September 26, 2005 01:48 PM (rUyw4)
4
Damn the Conquistadors, where is El Cid? But even then, Cid had to deal with Spanish traitors who were willing to sell out to the slamotards. Apparently, siding with the enemy is a long-held tradition among many in Spain, which would explain their total lack of world-power status for the last couple hundred years.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 26, 2005 05:14 PM (0yYS2)
Posted by: reliapundit at September 26, 2005 07:49 PM (ozLpm)
6
Isn't it interestinting how the U.S. needs to discredit a news orgaiization that provides the "balance" in responsible journalism. The sad reality is how the U.S. obfuscates the public into believing that it stands for freedom; particularly freedom of speech!
Remember people, that it is of particular concern to the majority of Americans and to those on the outside of the red, white and blue walls, that the new Republic ideology represents a "if it doesn't conform - kill it" attitude. And it is this stance that destabilizes the security of the average American.
Posted by: truth at September 28, 2005 09:49 AM (r9Wp/)
7
Ummm..."truth"...Alouny was convicted in a
Spanish court. Sorry to throw a cold dash of reality on your little conspiracy party and all...so, how does the "I hate America" schtick work with commie chicks?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 28, 2005 10:08 AM (RHG+K)
8
I hate to rain on your "U.S. influences nobody" misconception, but there is a fabric of influence that spreads around the world.
Also, don't get me wrong, I love America, I just hate your government's foreign policy.
Posted by: truth at September 28, 2005 11:49 AM (r9Wp/)
9
Unless you have evidence to show exactly how the US "influenced" this
Spanish judge when the US was unable to "influence" Spain out of running away from Iraq like frightened schoolgirls, then you're just spouting bullshit.
And I've heard the "I love America but hate your government" nonsense before. From people who like jeans and McD's but think that the US should roll over and accept terrorist attacks on our own soil as "punishment". I've got your McD's right here.
How does the "I love America, but hate its government" schtick work with jihadi chicks?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 28, 2005 01:21 PM (RHG+K)
10
.... informed, non-FOX/CNN brainwashed, schoolgirls...I think you could learn something from them such as the reason behind Spain's refusal to join a unjustified, imperialistic, corporate war.
Also, your ignorance of U.S. foreign policy is apparent in your attitude. Whatever you do, don't read balanced journalism - you don't want a little thing like the truth to change your mind.
Posted by: truth at September 29, 2005 09:25 AM (r9Wp/)
11
Umm, "truth" - Spain had already joined the Coalition war of self-defense and liberation. They ran like schoolgirls after the Madrid bombings. Your reply tells me that you endorse those bombings, or at least their effect on Spain. That should tell you something about yourself.
Much to your evident displeasure, the United States is morally justified in defending its citizens. And the effectiveness of that defense is why, since 9/11, the subhuman, mentally diseased jihadis have been meeting Allah in Afghanistan and Iraq rather than Manhattan and Shanksville.
BTW, how
did the US get that
Spanish judge to put Alouny in jail? You never quite got around to explaining that.
How does your implicit support of terrorists work with the burkah chicks?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 29, 2005 10:51 AM (RHG+K)
12
You are correct insofar as the U.S. has a right to defend its citizens and as such, was completely validated in its war against Afganistan for harbouring Bin Laden.
However, that is where the moral justification ends. As has been well documented, there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq at that time and any claim otherwise, given the current activity in Iraq, is baseless.
"Implicit support of the terrorists"... very interesting considering that those words are used as reference to the U.S. around the world...
As for the chicks, according to your constant questioning, it sounds as though you want to meet some.
Posted by: truth at September 29, 2005 04:11 PM (r9Wp/)
13
The US Constitution charges the government to protect the country. That doesn't just mean to wait for an enemy to attack and react, it also means to anticipate and pre-empt attacks.
Every filthy, mentally ill jihadi exterminated in Iraq is one less to trouble the world at large. The removal of Saddam and his sick brood is a bonus. Make no mistake, when you bemoan the US liberation of Iraq you're saying that it would have been just all right with you for the Hussein regime to continue.
