So, the Democrats have a 'plan' to win the war on terror? Unfortunately, their plan seems to be exactly what the Mullahs of Iran, and their Salaafist rivals of the Sunni extremist camp, all predict. Withdrawal from Iraq is exactly what they want.

Amir Taheri in the WSJ:

For the past several weeks Mr. Abbasi has been addressing crowds of Guard and Baseej Mustadafin (Mobilization of the Dispossessed) officers in Tehran with a simple theme: The U.S. does not have the stomach for a long conflict and will soon revert to its traditional policy of "running away," leaving Afghanistan and Iraq, indeed the whole of the Middle East, to be reshaped by Iran and its regional allies.

To hear Mr. Abbasi tell it the entire recent history of the U.S. could be narrated with the help of the image of "the last helicopter." It was that image in Saigon that concluded the Vietnam War under Gerald Ford. Jimmy Carter had five helicopters fleeing from the Iranian desert, leaving behind the charred corpses of eight American soldiers. Under Ronald Reagan the helicopters carried the corpses of 241 Marines murdered in their sleep in a Hezbollah suicide attack. Under the first President Bush, the helicopter flew from Safwan, in southern Iraq, with Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf aboard, leaving behind Saddam Hussein's generals, who could not believe why they had been allowed live to fight their domestic foes, and America, another day. Bill Clinton's helicopter was a Black Hawk, downed in Mogadishu and delivering 16 American soldiers into the hands of a murderous crowd.

According to this theory, President George W. Bush is an "aberration," a leader out of sync with his nation's character and no more than a brief nightmare for those who oppose the creation of an "American Middle East." Messrs. Abbasi and Ahmadinejad have concluded that there will be no helicopter as long as George W. Bush is in the White House. But they believe that whoever succeeds him, Democrat or Republican, will revive the helicopter image to extricate the U.S. from a complex situation that few Americans appear to understand.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's defiant rhetoric is based on a strategy known in Middle Eastern capitals as "waiting Bush out." "We are sure the U.S. will return to saner policies," says Manuchehr Motakki, Iran's new Foreign Minister.

Hat tip to Allah. No, not really, hat tip Bill at INDC.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:06 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

Rob and American Future have more on the jihad started by Muhammed and which continues today.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:02 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

What would you do if every day you saw images of dead civilians, women, and children? Now, imagine that you are told these deaths were the result of Americans intentionally killing civilians. If this was your perception of reality, then you too would probably feel an obligation to fight America. At the very least, you would support those that took up arms.

Now imagine that it was mainstream media sources that were reporting Americans had massacred Iraqi civilians. The media, instead of challenging the version of the story as delivered by radical Islamists that routinely lie, equivocate and act as if the story told by U.S. soldiers is only one version of the truth. That the word of a U.S. soldier is just as suspect as that of Muqtada al Sadr.

Propagating the lie that U.S. soldiers massacre mosque worshippers constitutes a form of blood libel. By portraying American troops as blood thirsty murderers, jihadi propagandists create an atmosphere of obligatory vendettas. What moral person could stand by and let the Americans get away with this type of murder? By treating that lie as if it was a legitimate viewpont, the media help prolong the war on terror. Worse, they give jihadis recruiting power, which leads to the death of more U.S. soldiers and eventually civilians.

Take for instance this story from the Christian Science Monitor--a publication usually known for its excellent reporting--which treats the 'truth' as something unknowable:

Did US forces attack a mosque in a Shiite district of Baghdad Sunday night, killing 17 unarmed worshippers, an act that Iraq's Shiite interior minister called a "horrible violation" that has dominated Iraqi TV and sparked a political outcry?

Or, did Iraqi special forces, backed up by US advisers, take on a "terrorist cell" at an office complex, kill 16 "insurgents," and free an Iraqi hostage - only to have Iraqi provocateurs, as top US commanders allege, "set the scene up" to look like an atrocity?

The Asian Tribune is even worse, stating that a massacre occured as a matter of fact:

Iraq: US mosque massacre deepens occupationÂ’s crisis

The massacre of as many as 40 unarmed worshipers in a northeast Baghdad mosque Sunday has triggered a political crisis that threatens to accelerate IraqÂ’s descent into civil war while sharply intensifying the hatred of millions of Iraqis for the three-year-old US occupation of their country.

Deadly mosque raid in Iraq enrages Shiites

Shiite political leaders erupted in anger Monday over a U.S.-Iraqi raid that killed at least 16 people at a Baghdad mosque complex, suspending negotiations on the formation of a new government and spurring the provincial governor to cut ties with U.S. officials.

The British taxpayer supported BBC aids in the murdering of its own troops in Iraq by publishing pictures of the aftermath of the raid in which it declares as a matter of fact that it was against 'a Baghdad prayer complex'.

And here is a Washington Post article which also equivocates between the two sides. It identifies AP reporters who were oonvinced the complex raided was a mosque. Hmmm, I wonder if it was local pro-insurgent AP stringers often employed by that organization?

