June 16, 2006

Bad News Is Breaking Out All Over

If you're a Kos Kid, that is...

Posted by: Vinnie at 09:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

June 15, 2006

Video : A Tribute to Reagan

We miss you, Gipper.


Posted by: Kos_Irhabi at 07:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

June 09, 2006

Taliban Leader Mourns Murderer Zarqawi

The leader of the Taliban has expressed his sorrow and grief over the death of al Qaeda in Iraq's leader, Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

Boo-freaking-hoo.

Monsters and Critics, with many thanks to George:

'The people of Afghanistan and I express our condolences over the martyrdom of al-Zarqawi but firmly believe that this will not weaken the ongoing resistance movement in Iraq,' the Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) quoted him as saying in a statement on Friday.

'The struggle launched by al-Zarqawi is the peoples' resistance movement and every youth has the potential to become Zarqawi,' Omar said in his reaction, adding that thousands of young people would continue al-Zarqawi's movement.

Every Muslim youth would continue the struggle to safeguard their faith, honour and dignity, Omar said, against what he called the continued aggression by the crusaders.

'I want to give the good news to Muslims all over the world that such incidents will not crush the ongoing struggles against the crusaders in Afghanistan and other parts of the Islamic world,' the spiritual guru of the Taliban said.

Yes, Abu Musab al Zarqawi inspired so many people! He was a true Muslim martyr!

Above right: Abu Musab al Zarqawi and his Tawhid i Jihad fighters (now called al Qaeda in Iraq) read a statement condemning civilian hostage Eugene Armstrong under Islamic law. Zarqawi later personally murdered armstrong and then released the beheading video on the internet.

WARNING: Below is a very graphic image of Abu Musab al Zarqawi and Eugene Armstrong, a civilian he personally beheaded. Do not proceed unless you wish to see the disgusting works of a man praised by Islamists as a martyr. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 10:09 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

June 03, 2006

Haditha: The "Massacre" that Didn't Happen?

I read a lot of the Arab, Muslim, and extreme Left press. If I had a dollar for every time they accused American troops of committing "attrocities", "massacres", and "war crimes", then I'd be a very rich man.

How often do these groups make such accusations? Every time a civilian in Iraq is caught in the crossfire and killed. Every. Single. Time.

These groups already know what American troops are reallly like.

The most sympathetic opinion of our troops from these groups is that they are children. They do these bad things not because they are bad people, but because Bush-hitler and co. have put them in a bad situation.

Our childlike troops--who really signed up so they could go to college but were tricked and drafted into fighting a war for Haliburton's gain--snap every time an IED goes off and indiscriminately kill civilians.

The least sympathetic opinion of our troops, especially prevalent among Islamist sources, is that our troops like to kill Arabs. You know, it's just fun.

So, with this view of American troops in mind, every time a civilian gets killed in Iraq, it is our fault. It's not the fault of the terrorists who use mosques as command-and-control centers. It's not the fault of insurgents who--contrary to the Geneva Conventions--try to hide their identities by blending in with the local population. It's not the fault of these minute-men who fire on U.S. troops from the roofs, from the alleys, and from the windows of civilian homes.

No, it's always the fault of the U.S. troops.

So, when I hear that U.S. troops have been cleared in the alleged massacre at Ishaqi, I can't help to think about Haditha.

What do we really know about Haditha? So far, the allegations seem par for the course. The usual accusations. Civilians were killed and Americans must have massacred them.

But word massacre has a distinct connatation. It implies that American troops intentionally killed civilians. That civilians were rounded up and shot, or that our Marines went room to room methodically murdering children.

What we know is only that civilians were killed. What we know is that Marines originally reported that they were killed by a roadside bomb, but that those Marines later reported that they were killed in crossfire.

This is the major cover-up of a massacre that I've been hearing about?

We have dead bodies. The dead bodies reveal that the civilians were shot. But, isn't that what we've already known for some time now? That civilians were shot?

