mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

January 30, 2006

Iraqi 'Militias' Capture 270 Al Qaeda

What was it that Zawahiri was saying today? That he was hiding among the 'Muslim masses'? That the U.S. is all but defeated? Right....

In The Bullpen reprints this from an MSM source:

Some 270 Arab and foreign fighters have been detained in Iraq's restive al-Anbar province in a 'defensive campaign' launched by the local population towards the al-Qaeda network, tribal leaders say. A source close to tribal chiefs told Adnkronos International (AKI) that "the Iraqi security forces, with the help of the local population, have managed to arrest terrorists and Iraqis who provided them refuge."
Most of them were Syrian, Saudi and Jordanian nationals. They have been transferred to Baghdad to be interrogated to discover how they reached the region and who is financing their terrorist activites" the source told AKI.
"The group of (Jordanian militant and al-Qaeda pointman) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi did not expect a similar campaign which has dealt them a serious blow," he continued, adding that "it won't be the last given that the population is determined to expel those who kill civilians in the name of resistance".
Regarding the nature of the tribal militias, the source explained that "all the operations are carried out under the auspices of the defence minister Saadun al-Dulaimi and coordinated with volunteers in the area."

I'd also recommend James Joyner's new TCS piece as further evidence AQ is far from winning the war.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:02 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

Interview with U.S. General

In addition to figthing along side his troops 3 or 4 days a week, Brigadier General Daniel P. Bolger has this to say about our Iraqi allies:

Patriotism brings Iraqi troops to the recruiting station. Often, I ask them: Â‘Why did you join?Â’ The most common answer I get is, Â‘ItÂ’s my duty.Â’ Many have lost family members to terrorists. The Iraqi rifleman makes about $300 equivalent a month, but a terrorist can make that in a night planting one roadside bomb. The guys who fight for money work for the other side. We have the patriots, and thatÂ’s why we have the popular support.

Kewl.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:07 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

January 27, 2006

Non-Scandal Scandal #3450834

Duh.

Look, maybe it's the 14,084 Ann Rule type crime books I've read, or the 105,799,409,849 newspaper recorded accounts of criminal investigations I've seen, but detaining family members of suspects is unremarkably routine in our own country.

So the wives of terrorists are being taken in and held for questioning.

This is remarkable? This is a story? This is somehow different from Ted Bundy's girlfriend being subjected to hours upon hours of interrogation? No, a wife cannot be compelled to testify in court against her husband, but that doesn't mean they aren't held for questioning in the course of an investigation.

Yet, suddenly, in the middle of a war, the bar gets raised, when it should be lowered. These women talked about in the article hitched their wagons to terrorists. They aid, abet, and support the slaughter of innocent people.

The media expects us to weep for them?

But this is the money line. The part of the story that lit the match under my scrotum:

The documents are among hundreds the Pentagon has released periodically under U.S. court order to meet an American Civil Liberties Union request for information on detention practices.

What the f*** is a U.S. court doing ordering the f***ing Pentagon to release documents related to anything anywhere when we are in the middle of a war?

Since when is the AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union privy to what our military is doing with prisoners who are not American citizens and not residing in this country and who are our enemies doing everything they can to kill as many Americans as possible?

When one of our military members, or civilian hostages, or workers over there dies in an IED explosion, isn't that the ultimate violation of their American civil liberties?

I was born in 1967. Stories like this make me wish I had been born in 1907. If this were 1946, and I were the age I am now, I wouldn't have 30 yards of duct tape wrapped around my head to keep it from exploding when I read news of the war.

Posted by: Vinnie at 11:15 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

1 unbe-effin-lieveable! i'll betchya a buck that the judge was appointed by carter or clinton!

Posted by: reliapundit at January 27, 2006 11:47 PM (dUpW1)

2 I don't know who wrote this story, but if you look at most of the stories coming out Iraq from the wire services, they're being written by people with names like Mohammed and Mahmoud.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 28, 2006 01:58 AM (RHG+K)

3 It's just another attempt to provoke outrage from the dummies who never had a thought someone else didn't plant in their head. A dummy who wouldn't think twice about a family member of Bundy being questioned, but unless you tell them this, it won't occur to them. Until they figure it out (IF they figure it out) they'll tell two dummies, and then they'll tell two dummies and the next thing you know - a whole bunch of dummies are marching down the streets with poorly worded and misspelled signs raging against the machine and flashing their private parts. Did I miss anything?

Posted by: Oyster at January 28, 2006 05:28 AM (YudAC)

4 The Pentagon should offer to imbed ACLU lawyers in their frontline units. They can be advance teams to advise the enemy of their rights. Better yet, why not imbed one in each cell so that they can monitor that the military is not torturing anyone. ACLU - The Legal Arm of the Insurgency "No ACLU in My Name!"