But back to the point: how did the US make that
Spanish judge convict Alouny?
Does your support of Saddam and international jihad play well with the al Qaeda chicks in Montreal?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 29, 2005 06:56 PM (RHG+K)
14
Truth: You narrow minded asshole. You have no idea of the larger senario. Until you do. Shut the fuck up. There is a reason we have forces in the middle east and Iraq was the best place to send them. Assholes like you need to be sent to the countries you defend. You are no use to real Americans.
As to the chicks. I doubt if you wish to meet chicks. I'm sure unwashed muslim men who don't know what toilet paper is is more to your liking.
TRUTH MY ASS. How dare you call yourself truth.
Posted by: greyrooster at September 29, 2005 11:27 PM (ywZa8)
15
greyrooster... If I believed everyting that was force-fed me, I would be as happy as you.
grey - color of your personality
rooster - a yappy animal
Posted by: thuth at September 30, 2005 03:53 PM (r9Wp/)
16
greyrooster... If I believed everything that was force-fed me, I would be as happy as you.
grey - color of your personality
rooster - a yappy animal
Posted by: thuth at September 30, 2005 03:53 PM (r9Wp/)
Posted by: Michael Brown at December 03, 2005 06:23 PM (+Y2cZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 23, 2005
Indictment in Lodi Islamic Terror Probe
(Sacramento, California) In the ongoing three-year probe of the alleged Lodi, California, Islamic terrorist cell, five people have been implicated and, of those, three have been deported for immigration violations and two are being held in federal custody without bail.
Last month, 47-year-old Islamic cleric Muhammad Adil Khan and his son were deported for overstaying their visas. On Wednesday of this week, 39-year-old Islamic cleric Shabbir Ahmed was deported for the same reason. The three were deported without being charged with any crimes, however, the government alleged that they intended to set up a terror training camp in Lodi. It's noteworthy that both Ahmed and Khan are allegedly linked to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
The two being held in custody, charged with lying to federal agents, are 23-year-old Hamid Hayat and his father, 47-year-old Umer Hayat. In a development yesterday resulting from a federal grand jury hearing, prosecutors charged Hamid Hayat with providing material support to terrorists.
From MercuryNews.com:
The federal indictment alleged that Hamid Hayat, 23, provided material support and resources for carrying out international acts of terror between March 2003 and June 4, 2005, when he was arrested days after returning to the United States from Pakistan. Hayat faces multiple charges for which the combined maximum sentence is 31 years in prison.
"Today's charge centers around the fact that Hamid Hayat attended a terrorist training camp in Pakistan in 2004, returned to this country with the intent of committing jihad against America, and by doing so provided material support to terrorists," U.S. attorney McGregor Scott said.
more...
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
03:56 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 494 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Sup man? You don't love my blog anymore?
Posted by: Chris Short at September 23, 2005 06:05 AM (0OCQY)
2
As I said here 4 months ago in the discussion of "the religion of peace". When the Muslim community and its "leaders" come out against the terrorists in Lodi I *may* give some credence the the MSM/DNC bull shit about "religion of peace".
Of course NoCal's most famous muslin is the son of a PG+E executive VP, the murderer of Johnny Spaim, the darling of Nancy Pelosi - Johnny Walker. Who BTW is not Scotch.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at September 23, 2005 06:15 AM (tplWd)
3
How many countries has he invaded and bombed???
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 23, 2005 07:04 AM (VhNDM)
4
How many has Bush invaded and bombed?
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 23, 2005 08:02 AM (VhNDM)
5
DSM,
How many countries did Ted Bundy invade and bomb? Is that supposed to be an excuse for murder? Oh, judge, I didn't invade or bomb any countries, so you have to let me go.
Whatever you say about Bush, it doesn't justify terrorism against anyone. And yes, if you come to the US and try to practice the jihad shit, we are going to get your ass.
Posted by: jesusland joe at September 23, 2005 10:15 AM (rUyw4)
6
DSM wrote: "How many countries has he invaded and bombed???"
Invaded: 1 (he's here with hostile intent)
Bombed: 0 (because they caught him beforehand)
"How many has Bush invaded and bombed?"
Answer: 0
I helped invade Iraq, and I didn't see the President anywhere. Henry Rollins came to visit our camp, though. How evil does that make him?
Posted by: File Closer at September 23, 2005 02:26 PM (pgXsZ)
7
Seems like Khan is a bad name all around. Genghis Khan, AQ Khan, Muhammad Adil Khan, Chaka Khan, ...
Posted by: Oyster at September 23, 2005 03:43 PM (fl6E1)
8
C'mon Jesusland and Mind-closer
Drunken Monkey is a screeching terrorist, playing bomb-and-seek with the people of Iraq. Why not bomb Boston to wipe out the Irish Nationalists there who openly fund the IRA? Your BushGod is a criminal drunk, an indefensible weasel.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 23, 2005 07:43 PM (VhNDM)
9
Resorting to name-calling, DSM? Since you started it, here's one for you: DSM = Double Stupid Moonbat.
Having got that out of the way, I would like to address one of your "points":
"bomb-and-seek with the people of Iraq."
Sigh.
So how much time have you spent in Iraq, then? Just wondering, since you seem to be such an expert.
PS: I'd love to bomb Boston, but just to make sure the hated Patriots don't dominate the AFC again this NFL season!
Posted by: File Closer at September 23, 2005 10:28 PM (pgXsZ)
10
File Cruiser,
You want to bomb Boston?! Why, why - that's a 'Terra'ist' statement... and now, you....you must call Cherty and Brownie's DHS and report yourself! Pack a toothbrush and learn Navy Hospitality!!
Iraq is a twistnut place: http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_iraqwar.htm scroll down to "Secret US Plans for Iraq's Oil" and for sick laughs, Bremner Byrd and Fortune's fact-based skits.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 23, 2005 11:48 PM (VhNDM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 16, 2005
Partial vs. Total War: Revisiting Tranquil Blindness
The following is an email exchange I had with Nicole Argo, one of the panel on suicide terrorism that I panned recently
here. That is, it was unfair to the extent that some of my criticism wasn't so much substantive as atmospheric, and it may also have been unfair to Argo. I still disagree with Pape's policy prescriptions, which I think do not follow from his analysis, and I thought Bloom's attitude rather superficial and trite, reflecting the "unseriousness" of the Moveon crowd. And I still have the sense that the way nearly all of these people frame the issue of suicide terrorism reflects a false dichotomy between "military" and "non-military" strategy.
In the 1940s Roosevelt created an agency that he called the "Board of Economic Warfare," which was chaired, rather ironically, by R. Buckminster Fuller. While this agency wasn't "military," its design purpose was unambiguously to serve the military campaign. If there is value in the work of these researchers attempting to understand the nature of terrorism it probably is not in an alternative to a military strategy, but in service to it... with the laudable objective of preventing a drift toward what Clausewitz calls "Total War."
But Argo was quite gracious in the following note, and in a follow-up (which I won't post because I haven't quite figured out how to respond yet). Anyway, here's the exchange. The quotes from my original post are in bold, her comments in italics, and my responses in plain old, plain old.
more...
Posted by: Demosophist at
12:53 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1617 words, total size 11 kb.
1
Speaking of Total Wars, other than Medieval and Rome which were both excellent but Medieval was better after the Viking Invasion addition, should there be one that isn't on already? If yes, then where?
Posted by: A Finn at September 16, 2005 05:15 AM (cWMi4)
2
After the scathing comment frome "clarifier" in your last post about this I'm hesitant to comment further. I have an opinion though, so I will. Right here in the "comfort of my high speed connection".
This is, of course, my opinion, so take it or leave it:
If the conference was open to those without an indepth knowledge such as the speakers held, don't the speakers have a responsibility to convey what they know properly? And save the "as-a-brotherhood-we-understand-each-other" levity for closed discussions? That way, people like "clarifier" don't have to appear in a blog, defend the speakers and berate everyone for "misunderstanding".
