Fatwa issued against Sobek for "A brief conversation between Ted Kennedy and a dead hooker in the trunk of his car."

Posted by: Rusty at 02:25 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

I just received an e-mail from the "IAVI: Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America" which claims to be "the nation's first and largest organization for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." The group's "Operation Truth" will be showing a film called "Why We Fight" in L.A. and New York later this week.

Both the e-mail and their various websites (including Troopnet) leave the reader with the misimpression that the group is about veteran's advocacy. It is not. It is a thinly veiled antiwar front.

The group's founder is an antiwar activist who occasionally blogs at the Left Wing Huffington Post. Does this sound like some one who speaks for veterans?

We applaud Congressman Murtha for having the courage to stand up in front of the nation and offer his honest assessment of the war in Iraq, including the shortcomings he sees in the execution of the war. Having served honorably as a Marine for decades, and with war experience in Vietnam, we know he did not take his statement lightly.

His decision today to ask the tough questions is a tribute to his patriotism.

If it’s true that someone lied to the American people to advance their narrow agenda of either restitution or payback and “cooked” the intelligence, they should be charged with treason.

And what, pray tell, is the "root cause" of modern American wars? The picture above is one attached to the press release. It is of President Eisenhower as he delivers his farewell address warning of the dangers of the "military-industrial complex".

And as all enlightened members of the 'reality-based' community know, the Iraq War was fought so that Halliburton could turn a bigger profit.

If you get an e-mail from the group, please ignore it. If you are a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, please realize the IAVI is a Left-wing antiwar front.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:53 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.

A week ago, James Joyner of Outside the Beltway sent me a link to this post commenting on a column by Stephen Schwartz on the meaning of moderate Islam. He wanted my opinion of it since Schwartz had made a ridiculous statement about the use of the word 'Salafism', and I often use that word to describe the foundational Islamist theology of terrorist organizations. In it, Schwartz makes a lot of claims about a moderate form of Islam which has been hijacked by a more severe form of Wahhabism.

Instead of replying directly to James, I punted and sent the article off to our good friend Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch. Robert has delivered the promise he made to me to rebutt Schwartz's article. Here is a bit of it:

Schwartz then turns back to the Sunnis, asserting that “moderate Sunni Muslims may be recognized in person by asking a simple question: ‘what do you think of Wahhabism, the state Islamic sect of Saudi Arabia?’…If a Sunni Muslim is asked about Wahhabism and states that it is a controversial, extreme doctrine that causes many problems because of Saudi money, the respondent is probably moderate.” In contrast, “If a Sunni denies that Wahhabism exists by saying ‘there is only Islam,’ or tries to cover Wahhabism with an ameliorative term like ‘Salafism’ -- a fraudulent effort to equate Wahhabism with the pioneers of the Islamic faith -- the individual is an extremist.”

But is opposing Wahhabism enough to make one a moderate? After all, the Deobandis in Afghanistan are Hanafi Muslims, not Hanbalis like the Wahhabis — but they had no trouble making common cause in jihad with the Wahhabis. What’s more, the passages of the Qur’an and Hadith that jihadists invoke to justify their actions weren’t invented by the Wahhabis; they have always been there and were exploited by Muslims fighting violent jihads long before Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was born.

After all, the primary difference between Wahhabi Islam and more traditional variants of the religion is not jihad warfare against unbelievers, but the Wahhabis’ practice of takfir, or the classification of Muslims of other sects as among those unbelievers. Schwartz accordingly eschews takfir: “Moderate Muslims may also be identified by what they do not do, to contrast them with radicals. And at the top of that list comes the practice of takfir, or declaring Muslims unbelievers over differences of opinion. Takfir also includes describing the ordinary, traditional Muslim majority in the world as having fallen into unbelief.” Very well, but what of jihad against non-Muslims? Schwartz says: “Islam is not, and never was, a radical or fundamentalist religion in its mainstream practice, regardless of the fantasies of Islamist fanatics and Islamophobes alike.” Maybe not, but I’d like to see him define “radical” and “fundamentalist.” Even the Ottoman Empire, of which he is fond, waged aggressive jihad against Christian Europe over a period of centuries. Not radical or fundamentalist? Pardon me if I am not reassured.

Wahhabism is not the problem. Wahhabism is a problem, because it has state sponsors in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to spread its dogma. The problem then is main stream Islam--even moderate Islam.

Moderate is a meaningless term which can only be understood as relative to the society we are talking about. For instance, could a historian distinguish between moderate and extremist Nazis? A moderate Nazi might be said to be one who is thoroughly antisemetic, but who insists that the 'Jewish question' ought to be solved through forced segregation and laws against intermarriage. The word moderate, then, can be used to describe ideologies which only seem moderate when compared to a much more extremist alternative. If that moderate ideology were examined on its own terms it might very well seem extreme.

If the only thing that differentiates moderate Muslims from extremists are a rejection of takfir and of terrorism, then truly the world is full of moderate Muslims. But is that enough?

I have a very simple way to determine if the form of Islam is acceptable to me: does it reject Sharia. That is it.

