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

The Sun via Charles Johnson:

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

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

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

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

Mike Malloy from Air America:

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

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

More here (hat tip Dean)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IRAQ: DEAL ON NEW PRIME MINISTER, SAY REPORTS

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

more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide Comments | Add Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Foreign Military Studies Office Joint Reserve Intelligence Center.

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

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

SOme chicks die after taking the kill your child pill.

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

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

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

Go Figure.

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

Attack the Useful Idiots, that is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go check out John's take here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Fantastic idea.... Run with it.

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

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

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

6 hackers do not create botnets.

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

Hide Comments | Add Comment

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

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

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

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

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

Here is how Rasmussen worded the question:

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

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

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

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

1 oh god. Another non-scandal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Oyster! GAWD! THE LANGUAGE!

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

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

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

10 You go on with your bad self girl.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide Comments | Add Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide Comments | Add Comment

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

Via Cagey Mind this from the Sac Bee:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listen to the miracle cock crowing for Allah here.

Chad Evans has the backstory.

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

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

My eyes, they burn!

Ahhh, that's better.

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

Kevin McCullugh and I see eye to eye on a lot of things. Public execution is not one of them. More and more of late I've been rethinking my stance on the death penalty. I'm for it in theory, but in practice, I'm not so sure.

Perhaps it's all the Taliban beheading videos I've been watching lately. The most recent one I watched features crowds of people being escorted by the mutilated bodies. They seem to enjoy it. There is something sickening about a culture that would find pleasure in the death of another human being--even when those human beings are disgusting criminals.

However, on another level, I find myself yearning to personally execute the human excriment who did this. WND:

The men and women who this week were arrested in association with the child porn sting carried out by the Justice Department should experience true justice. They should be dragged to Times Square in New York City, hands tied behind their backs, and their crimes should be announced to the packed square and an international TV audience. They should be given no more than two minutes to sort out their business with God.

And then ... they should go meet Him!

They should have their necks stretched, a bullet placed in the back of their heads, or a dozen bowling balls tied to their necks and dropped into the ocean. Or all three.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:11 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I see nothing wrong with publicly executing filth like this. That story so turns my stomache I would be more then glad to send them to their maker and face my time in court. But what I would do would not be quick, nor painless. To rape your own toddler and to broadcast it to others, he deserves more pain then I could inflict on him. If any one disagrees with me fine, welcome to the US, the land of open debate. An animal like that needs to be used as a lesson to others of it's kind, and no, 15 years in prison will not send a good enough message. Semper Fi Sean

Posted by: SPO at March 17, 2006 08:27 AM (OZn2O)

2 There are people that are just not fit to live. Public executions I think might be a real incentive NOT to be doing heinous things. There's always going to be people who enjoy watching, but I'm all for it. Take the scum that murdered Carlie Burcia. These kinds of murders seem to happen all the time. As a society, we need to make a statement that this will NOT be tolerated.

Posted by: Richard at March 17, 2006 09:00 AM (7KF8r)

3 I could agree with abolishing the death penalty, in exchange for a complete abortion ban. Stop killing the unborn, then we can stop killing the born.......

Posted by: n.a. palm at March 17, 2006 09:09 AM (UBf/U)

4 Hang 'em High. They deserve it.

Posted by: Palm Boy at March 17, 2006 09:28 AM (fcFPZ)

5 Child molsters should be removed far away from any kids very far away

Posted by: sandpiper at March 17, 2006 09:45 AM (D9h75)

6 As much as I believe the death penalty to be the strongest deterent to crime, for some death is too kind. As in this case. Don't kill them, then "they won't learn nothin'." Let their trial be "to the pain" (Inigo, you should know this one.) Put them in the nastiest prison in the country, in general population, and make sure everyone knows what they did to get there. Cause, cons hate a child molester as much as we do. Let them spend the rest of their days being utilized in the same fashion as they did their own child. They will surely die there, let their death be excruciatingly long and painful.

Posted by: Sly2017 at March 17, 2006 10:18 AM (UADHi)

7 I've come around to the idea that no one should have the type of control over a person's life that abortion and the death penalty have. BUT there must always be exceptions. Regarding abortion, if the mother's life is in danger, a choice has to be made. Regarding the death penalty, there are those people that are no more than rabid dogs, that are so obviously guilty, that have committed deeds so beyond forgiveness, that are so entrenched in their murderous philosophy that only the ground itself can rehabilitate them into something useful. Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Milosevic all fit that category, as I'm sure do others.

Posted by: Ernie Oporto at March 17, 2006 10:28 AM (/lpvu)

8 Wow. I would be totally against a public showing of brutality regardless of the crime. I'm a cautious supporter of capital punishment, but no where near to the degree of doing it publicly. It's exactly that sort of barbarity we fight against. While we may privately entertain the literal idea of an eye for an eye thinking that it simply rewards people with justice, in effect what we're doing is sacrificing one more part of what humanity we as civilized people have left. The execution of another person is a solemn occasion, not a sport.

Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 10:48 AM (g9UJq)

9 Likewise Oyster, I agree with the death penalty, but public executions have always been valuable tools of the totalitarian Government to exercise control by fear, or a tool of religious authorities to exercise compliance, like the executions in Afghanistan soccer stadiums, beheadings in Saudi Arabia, hangings in Iran. It's a road I would not like to see opened.

Posted by: davec at March 17, 2006 11:06 AM (CcXvt)

10 'Zactly, Dave. I was thinking about this last night, but having been drunk, I can't remember if I commented on it ;-) A good friend of mine is in Kuwait City right now and last I spoke to him he said everyone was talking about the public hanging that was to occur in a few days time. Regardless of what it was for (in his case it was for possession of alcohol!) people were cheerful and planning for the day's outing to the execution. UGH! Does that give any idea of what kind of slippery slope this is?

Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 11:58 AM (g9UJq)

11 It just makes me shake my head.

Posted by: Jack at March 17, 2006 12:30 PM (aFawc)

12 Tough subject. On the one hand I endorse the death penalty yet have no desire to see an execution so I suppose that makes me a hypocrite. I could and would witness one if the condemned had murdered a loved one though. I suppose if we have jury duty we should have hangman's duty as well, though the feeble and otherwise infirm would rightfully have to be excused. We wouldn't want Granny falling down the steps of the gallows now would we? On the other hand, I doubt the Public would flinch no more over a hanging or gassing or the chair or lethal injection than they would a violent, graphic movie. We shouldn't kid ourselves by thinking stoning or beheading is less humane because it takes longer. A good old fashioned firing squad is darn hard to beat in my books, though I don't think the family of the victim should be billed for the cost of bullets like is done in China.

Posted by: goesh at March 17, 2006 01:04 PM (vX0fY)

13 trial first ?

Posted by: john ryan at March 17, 2006 01:05 PM (TcoRJ)

14 I'm with Sly on this one. Let the scum spend the rest of their days picking up the soap that their new best friend Bubba dropped in the prison shower. Just before they slipped and hit their heads on the toilet. 17 times.

Posted by: CUS at March 17, 2006 01:34 PM (bbXZq)

15 (I hate these damn errors and my comment goes poof!) Goesh, I think you're trying to equate two very different things. There's a vast difference between Hollywood fantasy and and a public, real life execution. I'd even say there's a big difference between seeing a real execution on TV, or a Hollywood movie or actually attending. Three levels of immersion there. You know we have to think too about innocent family members and the damage it would do to them. -------------------------- And John Ryan, yes, of course - a trial first.

Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 02:09 PM (g9UJq)

16 Dude, they frack children! I call for executions on pay per view, with a running man format, and Ann Coulter as host. Unless Richard Dawson wants the gig. Gawd, that would be sweet!

Posted by: Princess Kimberley at March 17, 2006 02:45 PM (9xjdU)

17 Not only execute these filthy humans, you must torture and execute their entire families as retribution. Thier mothers, fathers, children, cousins, everyone.

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 17, 2006 03:01 PM (p74Yq)

18 I give up.

Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 04:11 PM (g9UJq)

19 Not only execute these filthy humans, you must torture and execute their entire families as retribution. Thier mothers, fathers, children, cousins, everyone. How far removed would you have to be to not get whacked, Leatherneck? As for the method of execution, the James Bond movies provide a ton of creatively gruesome possibilities. My favorites: Getting sliced in half by a high-powered laser, starting at the nuts (Goldfinger), getting dropped into a shark tank (The Spy Who Loved Me) or out of an airborne vehicle without a parachute (A View To A Kill), getting locked in a car that is then crushed into a cube (Goldfinger again, although in that case the guy was already dead), or, well, just about any actual or attempted offing done in Licence To Kill.

Posted by: Joshua at March 17, 2006 04:17 PM (2c7xL)

20 I think we all need to go back to hangings myself.. done right, it is quick and painless.. I'm guessing not cruel and unusual.. maybe to someone watching.. charles manson would be one to hang, and any other child molesters who are guilty...

Posted by: The Other Dave at March 17, 2006 05:19 PM (o03mE)

21 Oyster: Slippery slope? Slippery slope?!?! There USED to be public executions in America and Europe, and I know of no accounts from those days of businesses involved in the rape of infants and children as entertainment for live audiences. The REAL slippery slope is that which makes it progressively less risky to engage in felonious activity, and I think we as a nation are nearing its bottom. My ideal punishment for these wastes of skin? Place them in small cages with their hands tied above their heads. Then allow the public to pay for the privilege of reaching in, metal spoon in hand, and ripping a chunk of flesh from their bodies. An eyelid. An eye. A flap of scalp wrapped in blood-matted hair. A lip. A scrotum, or a penis, or a testicle. A prostate extracted transrectally. And just to be equal opportunity, a labia majora, labia minora, or clitoris. A nipple. A length of intestine pulled out through the belly button. A set of vocal cords. A tongue pulled out through the hole where the vocal cords used to be. A heart, with double your money back if it's still beating. A chunk of lung pulled out from between the ribs. A length of muscle peeled from the bone. Hell, just a blob of belly fat. Anything anyone can imagine. And just for good measure, IV fluids will be administered to prolong life, and bleeding wounds cauterized with a blowtorch. There are some people whose existence ought not be tolerated by a civilized society, and child molesters are at the very top of that list.

Posted by: Guncrazy at March 17, 2006 08:48 PM (xtzF2)

22 Guncrazy: Are you seriously suggesting that 'public' executions would be much more of a deterrent than the ones they have now? 'oh no! someone might be mocking me and having a picnic while they're killing me'

Posted by: davec at March 17, 2006 10:58 PM (CcXvt)

23 "There USED to be public executions in America and Europe, and I know of no accounts from those days of businesses involved in the rape of infants and children as entertainment for live audiences." Don't put words in my mouth. And take note of the words "used to be". There's a reason for that. It's called civilization. You don't like "slippery slope"? Okay, how about "backslide"?

Posted by: Oyster at March 18, 2006 06:22 AM (YudAC)

24 McCullough twists the truth on the execution of Lincoln's assasins to make his point. If you have to lie to make an argument what does that say for the argument? The biggest problem that I have with executing criminals is the fact that the government does it. Every day blogs just like this one are filled with items about how badly government does things. I don't think a government that steals money from our pockets to fund a $255 bridge to nowhere is trustworthy.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at March 18, 2006 01:49 PM (oF7U/)

25 Right or wrong, my opinion is that these animals do not deserve to live among humans. Furthermore, although her physical wounds may heal, that child's soul has been shattered, irreparably. Long into her adult life (IF she allows herself to live, some victims do not!) she will have vague shadows of memory, or perhaps vivid memories of the pain, not to mention the loss of innocence, the absolute abandonment of trusting anyone to keep her safe. I don't have the answer, only my opinion, but I DO KNOW THIS - this is NOT what God had in mind for this child. I hope that she does not have to grow up in a world so sick that it allowed her father to get away with HIS life intact after this horrific act. As the mother of a victim of a sick tortured mind, I watched my daughter suffer every day for the rest of her life, even though she tried and tried to "understand" and "get past it". Violently molested at the age of 23 months, she took her own life at the age of 13. In her own words, "I know this is a permanent solution to a 'temporary' situation, but I'm just too damned tired to try even one more day." It was the day that her molester was paroled from prison, free as a bird... the end of any freedom she may have ever known. I say "hang the bastards!'

Posted by: Sandy at March 18, 2006 10:35 PM (f5Luo)

Hide Comments | Add Comment