The question that arises is whether or not the media has some culpability in the death of U.S., British, Iraqi, and other Coalition soldiers when the stories they write inflame the fans of hatred and make winning the war impossible. When did the Chicago Tribune forget that it was in Chicago? When did the Washington Post forget that it was in Washington? Do these organizations have any loyalty whatsoever to their country and fellow citizens? Or are they so cosmopolitan that they believe the death of a U.S. soldier is no more sad than the death of a member of Muqtada al Sadr's terror brigades?

UPDATE: More commentary from Bluto here.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:26 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 730 words, total size 5 kb.

W. Thomas Smith in Townhall:

Perception is everything. And when applied to the war in Iraq, perception, public opinion, and a far-reaching press are all variables that could ultimately have a hand in any setback or defeat for U.S. and coalition forces in that country...

I do, however, have concerns about false and deliberatively inflammatory propaganda aimed at manipulating audiences. I am not suggesting that any press – good or bad – be quashed. What’s good or bad is open to interpretation anyway. But I think we should recognize the difference between news (including reported facts, analysis, and opinion) and propaganda.

We will only win the war on terror when the media bias becomes one in favor of American victory rather than one of defeatism.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:07 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

Active duty deaths during Clinton's first four years (1993 - 1996): 4302

Active duty deaths during Bush's first four years (2001 - 2004): 5187

Here's where that data is from via Rob at Say Anything.

That's 881 more deaths under Bush's watch in those four years (no data available after that). See especially the sharp decline in the number of homicides and suicides now compared to those glorious Clinton years. Can somebody remind me what the Clinton administration accomplished militarily in those years?

More discussion here.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:57 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

Time to send some of that mad Sandcrawler traffic to the wonderful people whose brilliance allows me to schlep on the couch all day scarfing bon-bons and watching 24 repeat marathons on A&E (what Rusty calls "fishing"):

Kyer: A third anniversary tribute.

Tee Bee: V for Vendetta = G for Get Over Yourselves, It's Just A Frickin' Movie.

Muslihoon: The Hitchiker's Guide To Taqqiya.

The Dread Pundit Bluto: Not cross posted at The Jawa Report and Vince Aut Morire.

Merri: Abu Ghraib? What Abu Ghraib?

Me: I am suffering major blogger burnout. It must be all of those "Bush Planned 911" emails I get every f***ing day.

And, as an added bonus, a full length reprint of a post done by Muslihoon at my home blog under the fold. It's a Part 2, the link to Part One is in there somewhere. Since he didn't cross-post it at his blog, I think it's okay for me to cross-post it for him here. more...

Posted by: Vinnie at 11:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 851 words, total size 6 kb.

The Big Pharaoh has a collection of reactions from Muslim commenters regarding the upcoming trial of Abduhl Rahman in Afghanistan for apostasy. Remember, these are comments on an English language website--not al Jazeera. Here are a few zingers:

"I am a female medical student. Converting out of Islam is forbidden"

"In our law, a person who forsakes the religion should be killed and there is no freedom in this regard."

"To my secular Muslim brothers who are expressing their sympathy towards this man: these are the teachings of Islam, no negotiations in them."

Posted by: Rusty at 02:31 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

I can't name a single televangelist I like. Not. A. Single. One. It's not so much the shallowness of their theology as it is their staged and canny performances. There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with turning the divine into a stage show. So, what to make of this CNN report about a popular Muslim televangelist from Egypt?

Notice the subtitle: Popular Egyptian televangelist tries to bridge Islam and West

He must be some kind of moderate, right? Well, yes, in fact, he is. But as we've discussed here dozens of times, being a moderate in the Islamic world is still a far cry from ideal [emphasis mine]:

Islamic televangelist Amr Khaled is young, smiling, teaches love and mercy and is so popular he's credited with inspiring thousands of women -- turned off by dour, traditional clerics -- to take on the veil. ....

He is a very simple, moderate, humble man, easygoing. He makes you feel like you are his sister," said Zeinab el-Sherif, 32, a wealthy, veiled Egyptian businesswoman who has been a fan since hearing Khaled at her club a decade ago.

"He is so tolerant and friendly, he makes you feel good about your religion and yourself," she said.

The entire article paints Amr Khaled as the seminal moderate Imam. Sure, he's moderate by Muslim standards--he doesn't want to kill those who blaspheme Muhammed, he just, you know, wants to pass laws making irreverancy illegal. And, ladies, when you're not busy soiling your panties over his charm and good looks, please remember to put on your veil. We wouldn't want an uncovered head to force an otherwise chaste Muslim brother to rape you. Because, if he did, we'd probably have to kill you.

This much credit I will give to Christian televangelists: at least they give lip service to a God deeply concerned with human freedom, liberty, and dignity. So, maybe all televangelists are snake-oil salesmen--but at least there is some value to what our guys are selling.

Thanks to Fred Fry for sending the link.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:23 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 3 kb.

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

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

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

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

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

We moved towards the committee by doing the following:

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

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

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

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

Hat tip: Captain Ed and The Commissar.