As a political observe I have no theological interest whatsoever in Islam and could care less if Muhammed was a prophet or not or about Islam's stance on Trinitarian doctrine. I really don't care. What I do care about is whether or not a Muslim believes that law and government ought to be strictly secular in orientation or not.

Even liberal Muslims who believe in the establishment of Sharia carry with them a dangerous and anti-libertarian philosophy. Imagine, for instance, a liberal Sharia court which gives a man a fine for blasphemy. A moderate Sharia court might give the man a light jail sentence. The extremist Wahhabi court might sentence the man to a long sentence or even to death.

In all three cases a form of religious fascism exists. Whether or not we choose to call these varying religious forms moderate or not is really inconsequential. One may be worse than the other, but all three are bad.

The fascism of Franco's Spain was surely more moderate than the fascism of Nazi Germany, but I still would not have wanted to endure it.

As long as Islam embraces Sharia, I will reject Islam as a fascist ideology. Any form of Islam that rejects it is okay in my book.

UPDATE: James Joyner replies here with the usual thoughtful commentary. I also noticed a TB to this post by Ocean Guy, a new blog to me. In it he makes this inciteful comment:

If the Pope is right, then the only difference between extreme, moderate and liberal Muslims is how harshly each would/does treat non-Muslims living in their midst. There are hundreds of years of history which give us clear pictures of the spectrum of treatment that non-Muslims are subjected to under Muslim rule. We'd be wise to learn from them.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:28 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 1016 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Spain was Franco, Yugoslavia was Tito.

Posted by: Venom at January 17, 2006 12:33 PM (dbxVM)

2 I didn't say Tito, I said Franco. If you don't believe me check the post. Only an idiot would say that............... *cough*

Posted by: Rusty at January 17, 2006 12:39 PM (JQjhA)

3 Spending time thinking about what form of islam is what, is like wondering what species of rat transported what species of flea that transmitted what strain of plague that almost wiped out Europe. Islam is the black death of our time, and the onlys solution is to eradicate the rats and fleas that carry it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 17, 2006 12:49 PM (0yYS2)

4 Please forgive me, Rusty.

Posted by: Venom at January 17, 2006 12:58 PM (dbxVM)

5 IM, Seriously, your rhetoric is becoming disgustingly genocidal. We successfully fought against Communism without having to wage war against Communists. This is a battle of ideas. If we only had a society willing to wage the ideological battle we could win.

Posted by: Rusty at January 17, 2006 01:03 PM (JQjhA)

6 But Rusty, you can't make an omelete, etc.

Posted by: youngbourbonprofessional at January 17, 2006 02:44 PM (tdhAh)

7 I expect that there are differences in what Muslims mean when they want 'establishment of Sharia.' I would imagine that many Muslims, like anyone, believe that morality should inform the law. There is a vast difference between that and a theocratic state. Part of the difficulty with Islam is that it established a political, as well as a religious system. This is unlike Christianity although similar to Judaism. The difference with Judaism, is that their political systems were destroyed centuries ago, and they have adapted to other customs and government systems, seperating their Religion from politics. This is not an easy transition to make. Christianity even without a direct political system handed down by its founder shed rivers of blood to make this transition, and it still is far from complete. Islam will have to make this transition as well, but it will be more helpful if we aplaud progress in that direction rather than writing off attempts because they fail to achieve a standard of perfection that we regard highly.

Posted by: Dave Justus at January 17, 2006 02:48 PM (Ttn36)

8 It seems to me that the only difference among extreme, moderate and liberal Muslims is how harshly they would/do treat non-Muslims living under their authority. Your Sharia question comes as close as any question I've heard to identifying a moderate... but, as you infer... does it even matter?

Posted by: Oceanguy at January 17, 2006 03:21 PM (fA7Rx)

9 Rusty, I love the Sharia Test, and I can't imagine a better question. But I doubt you will find many Muslims who don't believe in sharia.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 17, 2006 05:20 PM (rUyw4)

10 Yeah, you're right Rusty, I'm the bad guy, and I'm overreacting. I mean, they're only cutting off a few heads and building nuclear bombs, right? I should just close my eyes and pretend it isn't happening, since that's what pretty much everyone else wants to do. The fact that most Westerners don't even want to hear the truth is proof enough that civilization won't last another hundred years, and the fact that only a small percentage of us are willing and able to fight tells me that it may not take twenty. I'm just glad I'm old enough to not have to worry about living to see the end of civilization, though it would be nice to be around to see all the liberals get their throats cut by their heroes.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 17, 2006 05:23 PM (0yYS2)

11 I'd like to stick around too, Maxi, just to see how it turns out. I'm hopeful, but I believe most of Europe is lost already, lost to pleasure seekers who have no children but want to live like kings off the state. Selfishness and apathy are the two great enemies of the West, and really, it reminds me of Constantinople, the great city that is and can never be Muslim.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 17, 2006 06:44 PM (rUyw4)

12 After having read Sam Harris' The End of Faith, I realized that it is not the fanatics of a religion that are the truly dangerous, it is the moderates that claim the faith is being hijacked. It appears that it is the fanatics that are the true believers, the moderates neither true to their religion nor their society/culture. The vast majority of 'secularized' Moslems continue to enable the fanatics in their pursuit of purity.