Posted by: Fred Fry at January 28, 2006 08:15 AM (HJnrm)

5 I was unable to find out whether this was a Democratic appointee. However I think that this was decided in the Supreme Court. I would find it unusual if the executive branch did not appeal it to the highest level. The Constitution and the separation of powers is what allows the judicial branch to oversee both the executive branch and the legislative branch. Only 2 of the current 9 Supremes have been appointed by Democrats. Here is a usgovinfo link with some more info about the supreme court and the constitution. This whole link is sorta interesting it appears to be a usgov link but is actually not "official". http://usgovinfo.about.com/blctjurisdiction.htm

Posted by: john ryan at January 28, 2006 01:31 PM (TcoRJ)

6 The thing about propaganda in a free society is that it usually only gets through to the stupidest people in society. Coincidentally, these people tend to vote democrat. Go figure.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 29, 2006 09:48 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 22, 2006

Carroll Kidnapping Delays Release of Iraqi Female Detainees

A Reuters story about conflicting messages from US and Iraqi officials implies that six female detainees were scheduled for release before the Jill Carroll kidnapping:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's Justice Ministry said on Sunday it still expects U.S. forces to release six Iraqi women prisoners this week, despite U.S. comments to the contrary.

The confusion seems to stem from plans made prior to the terrorists' demands to release the women:

"We talked to the Americans and they agreed to put them before the review board. On January 17 we reached an agreement that they will be released," the official said.

January 17 was also the day that terrorists released a video of Carroll, demanding the release of the Iraqi women in exchange for Carroll's life. The US does not negotiate with terrorists. Releasing the women now would be seen as caving in to the kidnappers' demands, and would encourage more such acts.

Thus, the kidnappers have effectively ensured that the women detainees will spend more time behind bars.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:13 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

January 13, 2006

Joshua Sparling On Sean Hannity's Radio Show

The Political Teen has posted audio of Joshua Sparling's interview on Sean Hannity's radio show. Sparling is the wounded soldier who received a death wish written in a Christmas card.

Michael Crook, the founder of the vile "Forsake the Troops" website, initially denied involvement, then admitted guilt for the card, which was signed, "Miguel".

But Crook, a notorious media whore, conveniently lost any proof that he had actually sent the card. Crook has a history of making false claims for publicity. In May, 2005 he faked his own death with a post to his website, and Crook originally came to regional notice by claiming to have found a soldier's camera and demanding $1,000 "finder's fee". He later admitted that he didn't have the camera.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:02 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

January 12, 2006

Al Qaeda vs. Islamic Army in Iraq?

We've heard periodic reports of native terrorists fighting foreign terrorists in Iraq, but this report via Captain Ed is odd news, if true. The Islamic Army in Iraq is not just another 'insurgent' group. These are your hardcore headchoppers, hostage-takers, and civilian murderers.

These are the guys who recently murdered American civilian Ronald Schulz, and who have been implicated in the hostage taking of four Western peace activists. The group has, in fact, cooperated with al Qaeda in various operations in the past.

If The Islamic Army in Iraq has begun to fight with al Qaeda, then I'm afraid it is more likely a turf war than anything else. The news that other groups, which are more nationalist in orientation, though, fighting against al Qaeda, is probably more accurate. Der Spiegel:

According to an American and an Iraqi intelligence official, as well as Iraqi insurgents, clashes between Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and Iraqi insurgent groups like the Islamic Army and Muhammad's Army have broken out in Ramadi, Husayba, Yusifiya, Dhuluiya and Karmah.
In town after town, Iraqis and Americans say, local Iraqi insurgents and tribal groups have begun trying to expel Al Qaeda's fighters, and, in some cases, kill them.

UPDATE: More from NY Times via Lawhawk and Say Anything:

In October, the two insurgents said in interviews, a group of local fighters from the Islamic Army gathered for an open-air meeting on a street corner in Taji, a city north of Baghdad.
Across from the Iraqis stood the men from Al Qaeda, mostly Arabs from outside Iraq. Some of them wore suicide belts. The men from the Islamic Army accused the Qaeda fighters of murdering their comrades.
Â“Al Qaeda killed two people from our group,Â” said an Islamic Army fighter who uses the nom de guerre Abu Lil and who claimed that he attended the meeting. Â“They repeatedly kill our people.Â”
The encounter ended angrily. A few days later, the insurgents said, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the Islamic Army fought a bloody battle on the outskirts of town.
The battle, which the insurgents said was fought on Oct. 23, was one of several clashes between Al Qaeda and local Iraqi guerrilla groups that have broken out in recent months across the Sunni Triangle.