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

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

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

The man shown in a now infamous photograph falling from the Twin Towers on 9/11 has been identified as Jonathan Briley, a claim made by the British tabloid, The Mirror. A documentary about 'The Falling Man' will be aired on the British TV channel 4 tomorrow. Briley was one of dozens who chose to end their own lives by jumping, rather than face the horror of being burned alive. The Mirror:

Five years after the horror of September 9, 2001, the falling man has finally been identified as Jonathan Briley, a 43-year-old who worked in a restaurant at the top of the north tower.

Over the years, his family has always assumed he perished in the building. Now, learning he had jumped is almost too much to bear.

His father, Alexander, a Baptist minister, has still not come to terms with the manner of his son's dying. "I can't talk about it," he says. "My life's work is telling people that they have to go on after tragedy, but I can't do it for myself."

Jonathan's elder sister, Gwendolyn, says: "When I first looked at the picture... and I saw it was a man - tall, slim - I said, 'If I didn't know any better, that could be Jonathan'....

THEY caught a man, seemingly calm, plunging to his inevitable death.

The picture was published around the world, causing widespread revulsion, as if merely looking at them was to intrude upon a moment of private agony. After September 12, the picture was rarely shown again, but Tom Junod couldn't get the image out of his head and spent years trying to discover the identity of the Falling Man.

It was executive chef Michael Lomonaco who finally solved the mystery.

"Jonathan fitted the body type, the skin colour, and it left the door open for a possibility that it was really Jonathan," Lomonaco says.

Jonathan's father is still too upset to speak about his son but his sister, Gwendolyn, is ready to talk.

"Jonathan was a person who just loved life and it was contagious so that when we were around him, you couldn't help smiling and laughing." Nobody will ever know for sure if Jonathan was the Falling Man, although the evidence makes it highly likely.

In one of the pictures, his white shirt is blown away by the wind to reveal an orange T-shirt - identical to the one he wore to work.

But as Gwendolyn says: "It's not about trying to find out who he is, but what his death says to all of us." And what it says is ... never again.

Thanks to Olivia for sending the link and for reminding readers that this drives home the point that the struggle against Islamofascism is not about race, but about a murderous and totalitarian ideology.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has a moving tribute here.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:55 PM | Comments (58) | Add Comment
Post contains 488 words, total size 3 kb.

Today, two different opinion pieces target the same important issue, one that we need to not only hear much more about, but one that we must get deadly serious about making our number one priority - the battle over ideologies, to win the battle of hearts and minds with the clear objective of ending the threat of terrorism by the totalitarian ideologies of Islamic jihadism. (It is wrong and even deceitful to argue that jihadism has nothing to do with Islam, because the jihadists believe that they are acting as "true Islamic believers" and learn the Islamist mind-set in mosques and Islamic schools, including those of the Islamic diaspora in Europe).

We in the United States, the Western Europeans and other allies, as well as moderate Muslims, are engaged in a global battle of ideas, and our enemy is "barbaric if possible and deadly and suicidal if necessary." This battle is against those who want to "destroy the secular Western societies of Europe and the United States, moderate Muslim societies throughout the Middle East, as well as India, Indonesia and Israel, to mention just a few". There is no negotiating our way through this war, that's impossible, and defeat is unthinkable.

The challenge that we in the West face, along with our allies, is to utterly discredit the totalitarian ideologies of jihadism just as we discredited Nazism and communism before. And we need President Bush and all of our leaders" to lead us in the ideological fight just as Ronald Reagan did in the Cold War. "We need to hear from him – and the rest of our leaders – the kind of blunt comparisons we heard from Reagan - that radical Islam enslaves people."

In Jed Babbin's excellent opinion piece at Real Clear Politics, we are reminded of our failure to adequately engage the Islamists in the idealogical battle that is as much a necessity in the War on Terror as the military operations:

(...) We arenÂ’t fighting a war against terrorists to win the hearts and minds of the Middle East. We are fighting it to end the threat of terrorism. Victory canÂ’t be achieved with bullets and bombs alone. This is, at its core, an ideological war. Just as we defeated communism by defeating the communistsÂ’ ideology, we need to attack and destroy that of the radical Islamists.

(...) To do that, we first have to understand that radical Islam – the Islam of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Usama bin Laden and the rest – isn’t a religion. It is an ideology that cobbles totalitarianism together with a messianic vision of religious nationalism. Radical Islam (unlike the actual religion) tolerates no other religion, and demands that its adherents give up the basic human freedoms enshrined in our Bill of Rights. No freedom of speech, no free press, no fair trials by a jury of your peers, only enslavement. Like the Nazis, the radical Islamists play on the sense of persecution and cultural inferiority that many people in underdeveloped nations have because they are truly oppressed. And, like the Nazis, the Islamists have convinced their followers that the problems of their world are the fault of others. The Islamists blame every ill of their world on America, the West, the Jews and Israel. Like the Soviets, the Islamists believe that their enslavement of the world is inevitable (though, unlike the Soviets, they believe it is God’s will that they must succeed). Its adherents, like the Nazis and the Communists before them, believe their victory is both inevitable and irreversible. That is a powerful ideology which we have yet to engage with the necessary weapons.