Posted by: Tracy Coyle at January 17, 2006 10:03 PM (19JEa)

13 Tracy, you nailed it. I'm less worried about al Qaeda than I am about CAIR and the ACLU.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 18, 2006 11:17 AM (0yYS2)

14 The comments at the top of this blog were about the dumbest I have read yet. First of all, the Taliban were not a group that entered into some kind of equal partnership with the Saudi Wahhabis. They were Hanafi Deobandis who had adopted a fundamentalist outlook. There were already Wahhabis in Afghanistan but they were pure parasites living off Saudi money and were incompetent to rule the country. The Saudis and Pakistanis then picked up the group of Talibs (students) in a Deobandi seminary and Wahhabized them. For example, Hanafi jurisprudence supports visiting graves and praying over the dead but the Taliban forbade it. The proper comparison would be with the Cuban Castroites and the Russians. The Cubans did not start out as Soviet-lining Communists. Castro disliked the Cuban Communists because they were mere Soviet agents. But when the Soviets and Castro got together the Russians realized the Cuban Communists could not rule the country and so they Sovietized the Castroites just as Saudi and Pakistan Wahhabized the Taliban. Deobandis flourish in India where they are fundamentalist but not violent. Of course, Spencer who is not an intellectual any more than he is a serious historian, would never mention such things. As for the claim that one would not have wanted to live under Franco, I wonder how much that chowderhead ever spent in Spain or how much he knows about Francoism? Franco's government saved Jews in the eastern Mediterranean countries like Greece from the Nazis. They also allowed Jews fleeing France to cross Spain to get to the U.S. This isn't a difference? I spent a lot of time in Spain, speak Castilian and Catalan perfectly, and nobody today would compare the Franco regime with the Nazi regime. Not even the Communists make such claims. The Franco regime gave way to a democratic order in a peaceful transition. So: how many places in the world are Muslims waging so-called jihad? Iraq, some Saudi agents in Chechnya, Sudan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and...? Where is there a mass jihad against Christians anywhere? Most of the victims in Sudan are Muslim. Spencer is too dense to even perceive that a jihad can't be a serious war like the Ottomans waged at the same time as it is a terror campaign waged by a small group, any more than the Zapata revolution of 1913 was the same as the Zapatista nonsense of the last few years. A jihad of 100,000 in an organized army is not the same as a so-called jihad of 1,000 extremists, and the fact that he doesn't perceive such things shows that Spencer does not know how to think about history and politics, much less Islam. How many Muslim countries have exclusive sharia at the national level? Only two: Saudi and Iran, although even Iran has kept some civil law from the imperial regime, borrowed from Western law. Sudan tried an exclusive sharia regime but it is pretty well recognized as a failure. How many Muslims are jihadist? Can Spencer answer honestly? I don't think so. If it were more than 15 percent we would all be living in shelters over here. And how many call for the establishment of exclusive sharia, and the suppression of Western law? Nobody serious in French West Africa, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Jordan, Yemen, Oman, the Emirates, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Central Asia, the Balkans, India, or Indonesia. Hmmm. That must be a small isolated section of the Muslim world. Most Muslims in the world want the same system Israel has -- religious law alongside civil law, with an option to choose on a non-compulsory basis. Oh, I forgot, most Muslim countries have the same system. You won't find reading the Spencer incitement literature. Hey, how many of you brave crusaders are ready to go to Iraq and spout your Islamophobia in the vicinity of our troops? Do you think Spencer's books should be distributed by our troops in Iraq? Wouldn't that be helpful? I just sent several packets of my books into Iraq and other Muslim countries and am preparing another tour of medresas, where I lecture. Oh yes, which of you bigots can explain why churches and aynagogues survived in Islamic countries except Saudi, but mosques were not permitted in Europe for 500 years, and synagogues were banned in Spain and Portugal for 400 years? Spain lifted restrictions on Jews in the late 19th century, which is why Franco saved them from the Germans. Don't worry, I won't waste my time reading your answers. One of the bigots asked me in another blog what happened to "the idiot" who told Bush Islam is based on peace... Hmmmm, again. Last time I heard he was running the World Bank. Wolfowitz agrees with me about Islam, although he did not become a Muslim. But what does he know? He isn't a coward hiding behind a screen name.

Posted by: Stephen Schwartz at January 26, 2006 01:56 AM (aG4kk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Mark Dean Esmay's words:

Just for the record? I believe that 5 years from now, people will be saying "We wish we had done that back then when it was easy."

Go ahead and quote it back to me five years from now.

The only real question in my mind is how long it will take and if we can wait for Ahmadinejad to take off his mask and reveal himself in worship to an actual A-bomb, or just that Beneath the Planet of the Apes prop he bought on e-Bay?