What I don't understand is why the most educated in the field are so reluctant to say that it took, in most cases, an
entire life of swallowing whole "the soundbites offered them by the local cleric, or the international terrorist," and you forgot, culture, family enforced religious values, etc. for the vast majority of them. They didn't come to decide terrorism was a good idea on their own or in a short period of time. (As I said, in the vast majority of cases)
The extremist's interpretation of the religion is so rigid and spartan and demanding that when one encounters such a charismatic ideologue as their recruiters/trainers it only reinforces what they've already "learned" and brings them to a whole new level. These charismatic ideologues are given the task of breaking down the suicide-bomber's natural instinct of "self-preservation" by use of the "religion" and the promise of a utopia, among other things, before they're sent on missions, - suicide or otherwise. Their reasons for their anger can be political, but they're told their religion demands their action.
And let's not forget the one's who have told us of the drugs given them to bolster their confidence in their non-suicide missions or when we find the suidide-bomber handcuffed to the steering wheel of an IED-laden car. In these cases, it's obvious that they're reluctant and the "seargent" that sends them on the mission recognizes this. As I said, they're very adept.
The religion is the one constant though. Instead of looking for the motives of the suicide bomber, I just think it would be more important to put the middle man under the magnifying glass. The suicide-bomber's master. These guys are very adept at manipulation and re-inforcement. We don't hear from these guys. They stay under the radar. The suicide bomber is just their means to an end.
If the APSA panel is unsure where Iraq's bombers are coming from, and they are the "experts", then why are we constantly told that the vast majority of them are foreign - Saudi, Pakistani, Syrian, Iranian, etc.? But predominately Saudi. Are we getting bad information in that respect?
Yes, I'll read what I can of these "papers" and my opinion may change, but I think the religous part of it is just too obvious to dismiss to the point of looking for other reasons. I think it underlies everything else.
As I said: that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it ;-)
Posted by: Oyster at September 16, 2005 02:43 PM (fl6E1)
3
Oyster:
I haven't read Clarifier's comments, so maybe I should do that first. I've just been swamped with... survival stuff. I'm also helping with a Katrina hotline for the Red Cross, which is a bit of an eye-opener. I'll have more on that later.
Academe is pretty insular, and I agree that the panelists had an obligation to make themselves clear by going beyond that. Argo actually seems to agree with that part of my criticism. Most of these panels at APSA were on take-it-or-leave-it topics, but this one deserves the same kind of respect we reserve for the holocaust.
I also don't think people misunderstood the panel that much. I misunderstood a few things, but I don't think they were made clear. For instance, it wasn't obvious to me that people were excluding Iraq from their conclusions, and I tend to think that many of them (especially Bloom and Pape) have a very definite point of view that isn't empirically driven. It's a preference stated as an expert opinion.
As for the drugging and handcuffing, I've heard those stories but it's not clear how much that goes on. At this point it would be a mistake to think that's a serious aspect of what we're facing. Most of these bombers weren't conscripted; they're volunteers.
I also agree whole-heartedly that Islam has had an undercurrent that was just waiting for this opportunity to manifest their revulsion for the rest of the human race. There are many noble things in Islam, but there is also this long-standing tendancy to regard themselves as the only genuine humans, which is why they refer (ironically) to the West as the "House of War." What they mean is that we are factionalized, whereas they are unified. In a deeper sense it means that we are mongrels, or children of the lie. This is why I saw Al Qaeda as a manifestation of a loming Tsunami. What we've seen so far is only a shadow of what's coming, if we don't try to cancel it.
The religion is the one constant though. Instead of looking for the motives of the suicide bomber, I just think it would be more important to put the middle man under the magnifying glass.
Yeah, I think these guys are the key as well. There will always be people willing to be recruited. Getting rid of the recruiters will undermine that threat, though.
Posted by: Demosophist at September 17, 2005 12:02 AM (mD48C)
4
Total war is for losers.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 18, 2005 07:54 PM (VhNDM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 14, 2005
Losing the War on Terror One Website at a Time
We won the battle in Afghanistan. We will win the battle in Iraq. But will we win the war on terror? Not without fighting it on its most important field of battle:
the internet.
Aaron at Internet Hagganah has an important essay:
Afghanistan was invaded.
It had to be done.