The only questions that remain, then, are two-fold. First, what were the Marines motives? That is, did they intentionally kill these civilians, or were they shot accidentally? Either in cross-fire, or because the Marines were careless.

If the former, then we do have a massacre. These civilinas were murdered.

But if the latter, then at worst we have some careless Marines who ought to be jailed for negligient homicide or not following the rules of engagement. Which is equally tragic, but far more mundane explanation than a massacre. It's also far more likely.

The second question is about the alleged "cover-up" and, according to Rep. Murtha, "how high it went." Of course, to the far Left it doesn't really matter how high up it went, because in their minds, it always goes up to the Sec. of Defense or the President of the United States. So, the real motivation here is not to get at the truth, but to score political points.

What we know is that an NCO filed an erroneous field report. There is no evidence--none--that even a single officer knew the report was wrong.

Will it turn out that Haditha was a massacre in its true sense? Did Marines go on a rampage murdering women and children? Maybe. As I've said in the past, if this is the case, I personally volunteer for the firing squad.

But since I've heard these accusations so many times before, let's just say I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:44 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 680 words, total size 4 kb.

May 31, 2006

MSM Monster Staging "Dangerous Situations"

When our friends at NODNC sent us this funny little parody about "the media monster", I didn't know what to do with it. That is, until The House of Wheels sent us this story.

Short version: Liberal TV producer asks soldiers to stand behind General. Liberal TV host asks General if situation isn't safe given that General needs soldiers standing behind him to protect him. General gets pissed.

The media monster indeed. Go check out the story, but make sure to watch the video here. It's pretty un-freaking-believable. Apparently the Australian media suffers the same deficiencies as their American counterparts.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:19 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

May 30, 2006

All Religions Are The Same

Ayup, they sure are.

Posted by: Vinnie at 07:43 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Sunday Times Retracts Atwar Bahjat Beheading Story After Bloggers Fact Check

Bumped....because one can never pat oneself on the back too many times.....

The Sunday Times has retracted their May 7th story in which they claimed they had received a video of the beheading murder of female Iraqi reporter, Atwar Bahjat. As first revealed on The Jawa Report, that video was actually of a slain Nepalese truck driver from August of 2004. Thanks to Greyhawk for following up on the retraction and commenting on it here.

Our original story is here: Atwar Bahjat Beheading Video a Hoax

Times retraction: The Iraq execution video that fooled me

First note that the retraction calls the cold-blooded murder of a civilian an 'execution'. The terrorists that murdered a man by beheading and shot 11 of his co-workers on video deemed it an execution for collaboration with Zionists, Crusadors, and apostates. They use such language because it justifies their actions under Islamic law.

It's not murder, they claim, it's an execution of a criminal. Apparently, the Times agrees. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 12:02 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 1450 words, total size 10 kb.

May 26, 2006

George Galloway: Coward

Terrorists kill because they believe it is the right thing to do. That is, they are acting out of moral conviction. This is why much terrorist propaganda is laced with quotes from popular Leftist writers.

The Left, Islamists, and terrorists essentially share the same world view: The U.S. is an Imperial power which systematically exploits the developing world, oppresses them, and which has no interest in bettering the lot of humanity.

The difference between your run of the mill Leftist or Islamists and terrorists is that terrorists act on the convictions they share.

If the U.S. is the power it is made out to be by Noam Chomsky, then insurgents in Iraq are doing the right thing in killing American soldiers. And if George Bush is as bad or worse than Hitler--as he is often accused of being by the Left--then a moral person, by definition, would be forced to use any means necessary to kill him.

The Independent:

"Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did."

There you go. Once you accept the premise that Blair "ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq" the logical conclusion flowing from the premise is that assassinating Blair "would be morally justified."

But the logical conclusion flowing from that premise cannot end at "justified", for if Tony Blair continues to intentionally order the deaths of innocent people in Iraq, then he must be stopped. If the premise is true than one has no other choice but to kill Blair given that no other method has worked at stopping the war.