Posted by: Rusty at 11:36 AM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Dean is right. Millions died because nobody had the balls to face down Hitler before it was too late. How many must die now, when we have such bloody lessons from history from which we seemingly refuse to learn? The only option that can succeed is the military one. We must invade Iran, destroy the military to the last man and piece of equipment, kill all the mullahs, and allow real elections. Any other options will fail without question.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 17, 2006 11:42 AM (0yYS2)

2 Additionally, just because this particular configuration of mullahs falls from power, it does not mean a new, more friendly Islamic regime is just going to pop up. And to be sure, it will be another Islamist regime. Ayatollah-Lite, maybe. Maybe more like Syria. You know, secular and safe. Oh, wait. Nevermind.

Posted by: Bill Dautrive at January 17, 2006 11:47 AM (G95Uf)

3 First we have to settle an issue with China and Russia. both have big new oil contracts. So some assurance or compensation will have to be given to bring them along. However Iran needs the oil money just as bad if not worse than the world needs the oil. We can and should call Iran's bluff on that one. We can make it longer without Irans oil than Iran can go without the money. Call em on it it will be tought but not as tough as eating sand like they will have to. The oil money keeps Iran fed so if it dries up and Iran cannot support the welfare state it has going now hunger and unrest will develop thus making a revolution more likely. I doubt we will ever be in a better position to use force if we have to that we are now. We have em boxed in. So fi they feel they are in a good postion we can feel just as good about our position.

Posted by: Howie at January 17, 2006 11:57 AM (D3+20)

4 Military action in Iran, YES. Unilaterally, NO. We can write the muslim world off for sure. But we need Western Europe this time, and the damn Democrats. Bush doesn't have the political capital to go this one alone, period. Going it alone would do us more harm than good. Read VDH's take. It's as grim as it gets: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson.asp

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 12:07 PM (8e/V4)

5 Carlos, there is no Western Europe anymore. In case you haven't heard, they're all getting fitted for man-dresses, and arranging to sell their daughters to subhuman muslim scum.

Posted by: Improboulus Maximus at January 17, 2006 12:16 PM (0yYS2)

6 Rusty, I hope you're right about this guy. The question is, is there some way to speed up the acceptance of reality?

Posted by: KG at January 17, 2006 12:27 PM (eRMCR)

7 IM, you make an extremely valid point, even when you put it like that. I spoke with a Frenchman friend of a friend, and he essentially said that given France's large muslim minority, the French government's hands are essentially tied in matters of both internal and foreign policy. This is probably why the Left is so in love with massive muslim immigration to the West. There are no good choices left. It makes me sick to my stomach.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 12:28 PM (8e/V4)

8 It's true Carlos, it's sadly true. There are not enough men left in Europe to do anything about it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 17, 2006 12:50 PM (0yYS2)

9 Isn't "European men" and oxymoron?

Posted by: Rusty at January 17, 2006 01:05 PM (JQjhA)

10 Iran is not Iraq or NK - it is a whole nother ballgame. Shit might eventually go down - but for now - stay cool and frosty. I'm no pussy - but I know this situation is a bitch with no easy solution.

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 01:16 PM (3aakz)

11 With what army? Looks like dubya invaded the country that had been contained, but not the other. Billiant!

Posted by: actus at January 17, 2006 01:54 PM (CqheE)

12 Billiant!

Posted by: Oyster at January 17, 2006 01:57 PM (osKlJ)

13 actus, it's called the AIR FORCE.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 01:58 PM (8e/V4)

14 "it's called the AIR FORCE." that's going to cause regime change? woah.

Posted by: actus at January 17, 2006 02:17 PM (CqheE)

15 I imagine it would if we bombed an Iranian Presdential address to the Mullahs.

Posted by: Brass at January 17, 2006 02:26 PM (6TLEO)

16 >>>that's going to cause regime change? woah is right. I was thinking air strikes on their nukes.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 02:29 PM (8e/V4)

17 actus Its a difficult situation. Does it give you comfort that a radical islamic nation with an actual populist following and a deeply held religious belief of the apocalypse being the beginning of a new order - may well shortly develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them? Granted - their means would be limited in scope and region - but is the real potential of a regional nuclear war appealing to you?

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 02:34 PM (3aakz)

18 It seems to me that the best course of action is the one we are taking. Get other nations involved quickly, get sanctions in place, keep a very strong military presence & possibly state that US policy will be any attacks using WMDs on Israel or any other Western ally will be considered an attack on the US & will prompt a direct proportional response. Possibly bomb their nuclear sites – the ones we know of at least - & hope that internally a regime change occurs. The best pressure would be to have 2 very successful representative forms of government thrive politically & economically on either side of Iran & thus show the Iranian people that their leaders do not have their best interests at heart & are actually more of a hindrance. Until Iraq & Afghanistan thrive on their own, & independent of the US, the extreme anti-western ideologues within Iran (& the Middle as a whole) will still have a voice that is considered valid & just. Show that Islamic countries can adopt a representative approach to governing & involve their own people & succeed & no religious dogma or zealot will be able to argue differently & be creditable. The scary part is waiting for these changes to complete & the reality to settle into the Middle Eastern mind. That is why I believe that Iran is in such a hurry to develop the weapons now. Also a press leak saying the 2 or 3 nuclear subs w/ missiles are sitting off-shore of Iran wouldn’t hurt. But the biggest asset we have is the fact we removed the largest, most aggressive Middle Eastern army, the Iraqi Army, in like 2 weeks & that Saddam was forced to hide out in a hole in the ground. If the UN continues to drag its heels, then make it a NATO issue & involve our allies that way. I’d say do both & try to hurt Iran economically as hard as possible without looking like that is what we are doing.