It had to be done, and it was not enough.
So it is with the Internet.
There's more.
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
11:37 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Rusty:
I wonder why there are no comments on this post? I'm just speculating here, but it seems to me the main thing protecting these Qaeda sites is the fact that most of their natural oppostion doesn't speak the language. Thus, we have to rely on third party translations of what
they consider important statements, in order to have any idea at all about what's going on. I think it would be tough to get rid of this threat with command/control tactics and strategies, but that doesn't mean there aren't other ways to accomplish it.
Posted by: Demosophist at September 15, 2005 11:00 AM (wEPG0)
2
Interesting theory, but i must comment myself that I believe a quote "War on Terror" is futile. Hard Power ineveitably causes terror, and robs the United States of international credibility. Hard Power, like military action or coercive interogation causes hatred, and not just from terrorists. Our approval ratings are at all time lows. I have read, and love George Soros's article on the war on terror. A "War" on terror will inevitably be lost because its a war. In order to stamp out terrorism we must allow them to funnel their dissent non-violently. We do this through Democracy Promotion, and soft power. Sites like this, saying that what the terrorists do are wrong is an excersize of free speech. We are using soft power. Once everyone in the world lives in the Free World of western democracy, and free thought, terrorism will be unnecessary as everyone can simply protest. What the terrorists do is an abuse to free speech, and must be stopped in order for legitimate free speech to continue.
Posted by: Ash at October 17, 2005 03:22 PM (v4xco)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 13, 2005
Reconstructing Terrorists
Our
success in the War on Terror has created an ethical and logistical problem. What do we do with the hundreds of terrorists who have been captured? What is the most just way to deal with pure Evil?
Warehousing them at Guantanamo Bay is, at best, a temporary solution. At worst, not only are our soldiers exposed daily to twisted, malevolent subhumans, but traitors and fools within our own society seek to use their captivity for political profit. We can't transfer custody of many of them to their countries of origin because they might be tortured (though that would be justice for many of the brave jihadi babyhunters). And some of their homelands simply allow them their freedom, so that they can go back to plotting and executing the murders of innocents. We can't (horrors) execute them, because that would be a "waste" of "human life".
So what do we do with the sort of creature who enjoys planning assaults on children?
The Dread Pundit Bluto has a solution. A solution that not only tackles the problem of captured terrorists, but applies it to the solution of another serious, but unrelated, problem, and addresses a secondary evil peripherally. Three birds with one stone.
more...
Posted by: Bluto at
11:53 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Very easy. Kill them. Hang 'em en masse.
I would be happy to assist.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at September 13, 2005 12:13 PM (5ceWd)
2
Pelosi wonÂ’t even let us pee on their Korans, how are we going to harvest their organs?
Posted by: Brad at September 13, 2005 12:28 PM (3OPZt)
3
Ummm, yuck. Perhaps some of the more devout livers would be in better shape than mine, but I'm still not ready to go cutting on people. I'll endorse a ticking-bomb exception to the no-torture rule, but come on, this ain't communist china.
Posted by: See-Dubya at September 13, 2005 12:51 PM (jV2ep)
4
See-Dubya: The PRC crack is a red herring. If you're willing to have convicted terrorists executed, then why should they be allowed to carry valuable resources to the grave with them?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 13, 2005 04:02 PM (RHG+K)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 08, 2005
E-mail a terrorist
We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.--President George W. Bush
I've just spent the last ten minutes of my life watching disgusting videos produced by the Islamic Media Center. One was a high-production video based on candid camera with laugh tracks accompanying the death of American soldiers. Here is the e-mail associated with these disgusting propaganda films.
zubeiddah1417@hotmail.com
Was Joseph Goebels, chief propagandist for Nazi Germany, who never picked up a weapon and killed any one, a legitimate target in war? If so, why are those that produce jihad videos used to bolster the morale of our enemies and recruit new fighters to kill our soldiers not legitimate targets?
Bonus terrorist e-mail:
b52b52@gawab.com Not working *sigh*
If you get a response, please FORWARD the e-mail to me (not just cut and paste)
Posted by: Rusty at
04:11 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I bet he is dreamy. Beard all oiled with ghee, not a nit out of place.....strong smell of cumin and farts...