See how this all works? Once you've swallowed the worldview of the Left, then the road to terrorism is only stopped by one of two things: lack of opportunity or cowardice.

So, why haven't George Galloway or others on the hardcore Left assassinated Tony Blair or George Bush? They are cowards.

Hat tip to PJ Media in Sydney.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:37 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

May 25, 2006

Why We Went to War, and Why it Was the Right Thing to Do

Why did we go to war when everybody knows it was based on lies? Because it wasn't based on lies, and those making the claim are just nuckin futs! READ. THE. WHOLE. THING.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

Google News Bias and The Jawa Report

It used to be that when I searched "Jawa" on Google News, I'd get a mix of our own posts with financial reports coming out of Indonesia--except, of course, for those 6 months in which we were banished from Google News for "hate speech", that is. Now, it's pretty much about The Jawa Report.

For instance:

Is Left-Leaning Google Censoring Right-Leaning Websites?

Unlike most of the articles coming out about The Jawa Report recently, I actually engaged in an e-mail conversation with the author of the above story, Noel Shephard. You can check out his ongoing investigation into Google News here.

Does Google News systematically discriminate against right-leanig websites? My gut feeling says that does, but this is based on anecdotal evidence so I am willing to change that opinion if a more systematic study was done.

The explanation could be as mundane as Muslims being more prone to calling anything they deem offensive as 'hate speech' and Google being oversensitive.

Of course, the 'South Park Mohammed cartoon' theory might come into play here: Google is just afraid Muslims. But that wouldn't explain why The Jawa Report was dropped from Google News for a time since that happened before the Mohammed cartoon violence.

Then again, it may be that low-level Google employees are making these decisions with some amount of discretion. Whenever discretion is involved, our own biases come into play. What a person on the Left and a person on the Right deem offensive is completely subjective and is framed by our worldviews.

This last explanation is supported by the fact that Google News did eventually reinstate The Jawa Report as a provider. Someone up the chain-of-command eventually took a look at the 'hate speech' allegations and decided they were silly.

Then again, it could be that we just complained louder than whoever it was that was complaining about 'hate speech'. Corporate behavior can often be explained as simply taking the path of least resistance.

Hopefully, The New Media Journal and MichNews will be reinstated after a second review. But I'd start complaining loudly to Google News just to make sure.

UPDATE: A reader who wishes to remain anonymous e-mails this:

Data point for Google News: A couple of months ago I realized the American Spectator Online wasn't on Google News and I wrote off to request they add it. I specifically identified it as having a conservative slant. They reviewed and added it in about a week. No I suppose the AmSpec has more name recognition than do most blogs, but there was one case where a
right-leaning news source was added without any trouble...

And I know the plural of "anecdote" is not really "data".

Score one for Google News.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:41 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.

May 24, 2006

Milestone: 5,000 Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

the_religion_of_peace_5000_dead.jpgThe Religion of Peace reports that an important milestone has been reached in umma history: 5,000 terror attacks have now been carried out by jihadis since 9/11.

But I'm sure it's just a few misunderstanderers of the otherwise peaceful and tolerant religion.

Of course, The Religion of Peace keeps its tallies by monitoring English language news sources only. Therefore, the 5,000 figure is probably well below the actual number of terror attacks in the name of Allah and his ever-so-peaceful religion.

Hat tip to Clarity & Resolve who have more, but who incorrectly cite the 5,000 number as the number of deaths. No, it's 5,000 attacks.

This week alone there have been 267 people killed by Islamists who just don't get Muhammed's peaceful example. Last month 826 people were murdered in the name of Allah. That's over 1,000 people killed in the last 6 weeks alone.

Below: Relatives of a victim of the 5,000th terror attack by the Religion of Peace wait to see if their loved one will survive his confrontation with the inner struggle of jihad. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 12:22 PM | Comments (75) | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 2 kb.