Posted by: PMain at January 17, 2006 02:35 PM (ImHPa)

19 This is not a regime that can be decapitated. Its built around a fanatically dedicated significant minority of believers - who curently have the support (sometimes tepid) of additional segments of Iranian society. Whatever opposition there is (and there is!) is currently isolated - but!!!... the opposition is not religiously motivated and more nationalistic! That is one dangerous combination! The mullahs may end up wanting war and a means of national unity! This is a tough one!

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 02:45 PM (3aakz)

20 "woah is right. I was thinking air strikes on their nukes." Oh. then something other than regime change. "Granted - their means would be limited in scope and region - but is the real potential of a regional nuclear war appealing to you?" A bit less than the potential of a global nuclear war. And we got throught that one. We'll hang in there. But the bedwetters will wet the bed.

Posted by: actus at January 17, 2006 02:48 PM (CqheE)

21 If we invade Iran, U.S Soldiers will be beheaded on a daily basis. Iraq will like sunday school. Bush is already dealing with problems on Iraq.

Posted by: George Ramos at January 17, 2006 02:51 PM (5E0ex)

22 Futher complicating everything ... this is a fanatical Shia regime - and the Shia and Sunni have been involved in their own "lil' cold war" for 1300 years! - and it has at times been vicious and ruthless! Don't for a moment believe this concerns only the US, West and Isreal.

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 02:52 PM (3aakz)

23 actus The global one - never actually occured. I'm talking about the real thing here. You feel comfortable being a bystander - I can understand that - but you sure do have a very high threshold for acceptable risks. If I thought for a moment it could be "contained" with minimal impact on US (let alone the rest of the world), I would agree - but I don't believe.

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 02:59 PM (3aakz)

24 I mean if we invade Iran, Iraq will look like Sunday School.

Posted by: George Ramos at January 17, 2006 03:00 PM (5E0ex)

25 That mutant guy looks like a memeber of PETA

Posted by: sandpiper at January 17, 2006 03:20 PM (U/q87)

26 I'm with you, Dean is jumping the gun. There are still some options that have not yet been explored. If the point of no return has not been hit, then there is still time, regardless of what the US Army War College has to say. http://www.vitalperspective.com/thewestvsiranaminuteclosertomidnight.htm

Posted by: Ron Dahan at January 17, 2006 04:00 PM (+SJDp)

27 You obviously have not seen beneath the planet of the apes sandpiper. I love how Rusty puts in little tidbits from my favorite movies and tv shows.

Posted by: George Ramos at January 17, 2006 04:15 PM (5E0ex)

28 ". You feel comfortable being a bystander - I can understand that - but you sure do have a very high threshold for acceptable risks." What does it matter whether I accept it or not?

Posted by: actus at January 17, 2006 04:16 PM (CqheE)

29 There is a window of opportunity. If Iraq becomes a little more stabilized, and we begin moving our troops back to the US, then we will have a 1-2 year period to deal with the mad mullahs. What could be accomplished in that amount of time is hard to say, but another war on our own is out of the question. The civilized world needs to get involved in this one, or it literally may be the end of the civilized world, and I'm not sure but that might be what these lunatics want. The ball is in the EU court, let's see what they do, remembering that we have a little time yet before we have to make a move. Granted, this will allow Iran to harden their nuclear facilities and hide much of what we seek, but it is a risk we will have to take.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 17, 2006 04:22 PM (rUyw4)

30 actus Sorry - I never figured you as essentially into nihilism.

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 04:30 PM (3aakz)

31 actus Oh - one more think ... If that's your general outlook on things, then why do you even bother blogging?

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 04:32 PM (3aakz)

32 "Sorry - I never figured you as essentially into nihilism." With this administration it doesn't matter what level headed experts think, much less pinko homos like me.

Posted by: actus at January 17, 2006 04:35 PM (CqheE)

33 Classic Nihilism

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 05:10 PM (3aakz)

34 One thing I will not do is waste time trying to explain military theory to an idiot liberal. They can't even understand basic free-market economics, so trying to explain something as subtle and complex as modern warfare to them is like describing astrophysics to a monkey, though with less chance of success.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 17, 2006 05:26 PM (0yYS2)

35 improbulus maximus as an Iranian I want the Mullahs gone, they are killers and forced so many into exile, including me. I'm first an Iranian then a very liberal Muslim. Please do not say muslim scum!