Would love to meet him. Give him the Louima treatment and then hand him over to some wild sex starved chimps for some hairly hot love.
Posted by: filthy allah at September 09, 2005 07:58 AM (5ceWd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 06, 2005
Saudis Kill Two Al-Qaeda Most-Wanted
(Damman, Saudi Arabia) According to an early
report in the
Arab News, two al-Qaeda members on the list of 36 most-wanted terrorists have been killed in a gunbattle outside a supermarket in the city of Damman in eastern Saudi Arabia. The two dead terrorists were identified as Zaid Saad Al-Samari, 31, and Walid Mutlaq Al-Radadi, 21. Two Saudi policemen also died from wounds received in the battle.
An area used as an operations center in Damman was put under siege by Saudi Security Forces.
"Sporadic gunfire is continuing around the buildings where the members of the deviant group are holed up," one security source said, adding that there were 10 suspects inside.
"The security forces have reinforced their positions and are bringing in bulldozers and additional heavy equipment."
"We're in no rush to storm the building as were hoping to capture them alive and obtain information about wanted terrorists," he said.
[ ... ]
There were unconfirmed reports that terrorists had killed one of their own colleagues when he tried to surrender to security officers.
The reports also indicated that the terrorists might have run away from Madinah after their commander Saleh Al-Oufi was gunned down by security forces last month.
The U.S. Consulate in the adjacent city of Dhahran was closed due to security concerns related to the shootout.
In an updated report from Reuters, Saudi Security forces stormed the terrorist stronghold and "cleared and secured" the area. A source estimated that at least six terrorists were killed and ten were wounded. Four policemen also died.
I think it's great that the Saudis are going after the al-Qaeda terrorists in the kingdom. However, they'll never win because they're fighting an enemy that continues to be resupplied with recruits from the Wahabi mosques and schools within the country. So, they're destined to fight forever unless the schools are reformed or dismantled which, of course, won't happen since Saudi Arabia is officially a Wahabi Nation.
Companion post at Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
07:04 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 3 kb.
1
PBS (yes I admit I watch it) had a great Frontline piece on the origin of the House Of Saud and Saudi Arabia. They are literally between a rock and a hard place here. They created this monster to serve their interests and discovered that not only can't they control it - but it wants to destroy its maker.
Posted by: hondo at September 06, 2005 07:51 PM (4Gtyc)
2
Speaking of catching terrorists: Rusty's post here
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/114043.php
told us of a Russian governor being injured by a roadside bomb (you know, the bombing A_Finn was so happy about). Well the ring leader is dead.
http://english.people.com(dot)cn/200509/03/eng20050903_206267.html
Turns out he was also a key player in the Beslan terror among many other terror operations. Yes, he's a Muslim.
(seems that com(dot)cn is also questionable content here too so you'll have to replace the (dot) with a real dot if you want to read it. Soon "everything" will be questionable content here.)
Posted by: Oyster at September 06, 2005 08:09 PM (YudAC)
3
Two less terrorsists and who more for the the devil to welcome home and shake hands with
Posted by: sandpiper at September 06, 2005 08:22 PM (08Fdo)
4
Oh yeah, the "Woohoo, go separatists etc..." Almost forgot already. Weeeell it was sort of a conflict between a country that has been a lot of trouble in the past and a bunch of wackoes because of whom all kinds of passport changes and terrorism laws are restricting the liberty of moving from A to B and doing spur-of-the-moment trips abroad. Now that I wanted to go to Sweden for the weekend and for some stupid reason they asked for a passport, which I naturally didn't have since it has been an open border for person movement about forever, I see the terrorists as a much bigger nuisance.
Posted by: A Finn at September 07, 2005 06:03 AM (cWMi4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 02, 2005
Homegrown Islamic Terrorists Arrested
(Los Angeles) Four homegrown Islamic terrorists identified as members of the radical group Jamiyyat Ul-Islam Is-Saheeh, or JIS, have been arrested for conspiring to attack military facilities, synagogues, and other targets in California.