May 23, 2006

U.S. Abu Ghraib Abuser on Trial--Why George Orwell still matters

Jury selection has begun in the Court Martial of Sgt. Santos Cardona, the dog handler shown in the now infamous Abu Ghraib photos. Cardona is one of dozens of soldiers indicted for the Abu Ghraib scandal.

In a civilized democracy, this his how cases of abuse are handled. Contrast that to those we fight in Iraq--Islamofascists who take hostages, torture, and behead their victims.

There is no equivalence here except in the warped minds of America haters.

Army Times:

A soldier charged with abusing Abu Ghraib detainees with a military working dog went on trial Monday.

The case of Sgt. Santos Cardona, 32, is important because his attorney, Harvey Volzer, hopes to prove Cardona was following orders from much further up the chain of command than has been shown so far....

I've often said that the Left's reaction to abuses by the U.S. military is like turning Jesus' words about a beam in our own eye and a mote in another's on its head: they criticize the minuteness of our wrongs while ignoring the much greater wrongs of our enemies.

The reaction from the Left over Abu Ghraib brings to mind the words of George Orwell from his classic essay Notes on Nationalism (1945) about pacifists of his time:

Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of western countries.
The real crux of Orwell's essay being that it is not so much that the Left is anti-nationalism as it is that the Left is objectively nationalistic--but that the nations they so often cling to are those other than their own!

So, when defining Anglophobia, Orwell notes that:

During the war it was manifested in the defeatism of the intelligentsia, which persisted long after it had become clear that the Axis powers could not win. Many people were undisguisedly pleased when Singapore fell or when the British were driven out of Greece, and there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein, or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of Britain. English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong.
Oh how so little has changed!

Posted by: Rusty at 04:05 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 493 words, total size 3 kb.

May 14, 2006

An Open Letter To Certain Mothers On Mother's Day

Thank you for giving us Rusty.

Thank you for giving us Howie

Thank you for giving us Bluto

Thank you for giving us Mike Pechar, even tho it rhymes with...

Thank you for giving us Chris Short

Thank you for giving us Richard.

Thank you for giving us anyone I've missed, because it's time to move on to:

What on Earth compelled you to give birth to greg?

What on Earth compelled you to give birth to Unashamed Patriot?

What on Earth compelled you to give birth to Actus?

Didn't you check under the hair for the 666?

Posted by: Vinnie at 12:51 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

May 11, 2006

Christian Tracts Found in Dubai

chick_moon_god_tract.JPG

Personally, I'm not a fan of Chick tracts. They are usually offensive, always simplistic, and often highly innacurate.

Far worse than Chick's idiotic tracts, though, are laws prohibiting their distribution. There is not a single Islamic country on the planet which allows open proselyzing of Muslims. Not. A. Single. One.

So, is it a good thing that some of these Christian tracts were found on windshields in Dubai? Absolutely. Free speech means nothing if idiots aren't allowed to distribute their garbage. And no man is truly free unless he can openly convert from one faith to antoher.


Marcus Aurelius over at Blogger Beer has the entire story summed up
.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:01 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

May 10, 2006

Tchaikovsky's Dance of the Sugar Plumb Mujahidin (Video)

Jason presents his mashed version of this Mujahidin training video set to Tchaikovsky's Dance of the Sugar Plumb Fairies. Kind of puts it in a whole new perspective.

Incidentally, I've seen the Nutcracker at the Bolshoi. Would have been much more interesting had the above Muj played Clara.

UPDATE: Jason tells me his video was posted earlier by Misha.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:13 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

Cindy Sheehan, Noam Chomsky, Martin Sheen Send Letter to Bush (Full Text)

****Exclusive*****

The Jawa Report has just learned that the following letter was delivered to the White House by Nancy Pelosi on behalf of Cindy Sheehan, Noam Chomsky, and Martin Sheen. Full text is reprinted below.

Sounds like the usual stuff from Sheehan, Chomsky, and Sheen. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 12:44 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 3126 words, total size 19 kb.

May 09, 2006

Women at War With Islam

It's really a must see.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:01 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

Wanted: Pro-American Journalists

Bill Roggio is heading to Afghanistan to become an embed. He needs your help footing the bill.

Why do we need people like Bill reporting our war efforts? I'll let Dean answer that it is our duty to support victory in our wars, it is :

a duty America's press corps is shirking. Shirking how? By insisting that this as a partisan struggle, rather than America's struggle. Until they stop that, I won't stop. If they were on our side--if they were calling it "our war" instead of "Bush's war"--I wouldn't feel the need.
Administrations do not fight wars, nations do. We are at war.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:46 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

May 08, 2006

Sac Bee Intentionally Undermining Federal Case?

Hmmm, I wonder why all the news coming out of the Hayat terror cases was so negative? more...

Posted by: Rusty at 05:31 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

May 04, 2006

Blogs Not Trustworthy, But Neither is Mainstream Media New Survey Reveals

A multi-country survey commissioned by the BBC & Reuters reveals that people in the U.S. and the U.K. are generally skeptical about the information read on blogs, but that they are also distrustful of the traditional mainstream media. The good news, though, is that the internet is gaining popularity as a source for news and seems to be more trusted by the younger generation.

Reuters:

The research found that just 25 percent of respondents said they trusted blogs, while 23 percent said they did not trust them....

Online sources were, for example, the first choice among 19 percent aged between 18 and 24, compared to just 3 percent in the 55-64 age range.

"But although it is changing, our research perhaps suggests that this change in Internet usage may not be as fast as some who have been investing in it believe," Miller said.

There is also a stark contrast between those in the U.S. and the U.K. and those living in the rest of the countries surveyed. Citizens of the two English speaking countries are far more distrustful of the mainstream media than are citizens in developing countries. From another Reuters article on the survey:
A 10-country opinion poll for Reuters, the BBC and the Media Centre found British and U.S. consumers out on a limb when it comes to public levels of trust in the media.

Overall trust in the media in Britain has bounced back over the past four years, from a low of 29 percent trusting in 2002 to 47 percent today. But this is still below the 10-country average of 63 percent.

Americans emerged as the most critical of the news media's balance, with 69 percent disagreeing that the media reports all sides of a story.

A similar proportion, 68 percent, thought the media covered too many "bad news" stories.

And how does Reuters interpret why Americans and Brits are so skeptical of their news?
"In this research we did not probe exact reasons for the lower levels of trust, but our instincts as researchers tell us that it's because the U.S. and UK are two countries at war," he added.

The low levels of trust may, he said, be related to perceptions in the U.S. that the media is too close to the government on issues relating to the Iraq war.

This is a typical Leftwing response, which has no basis in reality. Survey after survey show that those who work for the MSM are far to the left of the American center. Journalists also report voting for a Democratic Presidential candidate in far greater numbers than the population. If anything, at least for the American side of the pond, distrust is a product of a media establishment out of touch with mainstream American values--not because the media is to the right, but because it is to the left!

What is so silly about the al Reuters explanation is that the data show that Americans and Brits trust their governments more than they trust the media. So, why would people distrust the media less if it was because they were too cozy with the government?

Further, if the Reuters explanation had any merit, why would the most trusted MSM source in America be the right-of-center FOX News and the centrist CNN (both with 11% in the poll)? In the U.K., the most trusted source of news is the government owned and operated BBC, which 32% say is the most trustworthy!

You can see the raw polling numbers and the original report in PDF format here.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:30 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 609 words, total size 4 kb.

<< Page 1 of 31 >>
212kb generated in CPU 0.0564, elapsed 0.1799 seconds.
132 queries taking 0.1414 seconds, 557 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.