Like I said, turf war. This battle does not represent a turn of the tide against terrorists. That tide was turned long ago and has nothing to do with terrorist on terrorist bloodshed. It would be a lot like the Taliban turning on al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Whoever is the victor, the results would be the same.

Update II: Via James Joyner I read this over at Rantingprofs. I would simply add that The Islamic Army in Iraq and al Qaeda both share the same short-term goals (ousting the U.S.), intermediate goals (harsh Sunni sharia in Iraq), and long-term goals (restoration of caliphate). Both are salafiyist groups and are violent jihadis of the worst kind. I'll say it again, the dispute between the two groups is about who controls the new Iraq, not what that new Iraq should look like. Various pundits would do well if they had a cursory background of the terror organizations named in the article.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:37 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 546 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Criminal thugs are the same the world over.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 12, 2006 10:08 AM (0yYS2)

2 This isn't a new story though - Bill Roggio and others have been reporting for months that various insurgent groups and al Qaeda have been getting into red on red fights, with the US and coalition looking on in amusement. That it appeared above the fold on the NYT front page is a big deal though. It would be a backhanded admission that al Qaeda is on the losing end of the conflict in Iraq.

Posted by: lawhawk at January 12, 2006 11:09 AM (eppTH)

3 Here's hoping they wipe each other out.

Posted by: KG at January 12, 2006 11:57 AM (eRMCR)

4 Damn straight!

Posted by: George Ramos at January 12, 2006 01:33 PM (5E0ex)

5 Regrettably, one of Saddam Hussein's only redeeming virtues was his secularism. Secularism in Iraq is doomed face backlash along with everything else the Iraqis hated about the old regime. The Sunnis are more conspicuous in this because they have the greater grudge against us, but I bet the Iraqi Shia are going the same way. Since their allies are better practiced and more motivated they'll be the worse source of terrorism in the long run.

Posted by: ShannonKW at January 12, 2006 02:29 PM (dT1MB)

6 Regardless of how the Iraq war ends, the problem of a radical, resurgent Islam is not about to go away, and will likely get worse in most parts of the World. So I agree with ShannonKW on this, however I think the Sunni will still be the majority of the terrorists, mainly because they exist in huge numbers vis a vie the Shia. I would recommend that we be observant in SE Asia, especially Malaysia, Indonesia and the Phillipines, as the Islamists have become very active in these areas. Another major cause of concern is Africa, where jihadists are training and indoctrinating the former moderate Muslims. The West will be in a long, hard fight for its survival. Right now, I doubt whether most people in the West are in any way ready to confront these people. Only in parts of the US and Australia is there the spine for a real fight.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 12, 2006 04:04 PM (rUyw4)

7 Hell Shannon, secularism is dead in America. The fact is that humans are so conditioned to religion that it has become an addiction. We'll have to let the masses have their opiates if it keeps them happy, and just try to keep the holy wars to a minimum.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 12, 2006 04:25 PM (0yYS2)

8 Anyone else notice that the places joe mentions have something in common? Namely, the lack of capitalism and, in turn, representative government. Not to be a root cause guy (mainly because I hate that crap) but I can't help but think there might be a connection. I'm guessing that jihadis would have a harder time taking hold in places where there is economic opportunities for the populous.

Posted by: KG at January 12, 2006 04:33 PM (eRMCR)

9 True, KG, but the other thing these areas have in common is Islam. Without Islam there would no doubt be problems in these countries, but the wild card in all this terrorism is Islam. Money that could have been used to improve the life and living standards in these countries is now being used to build and maintain Salafist teaching mosques. I also disagree with your jihadist theory with respect to developed countries and economic opportunity. In Britain the jihadists came from wealthy families in some cases, so again I say radical Islam is the root cause. I am a root cause guy.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 12, 2006 04:54 PM (rUyw4)

10 KG, Lebanon has a famously strong capitalist tradition, and they are home to Hezballah, among other groups. That's not to say that poor economic policy couldn't contribute to the problem. A big population of Muslims who have nothing to lose seems to breed terrorism; and bloated, corrupt governments that own everyting in the country are real good at producing those conditions. Maximus, On the bright side, while we are a bit less secular than we were when I was a kid, the U.S. is very far from the Christian analogue of Islamism. I don't think it could happen in my lifetime, either. It would conflict with our individualism. Americans (with notable exceptions) are too prone to interpret their holy Book for themselves rather than have a politician do it for them.