(...) Our military – comprised of many of the best people our country has ever produced – is winning every fight it enters. But it can’t win the war alone. Our politicians have to do that by fighting the ideological war.

(...) President Bush needs to lead us in the ideological fight just as Ronald Reagan did in the Cold War. We need to hear from him – and the rest of our leaders – the kind of blunt comparisons we heard from Reagan. Radical Islam enslaves people.

Read all of "Fighting the Ideological War".

Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., a Senior Research Fellow in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation, offers agreement with Babbin (above) that we are engaged in an ideological battle, and in referring to the latest violent convulsion in Iraq, he says that this homicidal rage has nothing to do with the United States. It has everything to do with the political ideology of militant Islam: more...

Posted by: Richard@hyscience at 02:21 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 1857 words, total size 13 kb.

Jewish terrorists: throw firecrackers.

Muslim terrorists: bombs.

A lot of nuts in the world. Some are more deadly than others.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:32 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

I got this letter from a Muslim urging me to refrain from making fun of his religion (scroll down), so I felt it necessary to respond publicly.

As regular readers know, I'm totally cool with Muslims. It's Islam I don't like. As a non-Muslim, I can't know what true Islam is---just as a non-Catholic and non-Protestant I can't know what true Christianity is. That's an internal debate that you Muslims need to be having (and are having) with yourselves.

And even though I don't consider myself a traditional Christian, I do consider myself a follower of Jesus and I've read the Bible dozens of times. So, while I'm not an expert on true 'Christianity', I do have a fairly in depth knowledge of the Old and New Testaments. I do have an opinion, then, on what the Bible says and means.

I have also read the Quran. All of it. Several times. I've also read many of the hadiths (traditions). So, I'm not an expert about true Islam, but I do believe I have enough information to have an opinion on what the Quran says and means.

So, here are my opinions about them.

Old Testament: Pretty bloody horrifying. Luckily, Judaism does not treat the Old Testament as the literal word of God. Further, as the story of the Old Testament unfolds, Jehovah seems to get a lot nicer. Good on you LORD for growing up. (If you don't think that God can handle criticism, then I'd suggest you don't know too many Jews.)

New Testament: Pretty cool, except for all the pacifism stuff. Jesus seems to clearly be a pacifist in my reading. Which is fine, as long as Christians were in the minority. But once Christians became a majority--in other words, once they controlled the state--pacifism doesn't seem all that great to me. Luckily, theology was able to take care of dangerous pacifism. Further, no theologian I know of treats the New Testament as the literal word of God. Even fundamentalists only claim that it was inspired of God--that the words are those of Paul, not God's.

Quran: Pretty frightening. Not only does it have all of the bad stuff from the Old Testament, but Islam treats the words of the Koran as the literal word of God. These are God's words, not Muhammed's (or Gabriel's). The Quran is not a collection of stories, but, as Reza Aslan says, it is the "Divine monologue."

If these are God's words, then I'm a monkey's uncle. Either I am very wrong about God being a pretty cool dude, or the God described in the Quran is not God at all. In fact, Allah, if we take him at his word (as he himself reveals it in the Quran), is an asshole. He's worse than Hitler.

So, I won't apologize for making fun of the Quran. I do not believe it is the word of God. If I'm wrong, and Allah is God, then he certainly does not deserve to be worshipped or followed. Further, I do not believe that it has any redeeming value whatsoever. I do not believe any of it. None.

Hadiths: Don't teach us much, except that Muhammed is not someone I would like to hang out with. He was a pedophile. He marries a 6 year old, but we are to believe that it's okay, because he really doesn't have sex with Aisha until she's 9. Yeah, that makes everything better. He is a genocidal maniac. He wipes out entire tribes. He's a fascist. He thinks it's cool to kill any one who gives up the faith. So, no I don't believe he was a Prophet.

There is no God named Allah and Muhammed is not a Prophet.

Incidentally, I don't believe Sidhartha actually found enlightenment under the Bodi tree. But I have a great deal of respect for the Buddha. I don't believe that Baha'u'llah was a Prophet. But I do have a great deal of respect for the content of his writings and the Baha'i faith.

Muhammed, I have no respect for. It's not so much that I reject him as a Prophet--there are a lot of people who I don't accept as a Prophet, but whom I respect--as it is that he was a sick S.O.B. who also had a lot of destructive things to say.

If you want to follow Muhammed that's your right. But it is also my right to criticize him. If you want me to refrain from criticizing him, then I'd first suggest that you take away my right to bear arms. Because, you will find that I will give up both of those rights over my cold, dead body.

If you want me to end my criticism, then you'll have to first convince me that Muhammed and the Quran are worth respect. Since I've read a lot of the hadiths, and the entire Quran, I know better.

If it makes you feel better, if your Quran actually doesn't have all the bad stuff in it, and you don't take as authoritative the stuff about Muhammed screwing a child and engaging in genocide, then I'm totaly hip to your Islam. But, then, your Islam is not traditional Islam. In that case, I'm not criticizing Islam as you know it, or the Quran as you know it, or Muhammed as you know him, but I am criticizing some other Islam, some other Quran, and some other Muhammed.