From The Mercury-News:
Four suspects were charged Wednesday with conspiring to wage war against the U.S. government through terrorism. Named in the federal indictment were Levar Haley Washington, 25; Gregory Vernon Patterson, 21; Hammad Riaz Samana, 21; and Kevin James, 29.
All but Samana, a Pakistani national, are American born and Muslim converts. Counterterrorism officials have found no evidence directly connecting the group - described as the cell of a California prison gang of radical Muslims - to al-Qaida or other foreign terror networks.
Law enforcement officials and terrorism experts said it could represent one of the first Islamic terrorism cases involving U.S. natives without those connections.
Among the counts in the indictment, the four face
charges of conspiracy to wage war against the U.S. government through terrorism, kill armed service members, and murder foreign officials.
The founder of Jamiyyat Ul-Islam Is-Saheeh is California State Prison inmate Kevin James (aka Shakyh Shahaab Murshid) who preaches terror to Islam's enemies. Followers apparently pledged loyalty to James "until death by martyrdom."
Interestingly, the plotters were exposed only after they were arrested for an unrelated series of gas station robberies. Subsequent searches of their possessions found weapons, ammunition, and plans for the attacks. In other words, the authorities were lucky to catch these fanatics before they acted.
"Make no mistake about it -- we dodged a bullet here, perhaps many bullets," Los Angeles police Chief William Bratton said at a news conference.
I need to be reminded why we allow convicts to spew murderous religious dogma in prison. Despite what the ACLU professes, I can't imagine the framers of the Constitution were thinking of radical, thug Islam when they drafted the Bill of Rights.
Companion post at Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
02:10 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Since the ethnicity of the "American" muslims wasn't mentioned, I'll assume they were black. I beg someone to prove otherwise, but until then, I'll just chalk this up as more evidence that many, if not most blacks, are actively anti-American, and anti-civilization, and I think the recent activity in New Orleans supports this assertion. Call me racist, but if it quacks like a duck, call it a duck, and I think Thomas Sowell would agree here.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 02, 2005 02:45 PM (0yYS2)
2
IM aren't you playing that card a bit much this week? I've met people from all over the world and of all colors. Black not = n word just as white not = sensible. I see your point but it reflects badly on you. Trash is trash no matter the color. You know I like you dude but sheesh.
PS please don't shoot me.
Posted by: Howie at September 02, 2005 03:02 PM (D3+20)
3
How am I "playing the card", when it's blacks who are raping, looting, and shooting at helicopters, and who started screaming "racism" before the storm had even passed? All this PC bullshit is just that, and we know what's happening and who's doing it. If people want to keep their head buried in the sand, then fine, but don't expect me to as well.
Yeah, trash is trash, but how many white people have you seen on the news carrying stolen merchandise? Not too damned many, and it isn't because of the "racist" media, because the media won't show black people in a bad light if they can help it.
People can bleat along with all the other PC sheep all they want, but I'm done with apologetics, and I'm not going to pretend it isn't real.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 02, 2005 03:13 PM (0yYS2)
4
Correction - - I think I recall reading in LAT a month or two ago that the crimes leading to their arrest were committed to fund terrorism. Not unrelated.
The question now is can the ACLU find these guys a judge like the guy who handled the terrorist who snuck in across the Canadian border to blow up LAX 5 years ago. If so they will only get a slap on the wrist and credit for time served.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at September 02, 2005 03:28 PM (03F0I)
5
Improbulus Maximus,
Plenty of whites are looting. It is just that the media shows them as "finding" things rather than looting. It is ony the blacks who actually "loot."
Are you a member of SF? You should go there and rant, all of them are just like you.
Posted by: Sheila at September 02, 2005 05:28 PM (P9mdt)
6
Sheila, what is your source that "plenty of whites are looting"? Or are you just assuming that so you can be a good liberal apologist? You stupid whore, New Orleans is 67% black, and everyone has stated that the vast majority of people left are black, so where do "plenty" of whites come from? You goddamned liberals all need hanged by the neck until dead, and I'm stockpiling rope for that glorious day.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 02, 2005 07:23 PM (0yYS2)
7
yeah those are blacks looting, most of those left are black, the police chief trying to keep order is black people who need aid are black.. they're still people, good and bad, despite all the BS you spew.
get your shit together..