Posted by: ShannonKW at January 12, 2006 06:06 PM (dT1MB)

11 ShannonKW, I think you nailed it in your answer to IM. The particular concept you refer to is called the "priesthood of the believer". It means that I can read the Bible myself and come to my own conclusions. That is why Christianity has adapted to the modern World and Islam has not. Islam allows little or no interpretation, and what interpretation is allowed comes from the imans. It is a top down religion, and only a remaking of Islam itself will allow for reform.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 12, 2006 08:05 PM (rUyw4)

12 The possibility that the locals might be taking on Al Qaeda is kind of beside the point when it comes to the threat still confronting the US military. My reading of the Iraqi situation is that there are plenty of grass roots unsurgents who may not share bin Laden's vision, but who also have no love at all for the US. Some of these will be what Rumsfield has referred to as "Saddamists". This is a really tough predicament for the US military. I have to admit to having deep reservation when I hear the President talk about "victory" in the context of this type of fight. It's very hard to defeat an enemy that is faceless and can blend with the local population at will. Tiny Northern Ireland is only a fraction of the size of Iraq, and yet the British military never succeeded in defeating the provisional IRA volunteers, who in some cases were only teenagers. The only way to defeat this type of enemy miltarily, is to use draconian measures and international law (Geneva included), makes this type of approach untenable. So a standing army has to use all its intellgence resources and non-conventional tactics to try and manage the security situation to the best of its ability. I certainly feel great deal of respect for the young GI's in Iraq who are required to walk this dangerous line every day. It can't be easy. The next six months or going to be crucial. I was on a blog recently and read a post from a young Iraqi woman who spoke of rising ethnic/tribal tensions and she fears a descent into civil war. With Ahmadinejad on the loose in Iran, let's hope this fear is unfounded.

Posted by: Aidan Maconachy at January 13, 2006 01:33 AM (ki9mX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 11, 2006

Congressman Moran gets Pwned

Click here to see an Iraq war veteran take Moran to task over his stance on the war.

Posted by: Drew at 04:56 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

January 10, 2006

U.S. Forces Raid Umm al-Qura Mosque

U.S. forces raided Baghdad's Umm al-Qura mosque Sunday after receiving a tip that activities related to Jill Carroll's kidnapping were going on inside:

ABC OnlineÂ—Sunni Arabs in Iraq have branded a US raid on a mosque complex a "sinful assault" and say it will worsen their relations with the US military.
The United Nations (UN) has also criticised Sunday's military operation.
Sunni Arab political parties say the raid on the Baghdad offices of the influential Muslim Clerics Association targeted the clergy and violated a place of worship.
Witnesses say US soldiers slid down ropes from helicopters as troops on the ground burst into the mosque complex, blowing doors off hinges and ransacking offices.
It came two days before the major religious holiday of Eid al-Adha.
A UN statement from the office of special envoy Ashraf Qazi says he "noted with regret the incident at the Umm al-Qora mosque" and that it "underlined the importance of all parties respecting the sanctity of holy sites and places of worship".
A UN spokeswoman, amplifying the statement, says Mr Qazi was referring specifically to the US and Iraqi military operation. ...

The United Nations criticized the raid. I say leave no stone unturned ...

Resources:

These images show that the Umm al-Qura mosque is very near the Al-Adel district where Jill Carroll was kidnapped:

Satellite image: Umm al-Qura mosque
Satellite image: Umm al-Qura mosque/Al-Adel district in west Baghdad
Google maps: Al-Adel district in west Baghdad

Cross-posted at OpinionBug.com

Related at Rocket's Brain Trust

Update (1/10/2006 9:37pm):

Here is a story about SRSG Ashraf Qazi's reaction to the Umm al-Qura raid:

UNÂ—Reacting to an incident at the Umm al-Qura mosque in Iraq, the senior United Nations envoy to the country today stressed that all parties must honour the sanctity of holy sites.
In a statement released in Baghdad, Ashraf Qazi voiced regret at the event yesterday, when some security forces entered the mosque.
Mr. Qazi called on the responsible authorities to ensure that the issue is investigated as quickly and transparently as possible.
This incident, following others in recent weeks involving places of worship, should serve as a reminder of the need to eschew violence and build mutual trust and confidence, Mr. Qazi said, calling on all concerned to support a fully inclusive political process that would increase stability and a peaceful future for the people of Iraq. ...

Before I blow a gasket I want to respond to Mr. Qazi's outrageous remarks.

Mr. Qazi, a "holy" site becomes unholy when it allows terrorists to defile it.

Mr. Qazi, the raid on the Umm al-Qura mosque was the direct result of intelligence that indicated activities related to Jill Carroll's kidnapping were going on inside.

Mr. Qazi, a young woman was kidnapped and her companion murdered in cold-blood and you express regret and call for an investigation into a raid whose sole purpose was to possibly rescue her? How dare you Sir!