If such is the case, what is the problem?

My response is below. UPDATE: Here is Bluto's response. Here is Howie's response. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 11:09 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 1446 words, total size 12 kb.

Via NRO.

All I want to say about this now is what I said on my blog about the word "manifesto." It just sounds so....Marx. Kaczynski, even.

Anyway, read it for yourself. more...

Posted by: Vinnie at 06:55 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 774 words, total size 5 kb.

A dual between Andrew McCarthy (No, Islam can't be reformed) and Mansoor Ijaz (Yes, Islam can be reformed). Start at the top and read the whole thing. (via Robert)

Update: Ground State has some good commentary here on the futility of non-Muslims becoming theologans. By their fruits, ye shall know them. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 04:05 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

Many supporters of the Bush Administration are making the claim that the UAE is an ally of the U.S., and any questions regarding the wisdom of letting a company owned by Dubai operate U.S. ports must therefore be motivated out of irrational prejeduce. While it may be true that the UAE--and especially Dubai--have been cooperative in letting U.S. ships make ports of call, helped establish a CIA station, and allow U.S. planes to refuel there, is this all that it takes to become an 'ally' of the U.S.?

Aaron has been posting data on U.N. votes the past couple of days. So, who is America's strongest ally--as measured by percent of votes alligned with the U.S. in the United Nations?

Palau at 100% in 2004. Don't worry, I had to look it up too! Did you know, for instance, that we've have a free trade agreement with Palau since 1993? Me either. That giant sucking sound you hear are all the jobs going to Palau!

Next to the tiny grouping of islands, who is our greatest ally in the U.N.?

Israel, which was 100% in 20004, 93% in 2002-03, and 100% in 2001.

How does the UAE compare? The UAE, our allies according to President Bush, voted with the U.S. 12.5% of the time in 2004. In 2001 and in 2003 the UAE voted 0% of the time with the U.S. In 2002 they voted with us 17.6% of the time.

That's an average of 7.5% of agreement in the U.N. with the U.S. after 9/11 (if we include 2001). Don't believe me? Go look at the data yourself.

If you'll remember, the Bush Administration makes the claim that after 9/11 the UAE made a strategic decision to become a U.S. ally. So, if that claim were true, you'd expect that before 2001, the UAE must have supported the U.S. position in the UN even more.

2000 30%
1999 33%
1998 32%
1997 34%
---------

Pre-911 four year average = 32%
Post-911 four year average = 7.5%

Are the United Arab Emirates allies of the U.S.? You do the math.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:59 AM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Interesting, but I need more information... how many votes actually occurred each of those years? What was the nature of the votes when they agreed with us? How many of these votes are general assembly votes and how many are security council votes? Also, the idea that our allies would agree with us the most is kinda blown out of the water by Somalia voting the closest to us in 2003 and 2004 and Iraq only voting with us 25% of the time. It could be that while the UAE is an ally, they do have different interests from us when it comes the the UN - or at least the things that the UN has votes on. While I'm not the biggest fan of having a government owned company controlling the ports (and that would be foriegn or domestic governments) - I'm not entirely sure that the port deal is a bad thing. Dubai has shown itself to be a somewhat modern place - even tolerant (see Smash's post) - and I'm thinking that those are not people that we want to push away. If this is a war against the violent wing of Islam, than don't we want to have the modernish, capitalistic version of Islam on our side? If we want to say that no foriegn government owned company can have a contract for port control in this country, fine - but that's going to screw up the west coast where the Chi-com owned COSCO controls a few ports.

Posted by: KG at March 01, 2006 11:50 AM (SZsz5)

2 KG, All of them are GA votes, since the UAE is not on the Security Council. Of course votes reflect differing national interests--but that is definitional. The higher percentage of votes, then, should reflect congruence of national interests. And alliances, again by definition, are built on mutual interests. The higher the percentage of vites, the more mutual interests. Clearly the interests of the U.S. and the interests of the UAE are different.

Posted by: Rusty at March 01, 2006 12:09 PM (JQjhA)

3 KG Somalia ??? I didn't think that was still really a country, I thought it was just some ummmm place. And the UAE still has slavery !! Me thinks it may have beeen better idea about starting democracy amongnst are friends in the mideast rsther than trying to begin it with our enemies.

Posted by: john ryan at March 01, 2006 12:18 PM (TcoRJ)

4 shame. I would have expected a much better analysis from John "do the math" ryan ;/

Posted by: dave at March 01, 2006 12:25 PM (CcXvt)

5 Rusty General Assembly votes on what? Everything? (Think not) Rusty - you and I both know that the UN/General Assembly is a bloated meaningless and worthless organization - they have "votes" on virtually everything and anything - (like our own Congress or State Houses) - including tons of stupid stuff like National Flower Week, Be Kind to Lefthanded Black Secretaries Month etc. So what's Aron counting? I already know he is cherrypicking votes according to criteria and interest to him. Not a Single piece of detailed information other than his "percentages" is provided. I don't like it when CBS does this - and I don't like it when Aron does it. While I can probably agree with Aron on most things - I find this approach more personally insulting to my intelligence than anything else. Some people have a problem with this deal - I can understand that. But a lot of people are being dishonest about their motives - and there is a temendous amount of ignorance involved also. I know - I have "proof" and will point it out later. Some Dems and the left also recognize the truth - which is why they are playing this so hard.

Posted by: hondo at March 01, 2006 01:35 PM (fyKFC)

6 Hondo, If I'm not mistaken, these are ALL votes.

Posted by: Rusty at March 01, 2006 03:12 PM (JQjhA)

7 Rusty I've seen Aron's "chart" and I don't buy it. Don't tell me you didn't notice the other's on the list and their percentages and didn't raise an eyebrow. I'd like an explanation from Aron particularly on the 0.0 percenters - the GA also votes on meaningless fluff things likes stamps and pretty animals.

Posted by: hondo at March 01, 2006 03:24 PM (fyKFC)

8 I still can't believe it. People are allowing their attention to be diverted from the most important issue regarding the UAE DPW deal. Try looking at the larger picture instead of allowing yourselves to be drowned in far less than relevant details. Yes, there are obvious irregularities and "conflicts of interest" involved, in this little deal really, which are of concern surely. These are sides issues of less importance though, in comparison to the fact that ownership or control, when not both, of our entire infrastructure has already been sold to foreign corporations. It is not just our seaports which have been sold off over the last four Presidential administrations. If only that were all there is to it. No, also our airports, railways system, trucking companies, highways and toll roads, bridges, hospitals, national retail chains, shipping companies, and even most of what little domestic industrial capacity left here to us in the US, have already been sold off. For whatever reason, whether by design or by accident, the public has become aware of some of this because of the DPW of the UAE Ports deal. The electronic media however has not told even half the story. For example DPW is not buying control of a mere 6 ports, but 21 ports in fact. Thus far media coverage has focused on the sensationalist possibilities, which I am certain the Bush admin, both can and will put to rest as they proceed with the deal. Media coverage is also making this a very sensationalized partisan issue. Clearly however both US Parties have been fully complicit all along, in selling control and ownership of our entire infrastructure, to the multinational corporate alliance. This same global confederation of Big Corps, doing all the buying, has no loyalty to any nation state. In fact this multinational corporate alliance, is becoming more powerful in wealth (the one true power) than all national governments put together, and they are doing it through the buying of the infrastructure within all nations, everywhere, not just here in the US. Well what can we expect of the media? It too is owned and controlled by, the very same multinational corporate alliance. Now if you think objections raised about the UAE DPW ports deal, are merely partisan in nature, then please consider the following. John Buchanan lamented Clinton doing the same thing, back when Bill was President. {excerpted under fair use] A Chinese Naval Base -- at Long Beach by Patrick J. Buchanan March 13, 1997 "And last year, Johnny Chung, who gave $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee, showed up for a Clinton radio broadcast at the White House, with six Chinese in tow, including an adviser of Cosco. The president begged off being photographed with his guests, which raises a question: If Bill Clinton is leery of being seen with these characters, why is he giving them a Long Beach naval base?... Does anyone care about national security anymore?" Read the rest here http://www.buchanan.org/pa-97-0313.html [end excerpt] As you can see the selling off of America is NOT a partisan issue. Bush too is selling off our infrastructure. But why would a supposed conservative hell bent on National Security, and improving our economy, sell off our infrastructure? Really, it doesn't matter what foreign outfit he sells them to, or which party is involved in this sort of thing now obviously. The question really is why? Bush does not need the money, and it didn't go to him. I guess. So what the hell is going on? We shall hear the official story, endlessly ad nauseam, whether we wish to or not. So lets take a look at it from another perspective also. Could globalization have anything to do with this, and does that have anything to with Globalism? Of course it does. What the hell is Globalism, and who are these guys anyway? Now that is THE question, and here is the answer. George W Bush, like his father, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, as are both Bill and Hillary Clinton, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove, Donnie Rumsfeld, and yes of course John Kerry and other phony liberals and phony conservatives. WHAT THE HELL!? WHO ARE THESE GUYS? The Council on Foreign Relations strongly advocates such deals, referring to the practice as "proactive global interdependence", touting it also as a necessary step toward WORLD GOVERNMENT. That's right. the CFR is a Globalist organization. They want a world government, 'and' they want to 'be' that world government. How could they ever hope to accomplish this?! Well, nobody is stopping them, and they can certainly afford it, because "they" are also BIG OIL not just here in the US but everywhere on earth. Now that is some serious economic power right there. The CFR along with the Bilderburg Group seems to be the headship of globalization, and they have long advocated "Corporate Powerbuilding" as a means to outstrip governments in wealth, in order to then subvert governments everywhere, through direct economic influence. It sure seems to be working doesn't it? Oh by the way. Did I mention that Bush Jr and Sr, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Carl Rove, John Kerry, and others you have heard of recently, are also members of the Bilderburg Group? SURPRISE! They are! So is the owner of FOX and many other media owners, major newscasters, and yes even some cute and fuzzy pundits are members too. Hello, Rush? Is that why you are so well fed? How could it even be possible, for this group of super wealthy corporate heads 'and' heads of state the world over, to ever hope to take over governments all over the world? Can they do it? Well obviously, they have so much money now, they can both buy the infrastructure 'and' the political cooperation necessary to that possible. In effect they are buying the world as we speak. Both Clinton and Bush, and Reagan and Carter, and Ford, and others, have been selling our nation all along, like, well, like hotcakes. How does that make you feel? Wont it be wonderful?! Imagine the same ethic displayed by EXXON, McDonalds, "The Good Guys", WAL-MART and that place you slave at, applied mercilessly on a global scale without the government or civil restrictions now protecting you. Wont it be great?! Do you think maybe they (repubs and dems alike), got us all so divided and blinded with partisan squabbling, thanks Rush, that we didn't notice what they were up to in secret behind our backs? Ya think? I mean do you think at all? Does anybody think anymore? "Fascism should more rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merging of State and Corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