Posted by: Maziar at January 18, 2006 10:37 AM (SVSLj)

36 I'm sorry Maziar, I only have an on/off switch most of the time, and I find moderation in matters of survival to be equivalent to cowardice, so while I will concede that there are many muslims who are good people, the fact remains that islam as an ideology is at war against the civilized world. Your own culture, the remnants of the great Persian empire, was destroyed by Islam, which wants to consume the world. I don't hate you personally, but if islam is allowed to expand unchecked, the whole world will be run by the mullahs. See, I believe the Greeks had it right, and I believe in the ideas they conceived, which matured into the Enlightenment, which in some ways was the epitome of Western civilization. I believe Enlightenment principles are good for every person on the planet, and any ideology which seeks to destroy those principles must itself be destroyed. You doubtless know that as a liberal muslim, you are under an automatic sentence of death more as an apostate than I am as an infidel, so we both face the same enemy. The question is this; do we join to destroy what Winston Churchill called the most powerful retrograde force in the world, or do we stand by and allow the fanatical murderers to take over the world? Islam is by its very nature an intolerant, extremist ideology, and any person who loves Liberty must admit that it cannot be reformed, it cannot be moderated, it must either be fought or submitted to. You either love freedom or you love slavery; there is no third option.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 18, 2006 11:28 AM (0yYS2)

37 Improbulus Maximus, many thanks for the reply. I cannot agree with you more on most things you have said. To be honest I'm not sure why the way the religion is or why the hard core followers are such beasts. Trust me, you have no idea what these people have do us Iranians. The Mullahs in our case, the only language they understand is violence, you can't reason with them. We persians like to believe its an arabic way, and we have this cult upon us. Majority of us Iranians inside and outside the country are against this way of thinking, killing. We are living in the west, for example Iranians are the second most succeful minority in Britan, after New Zealand. I don't mean this as showing off, but to show we are different. Having said all the above, I cannot wait for these murderers with their backward thinking to leave us and move to a cave in Afghanistan. It is an extra shame for us with regards to our history, the persians, their tolerance, freeing the jews being under these animals. I'm trying to think about the religion that is stamped on me. To look at Turkey and lebanon and their progress. Is it possible to reform or does it need violence, then I see Arabic countries, including the killers of Iraq, the insurgents who kill Iraqies. Last part, I can't agree with you with regard to the greeks at least on persians we were more civilised than they showed us..lol

Posted by: Maziar at January 19, 2006 02:34 PM (SVSLj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Muslim extremists are always outraged when the Infidel-Christian-Zionist-Crusader dogs kill fellow Muslim extremists. So, when the U.S. launched an airstrike aimed at killing al Qaeda leader a Ayman al-Zawahiri, naturally the Islamazoids were outraged that we would have the audacity to try and kill the man responsible for murdering thousands of Americans. In fact, al Jazeera noted that Zawahiri would be a victim of the U.S. attacks, had the attacks succeeded.

Tell me this: why are civilians considered innocent when they have high-ranking members of al Qaeda over for dinner? Is it just me, or doesn't that make them guilty under the Bush doctrine of treating terrorists and those that support them the same? It's not just the Bush doctrine, though, it's common sense. In order for terrorists to survive they must have supporters. that enable them. The only innocents killed by the U.S. aristrike are the children who were forced to wash up for dinner so they could have the honor of eating dinner with members of al Qaeda. I hope their parents rot in hell.

Further, why is it that only the foreigners killed in the attack are deemed terrorists by the Pakistanis? Oh, because, by definition, there are no Pakistani terrorists. You notice how that works?

It's not just the Pakistanis, it seems that the media is quick to differentiate too. As if an IED set off by a native is somehow different than that of a foreigner. For instance, in Afghanistan, we are told, there are Taliban rebels and foreign al Qaeda terrorsts. In Iraq there are native insurgents and foreign al Qaeda terrorists.

Forbes:

At least four foreign terrorists died in the U.S. airstrike purportedly aimed at al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, the provincial government said Tuesday.

A statement by the administration of Bajur, the Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan, also said that 10 to 12 foreign extremists had been invited to dinner at the village hit in Friday's attack.

Pakistani intelligence officials have said Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, had been invited to a dinner in the targeted village of Damadola to mark an Islamic holiday but did not show up and sent some aides instead.

The statement was the first official confirmation by Pakistani authorities that foreign militants were killed in the attack, which officials have said also killed innocent civilians...

"Four or five foreign terrorists have been killed in this missile attack whose dead bodies have been taken away by their companions to hide the real reason of the attack," the statement said, citing the chief official in the Bajur region where Damadola is located.

"It is regrettable that 18 local people lost their lives in the attack, but this fact also cannot be denied, that 10-12 foreign extremists had been invited on a dinner," it said.

UPDATE by Howie: Rusty and Howie posted at precisely the same time, so the editors of The Jawa Report decided just to combine their two posts.

While the spin has been how many innocents were killed in the attempt on Zawahiri, today we have confirmation of a terrorist dinner party.