And Mr. Qazi, you say the raid on Umm al-Qura should be a reminder of the need to eschew violence and build mutual trust and confidence? Eschew violence? How dare you Sir! What about the senseless violence directed at Jill Carroll? What about the blood of Alan John Ghazi spilled on an al-Adel street!

With all due respect Sir, your remarks are about as asinine as any I've ever read. And by them, you make yourself a part of the problem rather than a part of its solution.

"Leave no stone unturned."

Posted by: OpinionBug at 02:47 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 590 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Who gives a shit about their stupid f'ing religion! If they are doing anything terroristy in a mosque, it is fair game. Bomb the place. At this point, is there really any hope of mending the schism between the west and Islamofascism anyway? NO! So let loose the tomahawks and to hell with those hadjis. If their religion was so sacred, they wouldn't use the mosques as rallying points for insurgents and IEDs anyway. Violence is the only thing these people understand, so lets oblige them. Enough pussyfooting around; we need to take lessons from the Israelis and simply brutalize these people. Beat them into submission. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am so f'ing sick of these people kidnapping and killing noncombatants, planting roadside bombs and all manner of other cowardly shit, staging all of it from mosques, and then becoming outraged when these same mosques are targeted for raids. Are IQs just lower in that part of the world? It is the same logic that makes them think it is their duty to come to America to destroy buildings, which is cool, but the thought of an infidel in the holy land is cause enough do do what? Come to America and destroy buildings. Beheading someone in the name if Islam is cool, but conducting a search of a mosque is a inconsolable outrage. Enough is enough. Fuck their religion and fuck respecting their religion. Nuke them until they glow and then shoot them in the dark. Thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at January 10, 2006 05:07 PM (CtVG6)

2 As I have said, these people deserve neither compassion, sympathy, OR respect. They have no problem with killing any of us, our women, or even children. Nothing is off limits to them. NO apologies, NO symapthy. They hate us and our way of life, it's that simple. They hate that we have a system that, while not perfect, enables to live far better than their rat-like existences. They hate that our ideals enables us to have choices in life while they remain dominated and ruled by a backward set of beliefs under threats of losing their heads. THEY CAN'T STAND IT These people cannot be fixed or reasoned with in any sense. They will never have peace, they would not know how, nor are they willing to learn! War and death are all they know or understand. I am all for getting this problem under control in any manner necessary so that the rest of us can live peaceably.

Posted by: Dee at January 12, 2006 01:24 PM (HUims)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 09, 2006

It's Chimpy's Fault, Dammit!

The sturmtruppers of the only real terrorist nation make Iraqi women cry.

That's an update to my earlier post.

In unrelated news, welcome back Rusty, you're just in time to mark the real Grim Milestone that the media will surely fail to note:

UPDATE:

The AP is reporting that the first surgery was successful.

Posted by: Vinnie at 12:50 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

1 News articles that begin with a melodramatic vignette make critical readers cry. That initial paragraph to the effect of "Awwww, look at the poor widdle bayy-bee" is a red flag to anybody with an interest in facts. When you see that crap you know there's no point in going any further. Even more repellant is the thought of what sort of idiot comprises the target market for this garbage. I'm picturing in my mind's eye some moon-eyed old lady or teen mother, a total sucker who can be talked into anything, utterly convinced that a single untreated case of spinal bifida constitutes a significant problem in war-ravaged Iraq. These people vote. Scary stuff.

Posted by: ShannonKW at January 09, 2006 06:52 AM (dT1MB)

2 You know what's scarier? people who are so cynical of any good news, or deeds by our Soldiers, that they feel the need to bad mouth it at any turn. This is the fruits of the seeds sown by our Soldiers who have tried to get her treated in the U.S. to help her live. Much to everyones disappointment people such as yourself continue to yawn and wait for the news of a carbomb to make the Iraq "quagmire" talking point. sickening.

Posted by: dave at January 09, 2006 07:31 AM (CcXvt)

3 Dave, You're goddamn straight I'm cynical, and proud of it. The U.S. needs a lot more of us. Cynics don't let sob stories about gimpy babies and weepy mommies drive our policy judgments. We also tend not to wet our pants every time someone sparks up a pipe bomb in Baghdad. Cynicism used to be a fashionable pose in this country. Then 9/11 happened, and I watched all the wannabes melt into blubbering puddles of impotent fear. I'll have you know that while Dan Rather was heralding "the death of cynicism" I was keeping the flame alive, cracking jokes. My best one: Me: That was an impressive deed. Boss: How could somebody do something like that? Me: I guess they really believed they're going to Heaven for it. Boss: Well, I don't think they're going where they thought they were going! Me: Neither is anybody else on the plane. The whole office laughed at this, and then accused me of not being funny. And this kind of funk ran through the whole country, from the little people on up to the Old Man himself, with Bush bleating out a prayer for God to defend us as if we don't have Marines for that! So far as I can tell, the only public figures who kept their testicles on and didn't surrender to hysterical emotionalism were Donald Rumsfeld, Rudolph Giuliani, and Ann Coulter (which is all the more remarkable when you consider that only one of these has a functioning prostate gland). If we lose our nerve and turn tail in Iraq because IEDs are scary and they make servicemen's mommies cry, people like me won't be the ones responsible. Pretending the occupation is about "saving the children" won't stiffen the public's spine either.