Posted by: Natasha at March 01, 2006 03:26 PM (i6py+)

9 This is a cut & paste repost of a cut & paste article. Is this a bulletin board and a filesharing publication database ... or a commentary blog? Natasha - you can post your own topics and LINK to your article/file library rather than forcing all to subscribe to your magazine/newletter! This is SPAM - and I don't give a damn its ideologically orientated! If this is not a blog, then I and others maybe should go hang out at Bluto's place for awhile - and pump up his numbers and chat.

Posted by: hondo at March 01, 2006 03:46 PM (fyKFC)

10 I think this is good reason to re-examine the Dubai Ports World deal. Another good reason is that Dubai Ports World has participated in an Arab anti-Israel boycott. I also have no problem with refusing to deal with the UAE because they were backward enough to recognize the Taliban. Security concerns are not a reason. Responsibility for port security remains the bailiwick of the Department of Homeland Security. It doesn't matter who ministers some of the port terminals.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 01, 2006 03:56 PM (RHG+K)

11 hondo, Not it is not. I wrote this. Although I did post another version of my article earlier, this is an updated version of it and not identical. I suggest that you do some work, and endeavor to come up with a counter argument, instead of merely trying to silence me as you are so fond of doing.

Posted by: Natasha at March 01, 2006 04:14 PM (i6py+)

12 Bluto Fair enough - examination from those points is a good start and I would love to tackle it. The "Security" aspect is BS and bugging the shit out of me. Guess your blog is a good place to start - free of newsletters, magazine articles, thesis', treatises etc. (unless linked for reference).

Posted by: hondo at March 01, 2006 04:19 PM (fyKFC)

13 C&P What's the matter - got tired of handing out pamphlets and newsletters at airport terminals and bus stations? Figure you can "publish" here for free? Argue what! New requirement for Rusty's blog - research papers and policy statements 1000 words or more? What's next - scanned charts and diagrams to accompany re-printed articles. No one is silencing you - but you are just another version of SPAM, and you damn well know it. I'll "publish" in the proper venue - you want to hijack this blog - knock yourself out.

Posted by: hondo at March 01, 2006 04:32 PM (fyKFC)

14 How can anyone responsibly claim that our National security is not an issue? The little commercial for bluto's Blog, oft having fatwas issued against it at that, is really rather odd also. All freight containers entering Honk Kong are checked, while only 5% or less entering our ports are checked.

Posted by: Natasha at March 01, 2006 04:43 PM (i6py+)

15 You guys should stay on topic. Your personal attacks and wrongheaded claims about whose comments are acceptable and whose are not, are clearly your attempts, to divert us all away from the topic.

Posted by: Natasha at March 01, 2006 04:48 PM (i6py+)

16 That's right - it's all part of the conspiracy. hondo spelled backwards is Odnoh - have fun gogglin' that one.

Posted by: hondo at March 01, 2006 05:02 PM (fyKFC)

17 Natasha, you answered your own question. The fact that 5% or less of incoming containers are searched means that we have a serious national security issue regardless of who is administering commerce in certain port terminals. I point out that this issue has nothing to do with the boots on the ground performing actual security functions and everything to do with grossly incompetent administrators who squander funding and mismanage personnel. I'm a co-blogger here. That means I can publish pretty much whenever and whatever I want. Fatwahs are self-issued by tracking back to a post on The Jawa Report. Anyone with a blog who sends a trackback gets a fatwah. By the way, Rusty loved my Olympics sport rating post.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 01, 2006 06:12 PM (RHG+K)

18 Bluto, You can post pretty much whatever you want. Fine with me. I still wish hondo would stay on topic instead of telling me that my contribution is unacceptable. I don't understand why you said, "By the way, Rusty loved my Olympics sport rating post." I don't see at all what that has to do with this thread. Would you drop the personal issues please? This is a serious matter. You also wrote, "The fact that 5% or less of incoming containers are searched means that we have a serious national security issue regardless of who is administering commerce in certain port terminals" Obviously I agree. You wrote also, "Natasha, you answered your own question. The fact that 5% or less of incoming containers are searched means that we have a serious national security issue regardless of who is administering commerce in certain port terminals. I point out that this issue has nothing to do with the boots on the ground performing actual security functions and everything to do with grossly incompetent administrators who squander funding and mismanage personnel. I answered my own question? I stated it as rhetorical because I beleive the answer is obvious. Of course I agree with you however, that it doesn't matter who checks that mere 5% since we are left wide open for the lack of thoroughness, regardless of who does the checking. It really is a moot point entirely isn't it? The media dwells on it using it as smokescreen. How can people notice all of the glaring discrepancies regarding security, and yet fail to to pull back and even consider, the larger picture I wrote of in my opening post?

Posted by: Natasha at March 01, 2006 07:49 PM (i6py+)

19 Debunking the Claim that the UAE is a strong ally in the GWOT: U.N. votes analyzed Er, Aron's percent chart/poll was the er, topic thread - OK? Bluto - Natasha's into the world global conspiracy thing - the issue(s) at hand are just interwoven with it for dramatic effect - but, you've already picked up on that too.

Posted by: hondo at March 01, 2006 08:01 PM (fyKFC)

20 Natasha, I was responding to your 4:43 post, I haven't read your opening post. I mentioned the Olympic sports thread to see if you had developed a sense of humor yet. Alas, no.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 02, 2006 01:00 AM (RHG+K)

21 KG, say I wrote books and appeared on TV saying I was going to murder one of your loved ones. Who the hell cares about doing business with me, right? It's that simple. We need a new Jackson-Vanik amendment to make illegal doing business with hostile (see the voting record) and evil (see the Freedom House report) regimes. Ask anyone who survived the Iron Curtain how effective tying trade to human rights improvements is. How about this... US legislation prohibiting trade to any nation that denies the legitimacy of another nation in good standing in the UN. Isn't THAT what the UN is also supposed to do instead of funneling money to Kofi's son, the French and Russians? When I read stuff like your rationalizations, I'm scared that we didn't learn anything about totalitarianism from 65 years ago and we'd do as little as FDR did to prevent another Holocaust. Just the anti-Israel boycott is sufficient to deny the deal. With a Texas drawl, it SHOULD be easy for Dubya to say "Hey, Sheikh... In Texas we don't do business with people who go out of their way to hurt our friends." Moreover, given the Saudi-pensioned State Department, this deal STINKS. As we learned from Watergate... rule #1 in journalism is FOLLOW THE MONEY. Until the fine print is on the web for us to read, we should be screaming bloody murder to prevent this deal. When someone says "trust me", my first instinct is to make sure my wife and kids are safe and then I check to see if my wallet is still in my pocket. If someone wants trust, PUBLISH THE ENTIRE DEAL ONLINE.

Posted by: Aaron's cc: at March 02, 2006 04:08 AM (ov6Vw)

22 Aaron's cc wrote, "As we learned from Watergate... rule #1 in journalism is FOLLOW THE MONEY.' Finally someone with some awareness! Welcome welcome welcome

Posted by: Natasha at March 02, 2006 10:35 PM (i6py+)

23 Bluto wrote, "I mentioned the Olympic sports thread to see if you had developed a sense of humor yet. Alas, no." Oh quibble dear Bluto. I certainly do have one. For example last night on The Colbert Report, Steve had words on the screen saying, reference Bush, "A Mighty Fortress Is His Brain". I nearly fell of the couch for laughing so hard!

Posted by: Natasha at March 02, 2006 10:40 PM (i6py+)

24 No you don't. Like everything else - you only think you do.

Posted by: hondo at March 03, 2006 12:50 AM (fyKFC)

25 UN votes? Measuring Stick? Are you going to be O K? This Blog is sounding more like Kos?? WTF is this? I really don't know where to come down on this, but if indeed the U.A.E is a strong ally in the WOT,contributed strongly, has changed it's ways? What would be GB's motive for Lying about this? Or are u stating he is jus stupid? I've heard that also from the Looney Left! Be interested in knowing Kuwait's, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, etc.'s voting records as well! Very weak, Rabbit! I've come to expect better from this Blog! U disappoint greatly!

Posted by: Mike at March 05, 2006 06:08 PM (2tRi8)

26 Hey Steve. Are you really going to wipe it and close it down?

Posted by: hondo at March 05, 2006 08:37 PM (i6py+)

27 No way hondo. We can pull this out of the fire. We need Frank to tell us how to block Natasha and protect IDs though. Do you know where his Dad took him on vacation? We don't even have a number to reach him at. My bad. Man that was a blunder on my part. I still say we can get an A+++++. We will prove that people will accept any truth we want them to as long as it is well packaged. Her it worked for Bush and Cheney. Don't worry man.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 05, 2006 08:42 PM (i6py+)

28 No way hondo. We can pull this out of the fire. We need Frank to tell us how to block Natasha and protect IDs though. Do you know where his Dad took him on vacation? We don't even have a number to reach him at. My bad. Man that was a blunder on my part. I still say we can get an A+++++. We will prove that people will accept any truth we want them to as long as it is well packaged. Hey it worked for Bush and Cheney. Don't worry man.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 05, 2006 08:42 PM (i6py+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment