Saturday, July 30, 2005
Saddam 'attacked' during hearing
Stated as fact. However, in the opening of the article we find:
Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was attacked by an unidentified man after questioning by the Iraqi special tribunal on Thursday, his lawyers say. The former president was attacked as he was leaving the courtroom, and there was an exchange of blows, his legal team said in a statement.
However, a US military spokeswoman denied that any such incident happened.
In reality Saddam's lawyers 'allege' that this happened. It may have, it may not have.
But a fair and balanced headline might have been:
Saddam 'allegedly attacked' during hearing
In a world with a bumper-sticker mentality headlines matter.
Friday, July 29, 2005
France Ejects 12 Islamic 'preachers of hate'
Be warned ! Defending yourself against Islam is an afront to Islam. Just ask the Israelis.
I first saw the headline: "Million signatures claimed for Iraq troop pullout petition" and thought 'too bad, 62 million signatures last November said we stay the course.'
Read the article and it's that international man of misery Muqtada al-Sadr, again.
Here's my take on it. He's heard about recent headlines, I assume 'heard' because I'd lay odds he can't read, that the Coalition forces are about ready to turn it over to the Republic of Iraq next year. They want us gone, we want to be gone and need to be gone.
Al-Sadr will go rabid about the time the first troops begin to leave or indication that it's a done deal for an ordered withdrawal. I would give him credit that in all the glory of his illiteracy he understands the western media better than the western media. He's played them before and they went for it and he's counting on them for his little power move.
Once it is politically impossible for the Defense Dept. to stop the withdrawal he will strike in order to create the impression that he drove the infidel occupiers from the land. Like a little dog chasing a truck down the road and returning with its tail waging high as if it had really accomplished something.
That is if Sistani's crew doesn't get him first.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
No more GWOT but GSAVE? The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. Jumpin Jiminee... to think somebody in D.C. is making their mortgage payments by coming up with this stuff.
How about Get Serious About Violent Extremism and you can start in Nuevo Laredo.
They can start by securing the borders and use common sense profiling of immigrants.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Rep. Tancredo Responds concerning criticism of his suggestion that Mecca and Medina ought to be on the table for nuclear retaliation:
"Many critics of my statements have characterized them as 'offensive,' and indeed they may have offended some. But in this battle against fundamentalist Islam, I am hardly preoccupied with political correctness, or who may or may not be offended. Indeed, al-Qaeda cares little if the Western world is 'offended' by televised images of hostages beheaded in Iraq, subway bombings in London, train attacks in Madrid, or Americans jumping to their death from the Twin Towers as they collapsed."
This guy is getting skewered on many blogs. I've seen him called crazy, an idiot that sort of thing.
I don't think it is so crazy and is the correct attitude to face this threat with. Think about it, we are dealing with cultures so flawed in their thinking that they actually believe it was the US government or the Israelis that caused 9/11 or the same were behind the recent attacks in the Sinai.
Now somebody of authority has placed the idea in the flow of global information. The waters have been tainted. Whether we should or would do it is an open question but the idea is now in their collective minds. Personally I prefer Peshwar, Lahore, Damascus and the Iranian nuclear sites. Shoot in amongst them just to be sure we get the ones responsible. There is a price to pay if we are pushed too far.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
The men who blame Britain:
The opening line frames the gist of the article:
"Critics of Tony Blair's policy in Iraq and Afghanistan claimed yesterday that Britain must share some of the responsibility for the Underground and bus bombings in London."
Once again it is the victim's fault. We wouldn't accept that on a smaller scale, say a rape case where the defense claims that because she was scantily -clad she deserved to be raped. It's nonsense on that level and nonsense on the international level.
Nobody forced them to attack the subway. It was a choice of freewill. They and they alone are responsible for that action. To bomb or not to bomb...
Take note in the thinking of the terrorist's apologists in this article that the islamic killing machine is a given, an inevitability, and the only way to keep it from killing is submitting to it.
So this whole blame the British argument is founded on incorrect thinking and a severe case of it at that. However, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, helps us look for deeper meaning in this fallacious line of thought:
"Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, suggested that decades of western intervention in the Middle East and the Iraq war could have influenced the bombers. 'I suspect the real problem was that we funded these people as long as they were killing Russians. We gave no thought to the fact that when they stopped killing Russians they might start killing us.'"
Nor have you given any thought to the elephant in the room... the fact that the only constant is that these people are killing in either case; the only difference being the victime du jour. Could it be that defending against their aggrssion is making them angrier ?
Prime Minister Blair sums up their blame game strategy:
Mr Blair used a press conference with Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, at No 10 for separate talks, to dismiss the suggestions that Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan had provoked the attacks.
Of course these terrorists will use Iraq as an excuse," he said. "But let's be clear: if it wasn't that, it would be something else and nothing, but nothing, justifies what they are doing.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
I had another friend that was less industrious and like water sought the means of least resistence. He never had any money because he couldn't keep a job. In all fairness the guy is the exact opposite today but back then that's how he was. Let's call this friend Carl.
Bob got busy; remember this was the era of the initial wire-up of cable to homes. The 'Video Killed The Radio Star' days. Soon he had more installs than he could do by himself. As luck would have it, Carl was again in one of his 'in between jobs' phases and Bob hired him as an assistant.
Carl's job was to run the cable laying machine while Bob did the pole and interior work. They worked together this way for about six months then came the grumblings. Carl was becoming disgruntled because he felt that he was having to do the hard work and he ought to get half of what they made instead of his wage. Of course, he never felt he should equally sharing the debt.
The point of this is an observation of human nature with macro-scale examples of the same kind of thinking among institutions as Carl.
I have noticed that people come in two attitudinal modes: the 'Can't and Won't' group and the 'Can and Will' group. I will call them the CantWonts and the CanWills for brevity's sake.
It is typical to find the CantWonts upset with the CanWills for not sharing the bounty of their endeavors. The CanWills usually respond by telling the CantWonts that they too can be CanWills if only they would change their attitude.
John Kerry, Teddy 'Jo' Kennedy, Hollywood, Europe are CantWonts -
"you can't execute this war we won't be sucessful, we won't be liked;it will be like Vietnam where we couldn't win"
George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, Jose Aznar and allies are CanWills -
"We can and we will be successful".
Still the CantWonts continue to scream because the CanWills will not share their electoral and Constitutional power with them. Then they invoke the Fairness Doctrine. "You're not being fair"; "You're not playing fairly". I keep getting images of little children fighting.. I digress.
Today's example of this phenomena in the human herd involves the governance of the internet. The UN wants control of it. China wants it controlled. The US ain't having any of it.
Essentially the internet came about as a US information and communication redundancy defense strategy against some of those very same members of that august world body. It began here as a defense against them. We developed it. Then we shared it. Then we commercialised it. Now they think it is theirs. This brings to mind another of my observations of the herd "if you start treating people like they're special then they will start thinking they are truly special".
The quotes in the article that set me off on this neural slip-n-slip was this comment from Markus Kummer, executive director of the U.N. Working Group on Internet Governance:
"The United States historically has played that role because it funded much of the Internet's early development."
"'The group as a whole recognizes that it is clear the U.S. has played a beneficial role,' Kummer said."
Beneficial role !? Carl ?????? Is that you ?????
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Islamophobia blamed for attack
Expect more of this. Two can play this game. Doesn't Islam promote Christianphobia or Judeophobia? ( if there are such words but if not then I'm sure I have conveyed my meaning) This is a can of worms opened by the jihadist and supported by the silence of moderate muslims against the extremism in their faith.
I think the result of Islam forcing itself upon on the West will result in the rise of nationalistic movements in the countries affected. Skinheads, Klan, Neo-Nazi type groups.
The Islamists think they have nothing to lose. The West has it's economy and high standard of living as a prime target. Since they are incapable, because they are too busy killing each other, of rising to the West's social and technological achievements they attempt to bring us down to their level. And they attack us at those points using our own sword - technology.
However, they do have something to lose, Mecca and Medina. I would not be surprised to see, after another major attack, a right-wing extremist type entity attempt a retaliatory attack on either city. One thing about a free society is we too can generate some really tweaked, highly motivated, individuals and groups that are as capable and as well financed as any terrorist group seeking nukes on the black market. There will come a point when the West says 'Enough'.
So the thing Muslims need to do is speak up against terrorism and be seen speaking up against terrorists. Until then people like the kids in the article will see Muslims as silent collaborators.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Obama lends star power to Nelson:
I am still unaware of exactly what U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's claim to fame is but from the following statement it is certain he has the 'core values' of a Democrat.
"'The Democrats at times have lost their way,' conceded Obama. 'We are trying to decide what our core values are.'"
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Saturday, July 09, 2005
'Kryptonite to Stupid.'
Today he posted this adept analysis.
( he's gonna need a little more kryptonite )
So for effort above and beyond the call of obtuse thinking Mr. Willis is awarded the IOpian View Shinola Award
This Mr. Willis is Shinola.
iopian replied: "Looks like your kyptonite quit working and stupid went on a rampage".
Friday, July 08, 2005
'Speak No Wal-Mart' Policy Challenged:
Before I clicked on this link I thought this is probably California or Washington. Bingo !
My experience is that it is not the conservative that perpetuates political correctness. It is not the conservative that wants to take my guns. It is not the conservative telling me what I can and can't say and it is not the conservative forcing me to accept another's lifestyle. It is the liberal that is taking from me for the common good.
So that article is another example of what I'm talking about. I am amazed that these people even think they can do this. If they can't deal with the reality and nature of the position they shouldn't have sought a position on the council.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
You know we have our differences, I didn't like the demonstrations against Bush when he was there. Those people don't like his approach to battling the very people that did this today. So be it, that's what free people do.
I can only speak for myself as an American but growing up I had British friends and British teachers for a while. And Canadians as well. We all hung out together and made friendly barbs to our nationalities like limey, cowboy, canucks that sort of thing. No offense was ever taken. If we got into some kind of situation we stood together because we were all bonded by a common heritage. Only the accents seemed to differentiate us but culturally we blended quite easily.
So I feel as angry about this as I did when the US was attacked. I hope too that the western world will wake up to this threat against us. It is like a rabid dog. You can't reason with it, you can't hope that if you appease it then it will not attack you. You must realize its nature and destroy it or be destroyed by it.
Unfortunately I believe it will take a similar scene in Los Angeles, Seattle, Paris or Berlin until those defenders of these terrorist militants come to understand the nature of this beast.
World Stands With London After Attacks:
In a statement that must send shudders through the nerves of the terrorists, Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez 'Mr. Bean' Zapatero issued this ominous warning to the London terrorists:
"The government of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero offered its 'unconditional help to chase the criminals who perpetrated such a repugnant attack.'"
Criminals... he just can't seem to call it like it is. After all we know he is unwilling to chase them in Iraq unconditionally.
No thanks Jose.
I was reading through the Discuss section of a Yahoo News article about the London Bombing. I expected it to be like a trip through KOz or Huffingtongue Post. Why do they hate us, it's our fault, Bushitler.... the mindless crap my brain has already encoded into little packets so I don't actually have to read the complete statement. In the process I learned a new word today...... Libtard.... I like that. Let's use that in a sentence... 'The Libtards in the Discuss section of Yahoo News are getting throttled for their wimpish views.'
These men believe they have a better vision of how the world should be.
These men really like the thirteeth century.
These men want you to accept that fact or die, there is no peaceful co-existence.
Each man lived in the country they were plotting to attack.
The distinguished looking fellow on the left is Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. He is currently in prison after being convicted for plotting the 1993 WTC bombing.
The intellectual on the right is Abu Hamza al-Masri whose trial began 2 days ago in London.
These would be mid-level managers in a global caliphate.
Four Blasts Hit London, Killing at Least 2
It's time to stop this pretentious 'we are not like them' mentally and go Godzilla on these animals. For them all westerners are targets. I say let's make all muslims targets. Begin purging them from Europe back to their countries of origin. Until we start hearing protests of such barbarous acts from 'moderate' muslims we have to consider they condone by their silence such acts and are supportive and sympathetic to the bombers cause. Their asses go too.
Let them know that Mecca and Medina are as legitimate a target as was Washington, New York, Madrid, Baghdad now London. Nuke it til it glows and ask if anybody has any questions or commentary. It is going to a dispropotionate response to affect their thinking.
Let's go into Godzilla mode on their ass. If not then get used to this kind of thing. What ought to happen is for every attack against a nation like Poland, England, Italy, Japan then that nation should respond by sending 10,000 more troops to the battle. Eventually the terrorist are going to realize diminishing returns.
And recall the group claiming responsibility said this was for Bristish participation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Afghanistan.... So Paris should not think because it's president is fond of butt-snuggling with Arab thugs that they are exempt. Unfortunately it will take much blood spilled before the world wakes up to the threat Blair and Bush have been telling them about for the last three years.
It's going to be interesting to see the British response to this. I doubt it will be like the Spanish.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
I listened to this exchange while working the other day. I needed the Kennedy quotes and I found them here:
US General Says Troops Question Support:
"''This war has been consistently and grossly mismanaged,' Kennedy said,repeating his calls for Rumsfeld's resignation. ''And we are now in a seemingly intractable quagmire.'"
So Kennedy evokes the Vietnam imagery with 'quagmire' and I'm sure he would like to see us extracted from that 'quagmire'. Apparently I need to consider him for a Shinola Award since he has no sense of history and being one of the few Seantors to have not been to Iraq he may be in need of a historic example of an 'intractable quagmire:'
And he advocates the same method to get us out of Iraq... Cut and Run... Leave the people to fend for themselves.
Houston swimmer's rescuer ends up in jail
This was on Drudge yesterday. As I read it my mind went tangetal and it made me think about the Bush-Haters. I don't really understand definitively what it is about the man that causes the froathing but I have my own view. To put it bluntly Bush has excelled where they failed and exposed the weakness of his detractor's philosophies.
There is an analogy here. In the story substitute the drowning man with the Iraqi people or any people under a tyrant. Substitute the 'authorities' with the UN, Old Europe, Democrats and finally substitute the guy that got arrested with Bush.
When all is said and done the result is the guy that was arrested was right and made the 'authorities' look less than heroic.
DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2005:
SEN. SCHUMER CAUGHT ON CELLPHONE:
'WE ARE GOING TO WAR' OVER SUPREME COURT
Keep this in mind the next time you see a Democrat claiming it is the Republicans and this administration that are divisive. We don't even have a nominee yet and they are taking an adversarial position.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
It didn't take long to google a statement from Nancy Pelosi concerning the "DeLaygate Scandal":
The Stakeholder:: Pelosi: Investigate DeLay:
Today we find Pelosi leads by example.
"Pelosi: Ethics Committee Must Investigate Latest Charges Against Tom DeLay
Washington, D.C - House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today in reaction to a story in the National Journal on Friday alleging that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay violated House ethics rules when a lobbyist paid for DeLay's travel expenses:
'These are substantive allegations that must be added to the ever-growing DeLayGate scandal and fully investigated by the Ethics Committee. The House gift rule clearly states that lobbyists cannot pay a Member's travel expenses, but the expense voucher submitted by lobbyist Jack Abramoff indicates that this is precisely what he did for Mr. DeLay.
'It is imperative that the Ethics Committee live up to its mission and conduct a timely, thorough, and honest inquiry into all of Mr. DeLay's alleged ethical lapses.'"
Monday, July 04, 2005
Sunday, July 03, 2005
"'This country was built on (the ideal that) every man was created equal. We should read that again and believe it and help,' actor Chris Tucker told reporters backstage. 'We're not better than Africans, we are all created equally, we need to remember that and do all we can to help.'"
If we are all equals why are we having to help them continuously?
Saturday, July 02, 2005
The Huffington Post
This is the Lawerence O'Donnell post on the Huffington Post claiming he knows Rove is the Matt Cooper's source.
It could be true, despite the fact it is O'Donnell. The reason I think it could be true is that TIME is committing journalistic heresy by handing over the information about his sources. Why would they do this? According to Time Inc. Editor in Chief Norman Pearlstine it is because they are not above the law. ( especially if you can score some political gotcha against Bush by doing your legal duty. )
If it is not Rove then he ought to sue, in a very public way, O'Donnell and Huffington for libel.
This is an 'old' story from late December of last year when French journalists Georges Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot were released after being held captive by a merry band of 'insurgents' in Iraq. BBC NEWSFrench hostage recalls his ordeal:
Malbrunot: 'We were very aware of the fact that it wasn't the Iraqi agenda that motivated our kidnappers, but the internationalist jihadist agenda. I think this is the real challenge for the next 10 years - the clash of cultures that these people are advocating, are seeking.'
So does he get it? Could it be there exists a Frenchman that understands that Iraq is part of the GWOT ? Someone that has empirical knowledge that it might no be such an odd thing that combatants move their assests from one theatre of operation to another? Could it be Bush has got it right in the view of this Frenchman?
Not if CNN has anything to do with it.
Here is their interview with Malbrunot where we find them singing in perfect Bush-Hate harmony as Malbrunot recounts insurgent political analysis of the 04 American election.
"'We vote for Bush because Bush help us a lot by intervening in Afghanistan. So, from that point we could spread all over the world and we are now in 60 countries,' Malbrunot cited one of the militants as saying on October 15, two weeks before Bush defeated Democrat John Kerry.
Malbrunot, 41, quoted the same militant as saying: 'Our main targets are Saudi Arabia and Egypt. And because of Bush, if he is re-elected, we are sure that American soldiers will remain in Iraq for years.'"
Sound familiar? This is how liberals think... because Bush attacked Afghanistan there is now more terrorism. that's the argument they are making in industrial media isn't it ? Bush attacking Afghanistan and Iraq is the CAUSE and the growth of international terrorism is the EFFECT.
How about this perspective... The growth of international terrorism is the CAUSE and Bush attacking Afghanistan and Iraq ( nations supporting terrorism ) is the EFFECT ?