Posted by: ShannonKW at January 09, 2006 08:55 AM (dT1MB)

4 >>>Cynics don't let sob stories about gimpy babies and weepy mommies drive our policy judgments. Then why are you a Liberal? Liberals policy is entirely anecdote-driven. And regarding cynics being "needed", I've found cynicism amongst the Liberal proles is entirely one-sided. You cynics were sucking Clinton's cock when he was bombing milk factories and Kosovo without U.N. authorization. Now THAT'S cynical.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 09, 2006 08:59 AM (8e/V4)

5 I'm in awe, at how the murder of some 3,000 of your fellow countrymen provided you the gumption to provide some good old rib-tickling funnies for your co-workers. One could only hope, that no one snuffs out one of your loved ones like a candle, and that no one provides a real funny knee-slapper about it for you. I'm sorry people were scared, and saddened in the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil, however not everyone looked at it as a twisted form of entertainment, evidently unlike yourself. I'm sure it's hard for someone such as yourself to look at Soldiers as anything but death-dealing robots, that we unleash till we put them back in their cage, but they are your fellow countrymen who have children, emotions and ideals, and most genuinely wish to help the people of Iraq.

Posted by: dave at January 09, 2006 09:11 AM (CcXvt)

6 Carlos, I was against any U.S. involvement in former Yugoslavia. As the U.S. has no interests there I was cynically content to watch all the warring factions spill each other's guts. It created a refugee problem for Europe, but we were in no way put out by it, so we should have let them handle it. For similar reasons I was against the first Gulf War. So Iraq strolls in and kicks over an anemic little oil monarchy. Why should we care who turns the spigot when we fill our tankers with Kuwaiti crude?

Posted by: ShannonKW at January 09, 2006 09:16 AM (dT1MB)

7 Dave, Shannon simply has a dry sense of humor, which is really the best psychological survival mechanism there is. SF guys, almost to the man, have a dry sense of humor, which allows them to face the hazards they do without going insane. The reason the comment about the airplane was funny to some people was because it was true. I don't think Shannon's really a liberal like Michael Mooron et al, but rather he seems to be more independant minded, like me, although I'm not sure what the hell he's talking about at times. Too many people, conservatives and liberals, let urban legends and their emotions control what they think and do, but some of us, a very few, tend to think for ourselves, and are hated for it by pretty much everyone else, which is fine with us if that's the way it has to be.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 09, 2006 09:21 AM (0yYS2)

8 Im: I am British, and I am well versed in the "stiff upper lip" routine, and am often termed as having a "dry sense of humor" by American's around me. However I did not find the need to create a stand-up comedy routine to my fellow colleagues around the unfolding events on September 11th. I enjoy your comments here, due to the fact you can draw the moonbats out, like moths to an open flame with a single post, and much like yourself I am no fan of the current Administration, however I agree on their strong stance against radical Islam, this character however comes out swinging like a moonbat on some posts, and nods his head like a novelty dog in a car window in others. hard to make anything of it.

Posted by: dave at January 09, 2006 09:35 AM (CcXvt)

9 And regarding Shannon's office "humor". Disgusting.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 09, 2006 09:42 AM (8e/V4)

10 I'm with you, Dave, on this one. Shannon can find no good in anything, and cynic is not what he is, regardless of what he says. I have another word to describe him, but I'll hold off for now. Let's just say you nailed him.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 09, 2006 10:09 AM (rUyw4)

11 I understand your sentiments, but Shannon does make some valid points now and then, and should not be dismissed out of hand.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 09, 2006 10:23 AM (0yYS2)

12 Shannon: One can be cynical and still display optimism through these kind acts toward children in Iraq. Contrary to what you imply here that "weepy mommies" are being used to drive policy, the focus should be on a different aspect of the story. It's called "winning hearts and minds" as merely a secondary means of gaining support. Or simply just doing the right thing. And there's nothing wrong with it. One can only hope that these children will grow up in a democracy which will cause them to reject the hateful or intolerant ways of some of the older population in Iraq. While cynicism is healthy, it can be a hindrance when the whole world is looked at from that viewpoint. As far as your attempt at office humor, I'm trying to figure out why anyone laughed. It was true maybe, but not funny. Unless of course it was simply nervous laughter. Which is understandable - sort of. I've laughed at innappropriate things at times.