CNN:A statement by the administration of Bajur, a Pakistan tribal region bordering Afghanistan, also said that 10 to 12 foreign extremists had been invited to dinner at the village hit in Friday's attack.

Pakistani intelligence officials have said Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, had been invited to a dinner in the targeted village of Damadola to mark an Islamic holiday but did not show up and sent some aides instead.

CNN : "Four or five foreign terrorists have been killed in this missile attack whose dead bodies have been taken away by their companions to hide the real reason of the attack,"

UPDATE: Confederate Yankee and Rusty Shackleford: two heads, one mind.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:08 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 723 words, total size 5 kb.

An American oil worker taken hostage by Nigerian terrorists claiming to be part of the Movement for Emancipation of Niger Delta has been identified as Patrick Landry. Three others were taken hostage. They are: Briton Nigel Watson-Clark, Honduran Harry Ebanks, and Bulgarian Milko Nichev.

As I speculated earlier, the terror organization is part of a larger Ijaw rebellion. Although Nigeria is dominated by Muslims, the ethnic Ijaw minority are mainly Christian and have been complaining for decades about corruption, mismanagement, and mistreatment by the central government. Whatever the misdeeds of the Nigerian government, taking hostages is NEVER a legitimate avenue of political protest.

Melbourne Herald Sun:

SEPARATIST rebels in Nigeria are close to achieving their aim of paralysing oil production in the Niger delta, after a series of attacks and kidnappings.

Yesterday four foreign oil workers kidnapped by militants spoke to the media by phone on their sixth day in captivity.

They read their captors' demands, including a 48-hour deadline, and warned the military against attempting rescue.

The kidnappers have staged a series of attacks on oil pipelines, platforms and workers over the past three weeks, denting supply from the world's eighth largest exporter and driving up world prices...

"I'd like to contact my family and let them know that I am all right and everything with us is good," said a man who identified himself as Harry Ebanks from Honduras. "The only thing (is) the environment is not good with us because there is a lot of mosquitoes and it is dangerous for us."

The Briton, who identified himself as Nigel Watson-Clark, read a list of five demands by the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta.

"The Nigerian Government should not make any military intervention," he said. "They should not make any attempt to rescue us as it has been made clear that it may result in the loss of our lives."

A man identifying himself as Patrick Landry, a US citizen, said: "This climate in the conditions we're in is not conducive to us, especially as I am an older man and my health is not good.

"I'd like y'all to contact my family and let them know that I'm all right, these people are treating me good, but the climate is not what it should be." ...

The group demands local control of the delta's oil, payment of $1.5 billion by Royal Dutch Shell to the Bayelsa state government to compensate for pollution, and the release of three men including two ethnic Ijaw leaders.

"If the Nigerian Government does not meet these demands in 48 hours, whatever happens is in their own doing," the British hostage said.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:40 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.

I know this is a website about the war on terror, but isn't the fact that five USC underclassman have declared for the NFL draft one of the Shia signs of the apocalypse? Somewhere in Tehran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad smiles in his sleep reassured that the Hidden Imam is about to appear in the sky, riding an A-bomb like Slim Pickens.

more...

Posted by: Rusty at 08:26 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

In an early morning press release the ACLU has announced its intention to sue the National Security Agency for intercepting suspected terrorist international calls and emails. The lawsuit is obviously timed to take advantage of a New York Times article critical of NSA intercepts. The ACLU lawsuit also has as plaintiffs several "prominent journalists", raising the possibility of a conspiracy between leftwing journalists and activist groups.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a group of prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys, and national nonprofit organizations (including the ACLU) who frequently communicate by phone and e-mail with people in the Middle East. Because of the nature of their calls and e-mails, they believe their communications are being intercepted by the NSA under the spying program.

Thanks to Jay at Stop the ACLU for emailing me about the press release.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 02:17 AM | Comments (93) | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.

"No news too smutty!" Sounds good to me.

A study by an Italian sexologist has found that couples who have a TV set in their bedroom...

Posted by: Howie at 09:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

The perception is that the war in Iraq was “bigger or more deadly” for the US in 2005 than 2004. Nope.

USA Today : The number of U.S. troops wounded in Iraq fell by more than a quarter in 2005 from a year earlier,Â… Â…Army Maj. Gen. William Webster, the commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, said the number of suicide car bombs and roadside bombs fell by half during 2005. Only about 10% of insurgent attacks cause injuries or damage now, down from about 25% a year agoÂ…

Â…U.S. military leaders say that one of the biggest changes was in the number and quality of Iraqi forces. About three dozen Iraqi battalions, each with about 700 soldiers, are taking the lead in battling insurgents, said Army Lt. Gen. John Vines, commander of multinational forces in Iraq. There were no such battalions in early 2005, he said.

However deaths were only down by one at 844. Hard fought steady progress I reckon.

Also See Captain Ed :

This belies the notion spread by Democrats such as Jack Murtha that Americans have been increasingly targeted by insurgents and terrorists in Iraq.

Posted by: Howie at 09:03 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

See it, It’s coming down! Hold on... ...Here it comes. Wait for it,.....almost there. The UN official in charge of nuclear inspections under the Non Proliferation Treaty will declare Iran “out of compliance” on March 6th.

Mohammed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency Via Telegraph UK : "We are coming to the litmus test in the next few weeks," he said in an interview in Newsweek magazine.

"Diplomacy has to be backed by pressure and, in extreme cases, by force," he said. "We have rules. We have to do everything possible to uphold the rules through conviction. If not, then you impose them. Of course, this has to be the last resort, but sometimes you have to do it."

He gave Iran seven weeks to answer the IAEA's outstanding questions - including intelligence reports of secret work on nuclear warheads.

If Iran did not comply by March 6, Mr ElBaradei said he would formally declare that his investigation had reached a dead end.

Huh, “Dead End?”. Who would have thought? Reports that if Iran does not comply it will, "Be grounded and sent to bed without supper for a whole year!", were unconfirmed.

Posted by: Howie at 08:25 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.

ACLU Compares MLK To Terrorist Suspects
Jay at Stop The ACLU notes a new fullpage ad in the Washington Post taken out by the ACLU. The ad compares surveillance of terrorist suspects receiving overseas calls from known al Qaeda terrorists to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. MLK is morally equivalent to terrorists, nice message.

Al Gore Compares MLK To Terrorist Suspects
Speaking on Martin Luther King Day, the former Vice President took advantage of the opportunity to fly into one of his patented femmy snits and launch an attack on the President, again, comparing FBI wiretapping of Dr. King to NSA monitoring of al Qaeda terrorists. Wasn't the wiretapping of Dr. King carried out by Democratic administrations? Whoops.

New Orleans Mayor Compares Blacks To 'Chocolate'
And finally, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin used his MLK Day pulpit to say that "God is mad at America" and declare that New Orleans will once again be a "chocolate city". The mayor was speaking of the racial makeup of the city, which was 60% black prior to Hurricane Katrina. No crackers wanted - unless you're tourists with money.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 07:37 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.

CDR Salamander has this expose about the court marshall of Lt. Bryan Black for "sexual harassment". Apparently the vulgar language=sexual harrassment crowd has taken over our nation's most foul-mouthed institution. Clearly this is not my grandfather's Navy.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:19 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

Muslims never tire of telling you how back in the good-ol-days of the Caliphate Christians, Jews, and Muslims got along like peas in a pod. A description of Jerusalem ca 1700:

The Muslims do not allow entry to the Temple area to any member of another faith, unless he converts to their religion-- for they claim that no member of another religion is sufficiently pure to enter this holy spot. [more] ..

No Jew or Christian is allowed to ride a horse, but a donkey is permitted, for [in the eyes of Muslims] Christians and Jews are inferior beings [more]

Posted by: Rusty at 05:09 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

Would the Mutual Assured Destruction strategery work against Iran if that country is run by a madman? Scary thought. Wunderkraut has more.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:02 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

Apparently in the U.K. they have affirmative action for the Irish. Which they need. Filthy drunks....

Posted by: Rusty at 04:53 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

Fellow Jawa blogger the Dread Pundit Bluto has been blogging for one year!!

Posted by: Rusty at 04:47 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Apparently Iran's President think's the West is living in the Dark Ages. For some reason I get the feeling he's not talking about all the ludites still using Microsoft Internet Explorer.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:41 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

***Fatwas Issued***

Man, I should have bought a Powerball ticket this weekend. Pictures like this just don't come around every day. This one is so good, I'm sticking it to the top of the page for the day. Scroll down for newer content. If something big breaks, any of the co-bloggers can re-set the post time.

Caption this photo of Iranian lunatic psychotic nutcase president Amareadytomeetallah giving a speech to someone somewhere:

Fatwas will be issued Monday. I promise, because I have the next 3 days off.

Suckers. Heh.

Fatwas go out to:

Mr. Venom: "Seriously guys, do you really think I need some Just for Men? The beard's a little grey, sure, but what about these eyebrows? They're beautiful!"

Steve Sharon: "Lance Itoh collected clocks, I collect microphones. Allah has told me to do this."

Gordon: "So den I point I gun at the wabbit. Suddenwey, he jumps up and kisses me fuw on da wips! Scewey wabbit!"

Graeme: "I'm with stupid"

Stephen Macklin: "Say hello to my little friend."

Honorable mention:

Oyster: "The next person to call me Foulmood Almondjeans is gonna get it ... like this, see?"

Improbulus Maximus: "Nobody move or the towelhead gets it!"

Posted by: Vinnie at 02:15 PM | Comments (52) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker points us to this photo (which can still be seen here).

This is the caption that ran with the photo originally:

“Pakistani men with the remains of a missile fired at a house in the Bajur tribal zone near the Afghan border.”

Isn't it odd that the NYT's 'errors' always seem to be on the side of America's enemies?

Via Michelle Malkin.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:19 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.