Posted by: Ren at September 02, 2005 09:56 PM (7ZsmI)
8
Hey do you think the ACLU will be there to defend them? they always want to defend anyone who isnt christain
Posted by: sandpiper at September 02, 2005 10:13 PM (QtdTZ)
9
IM, you are the biggest bastard I have ever met.
Go to stormfront, they need a new asshole to brainwash.
Posted by: Sheila at September 02, 2005 10:28 PM (P9mdt)
10
in a way i agree with IM...lemme tell you something here, i was talking with a bunch of my co-workers, majority of them are black and to a man all the black guys said they woould be looting and when i asked them why they said, why not???...i was shocked and so were the other two white co-workers...than the black guys said that since the police were looting as well that it must be okay to loot...you tell me....EVERY SINGLE pic i have seen in my newspaper here in NJ and the two NY papers i check out at work had pics of looters grabbing up sneakers, jeans, sports clothing, tv's and guess what color they all were???...the pics of white people showed them laying on the ground or holding onto family members...i can totally understand anyone and color makes no differnce if they are trying to get needed food and drink, no problem, you need them to just survive, but tell me, why the hell are you gonna take a tv, or stereo or DVD player when there is no power, no city and no one probally has any money...the entire area is under water, destroyed and these knuckleheads are looting electronics...helloooo??!!?
Posted by: THANOS35 at September 02, 2005 11:11 PM (hcN1S)
11
What is IM really saying? That black people should be shot? No. The majority of people there happen to be black, hence the larger proportion of black looters.
Is he saying that all looters should be shot--black or white? Yes.
Who disagrees?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at September 03, 2005 07:39 AM (j3Yph)
12
Just because they're black doesn't autmatically make them thugs or looters. Make a difference between right and wrong.
Posted by: Ren at September 03, 2005 10:35 AM (7ZsmI)
13
Do not let them get the same judge that got the illegal alien who tried to blow up LAX 5 years ago. They will be back on the streets in 09.
Posted by: Jo macDougal at September 03, 2005 05:28 PM (LbyCD)
14
I love how the libtards can never refute anything I say, but rather just snivel and whine. Let me clariffy a couple of things:
Yes, I'm the biggest bastard you will ever meet, if you are so unlucky to do so; I can kill a liberal with facts and logic from fifty yards, and few walk away from me without limping from the pain in their shiny new asshole, freshly torn, by me.
Anyone who shoots at their rescuers, loots, rapes, etc., during a disaster, is not a human being, but a subhuman who needs to be expurged for the good of society and the gene pool, as does anyone who excuses such behavior because of skin color.
I don't give a good flying damn what someone's skin color is; never have, never will. I'm a rationalist, and I understand that skin color is meaningless superficiality, but it's behavior that counts, because behavior, especially during times of crisis, tells you all you need to know about someone. What was it someone said about wanting their children to be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character? Whoever said that was obviously prejudiced against blacks, wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 04, 2005 12:16 AM (0yYS2)
15
Dammit IM, had me thinking you're some kind of racist.. Well, you got it going right, I really don't disagree.
A disaster is no excuse for thuggery and looting and your colour ain't going to make it right. Some coloured and the libs will take every opportunity to play the THE-OPPRESSED-COLOURED-VICTIM card calling out about general racism and oppression being apologetic about everything, it's very *ss backward and doesn't lead to anything, just makes them look very stupid & retarded. Of course, that won't stop them from doing it anyway and I wish them the best of luck.
Posted by: Ren at September 04, 2005 07:43 AM (7ZsmI)
16
I'm not a racist, I'm a civilizationalist; I respect those who can behave as civilized people, and despise those who behave as savages or condone savagery. I don't make the demographics of reality, but I do see them clearly.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 04, 2005 07:09 PM (0yYS2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
76kb generated in CPU 0.0758, elapsed 0.2906 seconds.
125 queries taking 0.272 seconds, 315 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.