Posted by: Oyster at January 09, 2006 11:40 AM (osKlJ)

13 The important thing to remember Oyster is that he said everyone else laughed, but did he mean for them too? I kinda doubt it. Also, he's right about the weepy mommies thing, as emotion is a dangerous foundation on which to build policy.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 09, 2006 01:48 PM (0yYS2)

14 Yes, I agree. What I don't agree with is that people are using this to to determine how they feel about the war or any other actions we take. We bitch non-stop about all the negativity coming forth and when a good story gets told some cynic says "Don't buy it." C'mon. It's just a story about some good being done. That's all.

Posted by: Oyster at January 09, 2006 02:35 PM (osKlJ)

15 Which is why I'm going to follow it, and continue to post about it. Now for some real cynicism. There are roughly 280 million people in this country, of which Shannon makes up one. So who cares what he thinks anyway. Like the Sith Master repeatedly has said: Dude, it's just a blog.

Posted by: Vinnie at January 09, 2006 02:49 PM (Kr6/f)

16 All those terrorist attack casualties put together are less than the monthly violent deaths in your own country, monthly death toll being about 1/50 of yours. Fix your own problems before going crazy about the "horrible destructive forces" lurking in the desert. Terrorist problems were completely voluntary, your Saddam, your Bin Laden, your greed, your brainless urge to oppose freedom of everyone else, your fault.

Posted by: A Finn at January 10, 2006 03:27 AM (cWMi4)

17 Good point Oyster. Cynicism has its uses and its proper place, but I like the baby Noor story myself, although I'm not sure they were doing her a favor by saving her life, considering that she will likely never walk and may be retarded due to fluid on the brain. Through their acts of humanity, they've sentenced her to a miserable life. Like they say, the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 10, 2006 12:15 PM (0yYS2)

18 Finn, go away. I didn't miss you while you were gone. There are plenty of moonbat blogs for you to go to and spout your ignorant opinions. Try Indymedia or Democratic Underground, they are perfect for moonbats with tin foil hats like you.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 10, 2006 04:40 PM (rUyw4)

19 Tin foil hats intensify most frequencies reserved for government and military usage, despite their ability to weaken regular frequencies... Indymedia and Democratic Underground, I'll probably check those out, just that this blog has become a habit in moments of boredom and endless wrath towards unification of the world into a retarded western media&popularculture empire.

Posted by: A Finn at January 11, 2006 05:23 AM (cWMi4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 07, 2006

Female American Journalist Kidnapped In Baghdad

Terrorists have kidnapped a female American journalist and killed her Iraqi translator:

ScotsmanÂ—According to Mohamadawi, the translator told police before he died that she had been kidnapped and that they had been heading to meet Adnan al-Dulaimi, head of the Sunni Arab Iraqi Accordance Front who lives in the Adel neighbourhood - dominated by Sunni Arabs and considered one of toughest in Baghdad.
According to Samir Najim, a guard at al-Dulaimi's office, three armed men in a red Opel car intercepted the journalist's car and shot the translator before taking her in their car and driving away. ...

The journalist's name hasn't been revealed.

Cross-posted at OpinionBug.com

Update (1/7/2005 12:16pm):

The identity of the kidnapped woman remains unconfirmed, but two sources indicate she is Jill Carroll, a correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor:

Sources:

Euro News [ Euro News has removed all references to Jill Carroll ]
Kuwait News Agency (KUNA)
La Repubblica

Hat tip: Free Republic

Update (1/9/2005 3:58pm):

The Sunday Times Online had a story yesterday in which they said Al-Qaeda had released a statement claiming responsibility for her kidnapping:

Times OnlineÂ—Attempts were being made last night to locate an American journalist who was kidnapped in Baghdad yesterday after a meeting with a senior Sunni politician. Her Iraqi translator was killed, writes Ali Rifat.
Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the kidnapping in a statement posted on the internet. ...

Jill, we're praying for your safe return.

Posted by: OpinionBug at 07:33 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

1 A number from 2 to 9, no questions, I'll check tomorrow.

Posted by: A Finn at January 07, 2006 08:38 AM (lGolT)

2 Apparently she didn't get the memo - these people are crazy fanatics who accept the most ruthless indiscrimate violence directed at innocent men, women and children as completely legitimate - and anyone not with them are either infidels or heretics. I guess she wants to understand them. good luck.

Posted by: hondo at January 07, 2006 09:25 AM (3aakz)

3 If she's a euro-commie, she'll live. They're on the same side.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 07, 2006 09:35 AM (8e/V4)

4 Anti-American - yes. But the left walks a strange fineline with radical islamic fundamentalists. Beyond the first line they have nothing in common, except suppressed hatred and fear. One day, it will blow up in their faces - what is apparent is the left's fear and willingness to be intimidated by it. In an odd way - being anti-American is safe.

Posted by: hondo at January 07, 2006 09:46 AM (3aakz)

5 Note - typically the MSM and leftists would be tripping all over themselves to physically embrace and interview these guys - but this is not the case. They will do it only from afar - less the make a mistake like her.

Posted by: hondo at January 07, 2006 09:51 AM (3aakz)

6 It's extra-special news when a *female* journalist gets kidnapped, so that goes right out in front of the headline. I'm kinda jaded lately, so female journalists aren't high enough on my pity hierarchy to work me into a lather. Now, if she had been a developmentally disabled, blind, Jewish, HIV positive female journalist, that would have made my day, but the media let me down again. I feel so unmotivated.

Posted by: ShannonKW at January 07, 2006 10:04 AM (dT1MB)

7 Common sense would say that if one chose to travelling to a notoriously dangerous neighbourhood in a dangerous country, that necessary precautions would surely constitute more than just a translator - perhaps pay for armed body guards or an unmarked police escort or maybe just do the interview over the phone. Whatever the case, I hope she makes it out okay.

Posted by: Graeme at January 07, 2006 10:35 AM (xI1Fi)

8 I read this article last night at blackfive: http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/01/cnn_despicable_.html#comments note this reference: When we were doing offensive operations out here, we had 25 plus reporters from CNN, USA Today, the NY Times, Time Magazine, among others. Now that the bombs aren't dropping and the cities have been stabilized... we had 1 reporter here for the elections. She is from the Christian Science Monitor. He was talking about elections, around the Syrian border. might not be referring to the same, however.

Posted by: dave at January 07, 2006 12:24 PM (CcXvt)

9 These female terrorist sympathizers seem to be deadly for the males involved. The poor driver killed. It was also the Intelligence Agent that was killed trying to ransome the horrid Italian communist journalist Sgreana. Of course, the Italians have handled this very maturely by deciding to charge the American soldier at the checkpoint instead of the cavalier communist whose antics led to the agent's death. If the journalist does not issue a sympathetic statement on behalf of her misunderstood captors, I apologize for being too harsh.

Posted by: Kate at January 07, 2006 01:20 PM (n6ufo)

10 She's American, not a communist European. The four peacekeepers are probably dead but I could be wrong.

Posted by: George Ramos at January 07, 2006 02:10 PM (5E0ex)

11 And yes, apparently she didn't get the "GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ" memo. We'll being seeing her in a hostage video in a few days. She's an American so she will be held for some political demand.

Posted by: George Ramos at January 07, 2006 02:13 PM (5E0ex)

12 She may be as anti-American as can be, but just the fact that she is American will probably get her killed. I hope she makes it out OK, but like I've said before, anyone walking around that country without a belt-fed machine gun pretty much deserves to be kidnapped simply out of principle. Darwin at work maybe?

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at January 08, 2006 01:18 AM (CtVG6)

13 Does anyone know the name of the translator who was murdered?

Posted by: byrd at January 10, 2006 03:06 PM (G8flx)

14 The Christian Science Monitor says his name is Allan Enwiyah; other sources say he is Alan John Ghazi.

Posted by: Tim at January 10, 2006 03:42 PM (5rYy9)

15 Shes crazy tring to make a report, while in middle of a battle zone! but she'll be missed when her deadline expires & gets killed. I wonder if they're going to have a video of her execution like they do the other american or other hostages?

Posted by: Jeremy at January 18, 2006 06:23 AM (ZqEK2)

16 Now is the time to Pray, Pray, Pray!

Posted by: Sue at January 19, 2006 04:23 PM (xzwzw)

17 It is time to Pray but also time to understand that what She did was for the common good and that should be for both American and Iraqi people! And as the people for common good I apeal to the hearts of those who have her. Please free her she is full of love and grace you can see it her face!

Posted by: Omyra at January 19, 2006 11:51 PM (O+jgl)

18 She is anti-American, she deserves it!!!

Posted by: Jay at January 23, 2006 12:54 AM (KgZHj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

85kb generated in CPU 0.0303, elapsed 0.1506 seconds.
126 queries taking 0.133 seconds, 333 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 9015
Files: 25
Bytes: 112.1M
CPU Time: 6:07
Queries: 920232

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76633

Feeds

January 30, 2006

January 27, 2006

January 22, 2006

January 13, 2006

January 12, 2006

January 11, 2006

January 10, 2006

January 09, 2006

January 07, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds