Wednesday, March 31, 2004
IT IS "OFFENSIVE"
Are we surprised? Here we go. The BBC reports:
Some media coverage of the eight UK terror arrests on Tuesday was unfair, a Muslim campaigner has said.
Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain picked out one headline which described the police operation as: "Islamic bomb attack foiled".
"First of all we don't know whether it was a bomb attack," he told BBC Breakfast.
Some of those arrested apparently got caught in possession of a chemical that is not readily found in most homes, and can easily be turned into an explosive.
But, he's right, technically, one supposes. After all, the chemical hadn't been turned into an explosive as of their arrests.
Actually, that's profound: Is an unexploded explosive actually an explosive?
"And secondly, to describe it as Islamic is offensive to ordinary Muslims."
Sorry to be "offensive". Neighbors detonating tends to make us all a bit nervous about our property values. Again, everyone knows that not all Muslims are Islamist terrorists.
However, it is an unfortunate and undeniable fact of life that all Islamist terrorists are indeed Muslims. They blow up themselves and/or others in the name of Islam. If that is a problem for most Muslims, then one would think most Muslims would want to begin to deal with it.
But it's always someone else's fault. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Are we surprised? Here we go. The BBC reports:
Some media coverage of the eight UK terror arrests on Tuesday was unfair, a Muslim campaigner has said.
Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain picked out one headline which described the police operation as: "Islamic bomb attack foiled".
"First of all we don't know whether it was a bomb attack," he told BBC Breakfast.
Some of those arrested apparently got caught in possession of a chemical that is not readily found in most homes, and can easily be turned into an explosive.
But, he's right, technically, one supposes. After all, the chemical hadn't been turned into an explosive as of their arrests.
Actually, that's profound: Is an unexploded explosive actually an explosive?
"And secondly, to describe it as Islamic is offensive to ordinary Muslims."
Sorry to be "offensive". Neighbors detonating tends to make us all a bit nervous about our property values. Again, everyone knows that not all Muslims are Islamist terrorists.
However, it is an unfortunate and undeniable fact of life that all Islamist terrorists are indeed Muslims. They blow up themselves and/or others in the name of Islam. If that is a problem for most Muslims, then one would think most Muslims would want to begin to deal with it.
But it's always someone else's fault. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 31, 2004
WHO DONE IT. . .
On the reporting of the arrests of the "alleged" Islamists in Britain yesterday, Oh, That Liberal Media points out that this A.P. report went at the arrests very gingerly:
. . . Have AP reporters only ears for government spokesmen? How hard would it have been to walk up to a neighbor's home and ask a few questions about those quiet fellows who used to live next door?
The AP also notes that ammonium nitrate can be used to make bombs, but waits until the 9th paragraph to remind us about Oklahoma City. The third paragraph reads:
The operation, with 700 officers raiding two dozen locations, resulted in the largest seizure of potential bomb-making material since the Irish Republican Army suspended its campaign in 1997.
The IRA has nothing whatsoever to do with this story. But they get the first comparison. It isn't until six paragraphs later that we get an image with which to measure to potential damage these bombs could have caused. And it isn't until the very end of the story that there's any speculation at all about who the culprits might be. . .
By the way, do Irish have a right to feel "under siege" currently, too? Last time any of us looked, they aren't involved in the slightest. Yet we keep hearing about the I.R.A. and Irish republicans -- again and again and again and again and again and again and again.
You don't think, maybe, the ETA was REALLY behind this? ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 31, 2004
On the reporting of the arrests of the "alleged" Islamists in Britain yesterday, Oh, That Liberal Media points out that this A.P. report went at the arrests very gingerly:
. . . Have AP reporters only ears for government spokesmen? How hard would it have been to walk up to a neighbor's home and ask a few questions about those quiet fellows who used to live next door?
The AP also notes that ammonium nitrate can be used to make bombs, but waits until the 9th paragraph to remind us about Oklahoma City. The third paragraph reads:
The operation, with 700 officers raiding two dozen locations, resulted in the largest seizure of potential bomb-making material since the Irish Republican Army suspended its campaign in 1997.
The IRA has nothing whatsoever to do with this story. But they get the first comparison. It isn't until six paragraphs later that we get an image with which to measure to potential damage these bombs could have caused. And it isn't until the very end of the story that there's any speculation at all about who the culprits might be. . .
By the way, do Irish have a right to feel "under siege" currently, too? Last time any of us looked, they aren't involved in the slightest. Yet we keep hearing about the I.R.A. and Irish republicans -- again and again and again and again and again and again and again.
You don't think, maybe, the ETA was REALLY behind this? ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 31, 2004
CLARKE, RICHARD, "COUNTER-TERRORISM EXPERT"
Roger Simon (via Instapundit):
. . . a "counter-terrorism" expert? Is that someone with an Internet connection (preferably broadband)?. . .
If you are here, you've probably seen that already. I just think it's great. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Roger Simon (via Instapundit):
. . . a "counter-terrorism" expert? Is that someone with an Internet connection (preferably broadband)?. . .
If you are here, you've probably seen that already. I just think it's great. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 31, 2004
FIGHTING AL QAEDA OR . . . FIGHTING AL QAEDA
Christopher Hitchens, quoted by Tim Blair:
To listen to Clarke now, you could almost imagine that the invasion of Afghanistan and eviction of the Taliban—the actual first response of the administration to Sept. 11—had not taken place. To listen to Clarke, also, you would suppose that any Iraqi connection to terrorism was sucked straight out of Rumsfeld's or Wolfowitz's thumb.
One theory that does collapse completely is that of administration foreknowledge—the Bush people were evidently in no shape to take any quick advantage of the events and seemingly hadn't bothered to plant even one Iraqi among the mainly Saudi hijackers. But in my experience, dud theories die only to be replaced by new and even dumber ones. The current reigning favorite is that fighting al-Qaida in Iraq is a distraction from the fight against al-Qaida. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Christopher Hitchens, quoted by Tim Blair:
To listen to Clarke now, you could almost imagine that the invasion of Afghanistan and eviction of the Taliban—the actual first response of the administration to Sept. 11—had not taken place. To listen to Clarke, also, you would suppose that any Iraqi connection to terrorism was sucked straight out of Rumsfeld's or Wolfowitz's thumb.
One theory that does collapse completely is that of administration foreknowledge—the Bush people were evidently in no shape to take any quick advantage of the events and seemingly hadn't bothered to plant even one Iraqi among the mainly Saudi hijackers. But in my experience, dud theories die only to be replaced by new and even dumber ones. The current reigning favorite is that fighting al-Qaida in Iraq is a distraction from the fight against al-Qaida. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 31, 2004
HUMPHRYS ON DETAINEES
Scott Burgess of "the Daily Ablution" on BBC Radio 4's John Humphrys' unyielding quest for truth, in his impartial, journalistic cross-examination of British passport holding former Guantanamo detainee Jamal al-Harith:
. . . According to al-Harith, his stories of torture and beating are "obviously" true:
"If every detainee that [has] left can confirm the story, then obviously there must be truth in it. You can ask any of the detainees, they'll confirm the same thing."
This statement is allowed to pass unchallenged by presenter John Humphrys, who is described by the BBC's website as "renowned as a tough and tenacious interviewer," and on his agent's site as "The UK's Top Interrogator" and "the toughest interviewer.".
Perhaps Humphrys is unaware of the following detainee reports, which are well-known to more informed observers:. . .
Read on for more.
Hmmm. Is it just me, or was Humphrys tougher on Thomas Friedman? ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Scott Burgess of "the Daily Ablution" on BBC Radio 4's John Humphrys' unyielding quest for truth, in his impartial, journalistic cross-examination of British passport holding former Guantanamo detainee Jamal al-Harith:
. . . According to al-Harith, his stories of torture and beating are "obviously" true:
"If every detainee that [has] left can confirm the story, then obviously there must be truth in it. You can ask any of the detainees, they'll confirm the same thing."
This statement is allowed to pass unchallenged by presenter John Humphrys, who is described by the BBC's website as "renowned as a tough and tenacious interviewer," and on his agent's site as "The UK's Top Interrogator" and "the toughest interviewer.".
Perhaps Humphrys is unaware of the following detainee reports, which are well-known to more informed observers:. . .
Read on for more.
Hmmm. Is it just me, or was Humphrys tougher on Thomas Friedman? ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 31, 2004
REMEMBER THOSE ACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE
The A.P. reports:
When she testifies publicly before the Sept. 11 commission, Condoleezza Rice will be making an election-year defense of the Bush's administration's anti-terrorism policy prior to the 2001 attacks.
"We want to understand the nature of the decision-making in the highest levels of government," commission chairman Thomas Kean said after the White House reversed course Tuesday and agreed to let Rice, who is Bush's national security adviser, testify publicly.
Presented with differing accounts of how the government approached terrorism pre-Sept. 11, the commission will be exploring in the midst of a presidential campaign who is more believable, the Bush administration or its critics. . .
From NY, Shannon, "Yankee From Mississippi" well sums up what most with brains all sense and believe, regardless:
. . .There is only one thing to blame for 9/11 and that is terrorism; and only one group to blame, and that is al-Qaeda, and those that supported them and other terrorist groups. And having been awakened to the terror threat wholly and fully, and not just by foggy intelligence info and rumors, the Bush administration has largely risen to the call. . .
UPDATE: Bill Hobbs (via Viking Pundit): The Democrats demanded it, though she already has testified for more than four hours in private, because the Democrats are politicizing the commission and, by extension, 9/11 itself. I rather suspect they'll rue the day they demanded Rice testify publicly. A brilliant African-American woman will soon be testifying in front of a sure-to-be-mammoth national TV audience, defending the Bush administration's record on fighting terrorism before 9/11 and since. Condi Rice may well do to them what Oliver North did in the 1980s when he made the Democrats on the Iran-Contra hearings look like fools.
UPDATE II: Great rant (which I forgot to post earlier in the week) on who's really smart, and who's not as smart as he obviously thinks he is, by . . . oh, you won't be shocked:
. . .Clarke was presiding over six unanswered al-Qaida attacks on American interests and fretting about the looming Y2K emergency. But chair-warmer Clarke claims that on the basis of Rice's "facial expression" he could tell she was not familiar with the term "al-Qaida."
Isn't that just like a liberal? The chair-warmer describes Bush as a cowboy and Rumsfeld as his gunslinger -- but the black chick is a dummy. . .
. . . Did Clarke have the vaguest notion of Rice's background and education?. . .
. . . As we know from Dr. Rice's radio interview describing the threat of al-Qaida back in October 2000, she certainly didn't need to be told about al-Qaida by a government time-server. No doubt Dr. Rice was staring at Clarke in astonishment as he imparted this great insight: Keep an eye on al-Qaida! We've done nothing, but you should do something about it. Tag – you're it. That look of perplexity Clarke saw was Condi thinking to herself: "Hmmm, did I demote this guy far enough?" ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 31, 2004
The A.P. reports:
When she testifies publicly before the Sept. 11 commission, Condoleezza Rice will be making an election-year defense of the Bush's administration's anti-terrorism policy prior to the 2001 attacks.
"We want to understand the nature of the decision-making in the highest levels of government," commission chairman Thomas Kean said after the White House reversed course Tuesday and agreed to let Rice, who is Bush's national security adviser, testify publicly.
Presented with differing accounts of how the government approached terrorism pre-Sept. 11, the commission will be exploring in the midst of a presidential campaign who is more believable, the Bush administration or its critics. . .
From NY, Shannon, "Yankee From Mississippi" well sums up what most with brains all sense and believe, regardless:
. . .There is only one thing to blame for 9/11 and that is terrorism; and only one group to blame, and that is al-Qaeda, and those that supported them and other terrorist groups. And having been awakened to the terror threat wholly and fully, and not just by foggy intelligence info and rumors, the Bush administration has largely risen to the call. . .
UPDATE: Bill Hobbs (via Viking Pundit): The Democrats demanded it, though she already has testified for more than four hours in private, because the Democrats are politicizing the commission and, by extension, 9/11 itself. I rather suspect they'll rue the day they demanded Rice testify publicly. A brilliant African-American woman will soon be testifying in front of a sure-to-be-mammoth national TV audience, defending the Bush administration's record on fighting terrorism before 9/11 and since. Condi Rice may well do to them what Oliver North did in the 1980s when he made the Democrats on the Iran-Contra hearings look like fools.
UPDATE II: Great rant (which I forgot to post earlier in the week) on who's really smart, and who's not as smart as he obviously thinks he is, by . . . oh, you won't be shocked:
. . .Clarke was presiding over six unanswered al-Qaida attacks on American interests and fretting about the looming Y2K emergency. But chair-warmer Clarke claims that on the basis of Rice's "facial expression" he could tell she was not familiar with the term "al-Qaida."
Isn't that just like a liberal? The chair-warmer describes Bush as a cowboy and Rumsfeld as his gunslinger -- but the black chick is a dummy. . .
. . . Did Clarke have the vaguest notion of Rice's background and education?. . .
. . . As we know from Dr. Rice's radio interview describing the threat of al-Qaida back in October 2000, she certainly didn't need to be told about al-Qaida by a government time-server. No doubt Dr. Rice was staring at Clarke in astonishment as he imparted this great insight: Keep an eye on al-Qaida! We've done nothing, but you should do something about it. Tag – you're it. That look of perplexity Clarke saw was Condi thinking to herself: "Hmmm, did I demote this guy far enough?" ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 31, 2004
WHAT ABOUT ALL THAT OIL?
What gives? CNN reports:
Sen. John Kerry on Tuesday called for a "new direction" in the nation's energy policy as consumers face escalating gas prices, and the Bush campaign hammered the presumptive Democratic nominee as a tax-spending liberal.
The issue of higher prices at the pump took center stage on the campaign trail. Kerry said the prices -- an average of $1.77 for unleaded regular, according to one recent survey -- are a result of the Bush administration looking out for oil interests. . .
. . .the four-term senator from Massachusetts made a point of noting the ties President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have to the oil industry. Both are former oil industry executives, Cheney with Texas-based Halliburton. . .
Hearing about the gas price increases caused me to remember the pre-Iraq campaign "anti-war" chants of "No blood for oil!" "No war for oil!" "Iraq is all about oil!"
You know the drill -- no pun intended.
So, what we are now being told is that actually the higher prices are the "Bush crowd" taking care of its own.
And, presumably, if prices had fallen in the wake of the Iraq campaign, we would also have been told that the "Bush crowd" was looking after itself, by stealing Iraq's oil.
So, which is it, really?
2000 years ago Roman emperors did their best to see to it that the Roman mob had its "bread and circuses". Indeed, Trajan himself fought on the edge of what is today modern Iraq.
Today, we are being told by many about how our "evil" leaders are similarly determined to make the world safer for the "American mob" to drive SUVs.
Yet our "evil" leaders don't even appear smart enough to manipulate gas prices to at least keep them reasonably low, in order to better maintain their grip over the "stupid" "American mob."
Or maybe, just maybe, it was never about oil in the first place?
Actually, John Kerry just knows the real truth: That Bush is actually so clever and calculating, he knows he has to make it APPEAR that he isn't really controlling the oil (which, of course, he does [insert "evil laugh" here] ) by making sure gas prices rise.
I'm impressed. Not bad for a moron.
And from Switzerland, Tom Devine notes:
. . .Basically, your gas prices haven't gone up all that much. But, since you remember when you paid 55 cents per gallon in 1978 and you compare it to the $2 you pay today you automatically feel that prices have significantly increased. Of course you forget that you made $15k in 1978 and make $80k now which also has an inflation factor in it (aside from your excellent efforts).
What's more, American's pay too little for gas anyway. Cry me a river. We pay over $1 per liter here in Switzerland. Now, for those of you who shunned the metric system back in the day, the conversion is 1 gallon = 3.75 liters. So, we effectively pay nearly $4 per gallon. So does most of the Western world. Of course, we're not nearly as bad off as the Brits who are paying over $5 per US gallon. Taxes, taxes, taxes!
Either way, it sure makes that $1.80 / gallon the American's are sniveling about look pretty darn ridiculous. . .
Just worth bearing in mind.
UPDATE: Viking Pundit points out:
. . . John Kerry, on the other hand, is not ashamed to kiss the feet of the Saudis. (Hijackers? What hijackers?) And he’ll tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, reserved for wartime, because we’re not in a war – free oil for everyone! Of course, neither of these actions reduces our dependence on foreign oil but that’s OK because we’re all going to drive hybrid cars.
It’s…let’s say “interesting”…to characterize a price increase on a commodity as a “tax increase.” But there’s only one candidate in this race who has unquestionably voted in favor of high gasoline taxes: John Kerry. As noted here, Kerry voted for a BTU tax and a 4.3 cents-per-gallon increase in federal gas taxes. Also, in 1994, Kerry told the Boston Globe that he supported for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax; this would cost the average family over $600 per year. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 31, 2004
What gives? CNN reports:
Sen. John Kerry on Tuesday called for a "new direction" in the nation's energy policy as consumers face escalating gas prices, and the Bush campaign hammered the presumptive Democratic nominee as a tax-spending liberal.
The issue of higher prices at the pump took center stage on the campaign trail. Kerry said the prices -- an average of $1.77 for unleaded regular, according to one recent survey -- are a result of the Bush administration looking out for oil interests. . .
. . .the four-term senator from Massachusetts made a point of noting the ties President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have to the oil industry. Both are former oil industry executives, Cheney with Texas-based Halliburton. . .
Hearing about the gas price increases caused me to remember the pre-Iraq campaign "anti-war" chants of "No blood for oil!" "No war for oil!" "Iraq is all about oil!"
You know the drill -- no pun intended.
So, what we are now being told is that actually the higher prices are the "Bush crowd" taking care of its own.
And, presumably, if prices had fallen in the wake of the Iraq campaign, we would also have been told that the "Bush crowd" was looking after itself, by stealing Iraq's oil.
So, which is it, really?
2000 years ago Roman emperors did their best to see to it that the Roman mob had its "bread and circuses". Indeed, Trajan himself fought on the edge of what is today modern Iraq.
Today, we are being told by many about how our "evil" leaders are similarly determined to make the world safer for the "American mob" to drive SUVs.
Yet our "evil" leaders don't even appear smart enough to manipulate gas prices to at least keep them reasonably low, in order to better maintain their grip over the "stupid" "American mob."
Or maybe, just maybe, it was never about oil in the first place?
Actually, John Kerry just knows the real truth: That Bush is actually so clever and calculating, he knows he has to make it APPEAR that he isn't really controlling the oil (which, of course, he does [insert "evil laugh" here] ) by making sure gas prices rise.
I'm impressed. Not bad for a moron.
And from Switzerland, Tom Devine notes:
. . .Basically, your gas prices haven't gone up all that much. But, since you remember when you paid 55 cents per gallon in 1978 and you compare it to the $2 you pay today you automatically feel that prices have significantly increased. Of course you forget that you made $15k in 1978 and make $80k now which also has an inflation factor in it (aside from your excellent efforts).
What's more, American's pay too little for gas anyway. Cry me a river. We pay over $1 per liter here in Switzerland. Now, for those of you who shunned the metric system back in the day, the conversion is 1 gallon = 3.75 liters. So, we effectively pay nearly $4 per gallon. So does most of the Western world. Of course, we're not nearly as bad off as the Brits who are paying over $5 per US gallon. Taxes, taxes, taxes!
Either way, it sure makes that $1.80 / gallon the American's are sniveling about look pretty darn ridiculous. . .
Just worth bearing in mind.
UPDATE: Viking Pundit points out:
. . . John Kerry, on the other hand, is not ashamed to kiss the feet of the Saudis. (Hijackers? What hijackers?) And he’ll tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, reserved for wartime, because we’re not in a war – free oil for everyone! Of course, neither of these actions reduces our dependence on foreign oil but that’s OK because we’re all going to drive hybrid cars.
It’s…let’s say “interesting”…to characterize a price increase on a commodity as a “tax increase.” But there’s only one candidate in this race who has unquestionably voted in favor of high gasoline taxes: John Kerry. As noted here, Kerry voted for a BTU tax and a 4.3 cents-per-gallon increase in federal gas taxes. Also, in 1994, Kerry told the Boston Globe that he supported for a 50-cent increase in the gas tax; this would cost the average family over $600 per year. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 31, 2004
WELL, BETTER LATE THAN NEVER
The BBC reports:
. . .The Muslim Council of Britain has taken the unprecedented step of sending letters of appeal to every mosque in the country.
Hundreds of thousands of special booklets are also being printed advising Muslims to be vigilant, in light of recent threats.
The move comes following the Madrid bombing which killed 191 people.
The letters urge preachers to give correct Islamic guidance and to prevent criminals from infiltrating their communities. . .
. . .Mainstream Muslim leaders fear fringe elements are using political struggles to mislead young people.
Sermons will be delivered on Friday saying terrorism has no place in Islam, while booklets will remind Muslims of their obligation to help safeguard Britain's security.
Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary General of the council, told The Times: "There is a letter going to mosques across the country bringing to their attention the concern that has been expressed of an immediate attack taking place in the UK.
"It is important that we exercise vigilance in terms of fulfilling our duty. If there is anything we become aware of, it is our duty to ensure that this is reported immediately to the police. We will not tolerate terrorism.". . .
Well, better late than never, one supposes.
Interesting that this is in the news the day after the arrests of 8 Pakistani origin British citizens over apparent plans to do some detonating within Britain. Years after the cancer had already apparently circulated throughout the system, they are only now getting around to suggesting that maybe the patient needs some vegetables. Disgraceful.
When British passport holding Muslims were blowing themselves up in Israel, or getting picked up by coalition forces in Afghanistan, all we heard was the same old, "Oh, woe is us" line. So it is only now, after Madrid and also when the threat appears to be aimed directly at Britain from WITHIN Britain, that "Muslim leaders" have finally felt it necessary to say something in a formal sense at mosques.
Essentially, slugs were finally planning to sh-t where they lived, rather than in Israel and in Afghanistan, and suddenly the British Muslim Council professes to being all worried. Well, such "leaders" had better be. Because chances are there are more slugs out there.
UPDATE: From CNN. . .
. . . Ahmed Versi, editor of The Muslim News, said he supported the call from the council but he warned that Muslims felt "under siege."
He told the Press Association: "It is important that those people who are involved in terrorism should be apprehended."
But arresting people and releasing them without charge "created a feeling in the Muslim community that they have been targeted because they are Muslims," he added. . .
Let's be clear. Of course not all Muslims are Islamist terrorists. Unfortunately, all Islamist terrorists are Muslims.
So it follows that any "alleged" Islamist terrorists who are arrested must be, uh, -- you guessed it -- Muslims.
Understand the particular dilemma yet? ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 31, 2004
The BBC reports:
. . .The Muslim Council of Britain has taken the unprecedented step of sending letters of appeal to every mosque in the country.
Hundreds of thousands of special booklets are also being printed advising Muslims to be vigilant, in light of recent threats.
The move comes following the Madrid bombing which killed 191 people.
The letters urge preachers to give correct Islamic guidance and to prevent criminals from infiltrating their communities. . .
. . .Mainstream Muslim leaders fear fringe elements are using political struggles to mislead young people.
Sermons will be delivered on Friday saying terrorism has no place in Islam, while booklets will remind Muslims of their obligation to help safeguard Britain's security.
Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary General of the council, told The Times: "There is a letter going to mosques across the country bringing to their attention the concern that has been expressed of an immediate attack taking place in the UK.
"It is important that we exercise vigilance in terms of fulfilling our duty. If there is anything we become aware of, it is our duty to ensure that this is reported immediately to the police. We will not tolerate terrorism.". . .
Well, better late than never, one supposes.
Interesting that this is in the news the day after the arrests of 8 Pakistani origin British citizens over apparent plans to do some detonating within Britain. Years after the cancer had already apparently circulated throughout the system, they are only now getting around to suggesting that maybe the patient needs some vegetables. Disgraceful.
When British passport holding Muslims were blowing themselves up in Israel, or getting picked up by coalition forces in Afghanistan, all we heard was the same old, "Oh, woe is us" line. So it is only now, after Madrid and also when the threat appears to be aimed directly at Britain from WITHIN Britain, that "Muslim leaders" have finally felt it necessary to say something in a formal sense at mosques.
Essentially, slugs were finally planning to sh-t where they lived, rather than in Israel and in Afghanistan, and suddenly the British Muslim Council professes to being all worried. Well, such "leaders" had better be. Because chances are there are more slugs out there.
UPDATE: From CNN. . .
. . . Ahmed Versi, editor of The Muslim News, said he supported the call from the council but he warned that Muslims felt "under siege."
He told the Press Association: "It is important that those people who are involved in terrorism should be apprehended."
But arresting people and releasing them without charge "created a feeling in the Muslim community that they have been targeted because they are Muslims," he added. . .
Let's be clear. Of course not all Muslims are Islamist terrorists. Unfortunately, all Islamist terrorists are Muslims.
So it follows that any "alleged" Islamist terrorists who are arrested must be, uh, -- you guessed it -- Muslims.
Understand the particular dilemma yet? ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
BRITAIN AIN'T THE ONLY PLACE DOING SOME RAIDING
The CBC reports:
Armed RCMP anti-terrorism squads raided and searched two locations in the Ottawa area Monday, arresting one man in an apparent national security operation. . .
. . . Dozens of officers raided a two-storey house on a suburban street in Orleans Monday afternoon, marking it off with yellow tape and continuing to search it into the early morning hours Tuesday.
Police came and went in the darkness for several hours as reporters waited for information. Across the street from the house, a woman wearing a hijab sat in the back of an unmarked car, answering questions posed by two other women with notebooks.
A neighbour, Trudy Churchill, said a husband and wife, as well as a number of teen and adult children, have lived in the home for a number of years.
"The mother is kind of quiet," said Churchill. "She'll just say hi, but the dad, he'll ask how you're doing, a little bit of conversation. The kids are very quiet though."
When have neighbors EVER said ANY such people were NOT quiet? Especially the women.
The house is listed as being occupied by Dr. Mahboob Khawaja, once listed on the faculty of Syracuse University and the author of a book and several essays about Muslims and the West.
Some people really need to broaden their outlooks. Why is it they are never books and essays on, say, angling or moose watching?
Police also searched another location in the Ottawa region, but wouldn't say where. . .
When they are arresting people even in Canada, you have to suspect that "things" are really "going on." ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 30, 2004
The CBC reports:
Armed RCMP anti-terrorism squads raided and searched two locations in the Ottawa area Monday, arresting one man in an apparent national security operation. . .
. . . Dozens of officers raided a two-storey house on a suburban street in Orleans Monday afternoon, marking it off with yellow tape and continuing to search it into the early morning hours Tuesday.
Police came and went in the darkness for several hours as reporters waited for information. Across the street from the house, a woman wearing a hijab sat in the back of an unmarked car, answering questions posed by two other women with notebooks.
A neighbour, Trudy Churchill, said a husband and wife, as well as a number of teen and adult children, have lived in the home for a number of years.
"The mother is kind of quiet," said Churchill. "She'll just say hi, but the dad, he'll ask how you're doing, a little bit of conversation. The kids are very quiet though."
When have neighbors EVER said ANY such people were NOT quiet? Especially the women.
The house is listed as being occupied by Dr. Mahboob Khawaja, once listed on the faculty of Syracuse University and the author of a book and several essays about Muslims and the West.
Some people really need to broaden their outlooks. Why is it they are never books and essays on, say, angling or moose watching?
Police also searched another location in the Ottawa region, but wouldn't say where. . .
When they are arresting people even in Canada, you have to suspect that "things" are really "going on." ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 30, 2004
THIS MORNING'S RAIDS
UPDATE 4: At 2300, the BBC reports:
Eight men have been arrested across south-east England amid intelligence suggestions a plot to bomb civilians may have been foiled. . .
. . . The men arrested, all British citizens, are believed to be of Pakistani descent . . .
. . .Our correspondent said sources had told him the alleged targets of any bombing were not military or government but members of the public.
He said: "The success of today's operation is, I'm told, partly due to the successful penetration or infiltration by the intelligence services of extremist Islamist circles.". . .
What they have prevented, and who will be walking around next year who would be dead had the police and MI-5 not caught these slugs, we will never know. . .
Of course, from the peanut gallery, we get this. Cue the "woe is us" statement:
. . . Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, claimed the Muslim community was being "demonised" as a result of such raids.
He said: "These raids are usually given a lot of importance when they are taking place, but when people are released without charge, it is not news.
"It is creating a deception in the minds of ordinary people that we have a bigger problem than we really have," he added. . .
Uh, remember the WTC towers? Both of them?
As we know, they are gone now, along with 3,000 souls, surprised and murdered by only 19 Islamist bastards.
So, obviously, eh, the "problem" is not too big then, right?
Oh, good grief.
UPDATE 3: The BBC provides some "Qs" and "As". And, believe it or not, they are useful reading.
UPDATE 2: Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke has noted, the Telegraph reports:
. . ."We know the overwhelming majority of the Muslim community are law-abiding and completely reject all forms of violence," he said
"Today at both local and national levels we have been holding discussions with community leaders and other representatives to address any concerns they may have.". . .
That is becoming a "required statement", which we seem to hear versions of over and over. . .
The police have stated that the arrests have nothing to do with Irish terrorism, which has used similar ingredients for its explosive devices. However, in Islamist terror attacks, the stuff has been used, too.
The A.P. reports:
Ammonium nitrate was used to make a bomb in a van which was parked near the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, on March 15. It did not explode.
The substance was also used in a suicide bomb attack in which an explosives-laden truck was detonated outside a British bank in Istanbul, Turkey in November. . .
UPDATE: ITV News is reporting:
Police have seized half a ton of chemicals which could be used in the production of explosives in a major anti-terrorist operation. . .
. . .Scotland Yard deputy assistant commissioner Peter Clarke said the large amount of ammonium nitrate fertilsier was found at an address in Hanwell, west London.
A bomb made with ammonium nitrate was used in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
Hmm. Just hmm.
The eight men being questioned are all British citizens aged between 17 and 32. . .
Well, well.
INITIAL POST
The BBC reports:
Several Islamic terror suspects have been arrested in a series of raids at addresses across the south of England, police have said.
Scotland Yard said the raids took place in Sussex, Surrey, the Thames Valley region, London and Bedfordshire.
They were carried out by five forces at 0600 BST on Tuesday.
It is believed the suspects have been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, on suspicion of involvement in Islamic terrorism.
BBC home affairs correspondent Daniel Sandford said police sources had said the arrests were "significant". . .
I know. I know. More unfairly hassled wedding attenders/computer students/those looking to find themselves/those looking to learn Arabic in Pakistan and those who preach peace and goodwill toward all people. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 30, 2004
UPDATE 4: At 2300, the BBC reports:
Eight men have been arrested across south-east England amid intelligence suggestions a plot to bomb civilians may have been foiled. . .
. . . The men arrested, all British citizens, are believed to be of Pakistani descent . . .
. . .Our correspondent said sources had told him the alleged targets of any bombing were not military or government but members of the public.
He said: "The success of today's operation is, I'm told, partly due to the successful penetration or infiltration by the intelligence services of extremist Islamist circles.". . .
What they have prevented, and who will be walking around next year who would be dead had the police and MI-5 not caught these slugs, we will never know. . .
Of course, from the peanut gallery, we get this. Cue the "woe is us" statement:
. . . Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, claimed the Muslim community was being "demonised" as a result of such raids.
He said: "These raids are usually given a lot of importance when they are taking place, but when people are released without charge, it is not news.
"It is creating a deception in the minds of ordinary people that we have a bigger problem than we really have," he added. . .
Uh, remember the WTC towers? Both of them?
As we know, they are gone now, along with 3,000 souls, surprised and murdered by only 19 Islamist bastards.
So, obviously, eh, the "problem" is not too big then, right?
Oh, good grief.
UPDATE 3: The BBC provides some "Qs" and "As". And, believe it or not, they are useful reading.
UPDATE 2: Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke has noted, the Telegraph reports:
. . ."We know the overwhelming majority of the Muslim community are law-abiding and completely reject all forms of violence," he said
"Today at both local and national levels we have been holding discussions with community leaders and other representatives to address any concerns they may have.". . .
That is becoming a "required statement", which we seem to hear versions of over and over. . .
The police have stated that the arrests have nothing to do with Irish terrorism, which has used similar ingredients for its explosive devices. However, in Islamist terror attacks, the stuff has been used, too.
The A.P. reports:
Ammonium nitrate was used to make a bomb in a van which was parked near the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, on March 15. It did not explode.
The substance was also used in a suicide bomb attack in which an explosives-laden truck was detonated outside a British bank in Istanbul, Turkey in November. . .
UPDATE: ITV News is reporting:
Police have seized half a ton of chemicals which could be used in the production of explosives in a major anti-terrorist operation. . .
. . .Scotland Yard deputy assistant commissioner Peter Clarke said the large amount of ammonium nitrate fertilsier was found at an address in Hanwell, west London.
A bomb made with ammonium nitrate was used in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
Hmm. Just hmm.
The eight men being questioned are all British citizens aged between 17 and 32. . .
Well, well.
INITIAL POST
The BBC reports:
Several Islamic terror suspects have been arrested in a series of raids at addresses across the south of England, police have said.
Scotland Yard said the raids took place in Sussex, Surrey, the Thames Valley region, London and Bedfordshire.
They were carried out by five forces at 0600 BST on Tuesday.
It is believed the suspects have been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, on suspicion of involvement in Islamic terrorism.
BBC home affairs correspondent Daniel Sandford said police sources had said the arrests were "significant". . .
I know. I know. More unfairly hassled wedding attenders/computer students/those looking to find themselves/those looking to learn Arabic in Pakistan and those who preach peace and goodwill toward all people. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 30, 2004
ALISTAIR'S GONE
ITV reports:
Veteran radio broadcaster Alistair Cooke has died at the age of 95.
Cooke was famous across the world for the weekly reports from America he made for nearly 60 years.
Cooke announced his retirement earlier this month, bringing a flood of tributes from colleagues and admirers on both sides of the Atlantic. . .
This is huge. British media has just lost the ONE who really knew about America and Americans. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 30, 2004
ITV reports:
Veteran radio broadcaster Alistair Cooke has died at the age of 95.
Cooke was famous across the world for the weekly reports from America he made for nearly 60 years.
Cooke announced his retirement earlier this month, bringing a flood of tributes from colleagues and admirers on both sides of the Atlantic. . .
This is huge. British media has just lost the ONE who really knew about America and Americans. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 30, 2004
U.N. NOT U.S.
Instapundit on the UN's Iraq, errr, "Oil for Food", program:
Funny, isn't it, that while people were accusing the United States of starving Iraqi children, it was actually the U.N. that was doing it? "Funny," that is, in the sense that the crimes and hypocrisies of the international political classes are peculiarly unnoted, not funny in the sense of actually amusing. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Instapundit on the UN's Iraq, errr, "Oil for Food", program:
Funny, isn't it, that while people were accusing the United States of starving Iraqi children, it was actually the U.N. that was doing it? "Funny," that is, in the sense that the crimes and hypocrisies of the international political classes are peculiarly unnoted, not funny in the sense of actually amusing. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 30, 2004
PIPES ON CLARKE
Daniel Pipes on Richard Clarke's claims about the war in Iraq "undermining" the War on Islamist terror:
I am against the blame game about 9/11 but there is one topic where Richard Clarke's fulminations prompts a reaction from this quarter; his claim that the Iraq war undermined the war on terrorism. . .
. . . Americans and Muslims see the world very differently. It's not just a matter of such hot-button issues as Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict but also larger questions of economics, politics, religion, sexuality, and child-rearing. Put in the simplest terms, Americans are mostly modern and Muslims are mostly not. There are exceptions to this general rule but it holds often enough and is so consequential that it now drives world politics. Further, this was the situation no less before 9/11 than it is today; it just was not so evident. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Daniel Pipes on Richard Clarke's claims about the war in Iraq "undermining" the War on Islamist terror:
I am against the blame game about 9/11 but there is one topic where Richard Clarke's fulminations prompts a reaction from this quarter; his claim that the Iraq war undermined the war on terrorism. . .
. . . Americans and Muslims see the world very differently. It's not just a matter of such hot-button issues as Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict but also larger questions of economics, politics, religion, sexuality, and child-rearing. Put in the simplest terms, Americans are mostly modern and Muslims are mostly not. There are exceptions to this general rule but it holds often enough and is so consequential that it now drives world politics. Further, this was the situation no less before 9/11 than it is today; it just was not so evident. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 30, 2004
NOW, THIS IS BRAVERY
Even with its then tiny population, Canada, and then separate Newfoundland, sacrificed tens of thousands in the trenches in France/Belgium during WWI, fighting alongside Britain, France and the U.S., in the victory over imperial Germany.
A generation later, the Canadian army was, with the British, Americans and Free French, one of the major contributors to the battle to liberate Western Europe (particularly The Netherlands) during WWII. Canadian First Army General Henry Crerar was one of the major combat leaders of the Second World War. . .
. . . Today, dimwitted, pampered Canadian students (of ages only a few years younger than were their predecessors, when the latter fought and were killed in France and in the Low Countries in the two World Wars) "bravely" boo 14 year old American girls.
Being American in Toronto, Ontario tells us:
America, stand up and salute 14-year old Laura Elfman, the young American student living in Canada who was booed while carrying her country's flag in Montreal last week.
Some of us were pretty het up about that incident, but there was probably another feeling inside, one we didn't talk about, and Laura did exactly what we knew she'd do once we realized this was the second year this had happened to her yet she was carrying Old Glory again. . .
And of course, "educational professionals" appear clueless. Maybe they ought to consider teaching dimwitted Canadian students of today something about Canada's truly brave and noble past?
Nah, they'd never do that.
Anne, a commenter on Being American, noted:
What gets me is that this is the second year in a row that the school pulled this stunt -they knew she got booed last year, but went ahead and held the same program and (as far as I can tell) didn't try to enforce any behavior standards among the students. This being Canada, I wonder if some of the teachers weren't rather enjoying the booing as well.
One does wonder.
P.S.: I am fully aware that Canadian military professionals are serving in the War on Islamist Terror, especially in Afghanistan. That is really beside the point, for there are small numbers of soldiers from many countries in Afghanistan. The real issue is that, given Canada's size and military history, Canada's current contribution to the War on Islamist Terror is relatively modest.
Unfortunately, it is "the booers" noted above, and not Canadian military professionals, who appear to be much more reflective of the views of the Canadian public. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Even with its then tiny population, Canada, and then separate Newfoundland, sacrificed tens of thousands in the trenches in France/Belgium during WWI, fighting alongside Britain, France and the U.S., in the victory over imperial Germany.
A generation later, the Canadian army was, with the British, Americans and Free French, one of the major contributors to the battle to liberate Western Europe (particularly The Netherlands) during WWII. Canadian First Army General Henry Crerar was one of the major combat leaders of the Second World War. . .
. . . Today, dimwitted, pampered Canadian students (of ages only a few years younger than were their predecessors, when the latter fought and were killed in France and in the Low Countries in the two World Wars) "bravely" boo 14 year old American girls.
Being American in Toronto, Ontario tells us:
America, stand up and salute 14-year old Laura Elfman, the young American student living in Canada who was booed while carrying her country's flag in Montreal last week.
Some of us were pretty het up about that incident, but there was probably another feeling inside, one we didn't talk about, and Laura did exactly what we knew she'd do once we realized this was the second year this had happened to her yet she was carrying Old Glory again. . .
And of course, "educational professionals" appear clueless. Maybe they ought to consider teaching dimwitted Canadian students of today something about Canada's truly brave and noble past?
Nah, they'd never do that.
Anne, a commenter on Being American, noted:
What gets me is that this is the second year in a row that the school pulled this stunt -they knew she got booed last year, but went ahead and held the same program and (as far as I can tell) didn't try to enforce any behavior standards among the students. This being Canada, I wonder if some of the teachers weren't rather enjoying the booing as well.
One does wonder.
P.S.: I am fully aware that Canadian military professionals are serving in the War on Islamist Terror, especially in Afghanistan. That is really beside the point, for there are small numbers of soldiers from many countries in Afghanistan. The real issue is that, given Canada's size and military history, Canada's current contribution to the War on Islamist Terror is relatively modest.
Unfortunately, it is "the booers" noted above, and not Canadian military professionals, who appear to be much more reflective of the views of the Canadian public. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 30, 2004
WHAT HAPPENED TO BRIT, MORT, MARA AND FRED?!
Normally, I start my day at around 5:30. Over the last year or so, I have quietly developed a habit from Tuesdays through Fridays of catching roughly the last half hour of the re-run of Special Report with Brit Hume, which was broadcast live in U.S. the evening before.
But this morning -- good grief! -- no Brit! I turned on Fox, and there was Bill O'Reilly! Don't get me wrong. I like Bill. But he is way too intense for me for that hour of the morning. And for a moment, I felt let down. I quickly checked the listings, and, yes, Brit was now on at 6. (I can't watch Brit between 6 and 7, because by 6:15 the wife and I have turned on BBC Breakfast . . . for a laugh or two.)
Then I remembered: The clocks! The "Spring forward" in the U.S. is early April 4. In Britain, the clocks were moved forward March 28. So, there is a six hour time difference between U.S. E.T. and British time, for THIS WEEK ONLY.
So, next week, Brit, Mort, Mara and Fred and co hopefully will be back where they belong. And mornings will be back to normal. What a relief. . .
I realize, too, that I really should count my blessings. After all, in the most flagrant attempt to prevent a free flow of information probably since the Kremlin was regularly jamming the shortwave (remember that?) broadcasts of the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe beamed into the Soviet bloc thirty years ago, today Canadian authorities won't allow Fox to be broadcast. So, whenever Fox changes its schedule -- and, of course, they will sometime -- I will remember to be grateful that Fox is in Britain at all. Period.
And I will find a way to tape whatever I miss. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Normally, I start my day at around 5:30. Over the last year or so, I have quietly developed a habit from Tuesdays through Fridays of catching roughly the last half hour of the re-run of Special Report with Brit Hume, which was broadcast live in U.S. the evening before.
But this morning -- good grief! -- no Brit! I turned on Fox, and there was Bill O'Reilly! Don't get me wrong. I like Bill. But he is way too intense for me for that hour of the morning. And for a moment, I felt let down. I quickly checked the listings, and, yes, Brit was now on at 6. (I can't watch Brit between 6 and 7, because by 6:15 the wife and I have turned on BBC Breakfast . . . for a laugh or two.)
Then I remembered: The clocks! The "Spring forward" in the U.S. is early April 4. In Britain, the clocks were moved forward March 28. So, there is a six hour time difference between U.S. E.T. and British time, for THIS WEEK ONLY.
So, next week, Brit, Mort, Mara and Fred and co hopefully will be back where they belong. And mornings will be back to normal. What a relief. . .
I realize, too, that I really should count my blessings. After all, in the most flagrant attempt to prevent a free flow of information probably since the Kremlin was regularly jamming the shortwave (remember that?) broadcasts of the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe beamed into the Soviet bloc thirty years ago, today Canadian authorities won't allow Fox to be broadcast. So, whenever Fox changes its schedule -- and, of course, they will sometime -- I will remember to be grateful that Fox is in Britain at all. Period.
And I will find a way to tape whatever I miss. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Monday, March 29, 2004
IF YOU MISSED IT, READ IT
We have all read many times over Blair's and Bush's views regarding the War on Islamist terror. But they are hardly the only articulate voices on behalf of civilization and rational behavior.
Many of us have already posted Jose Maria Aznar's WSJ piece last week. But it is worth revisiting. As Shannon, "Yankee From Mississippi" told us:
Do yourselves a favor and read this piece from the Opinion Journal by Jose Maria Aznar. Regardless of where you stand on the war on terror issue, it is good to be acquainted with the best arguments from both sides, and this is one of the most thoughtful and passionate pro-war pieces I've ever read. . .
She's right.
Indeed, frame it. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 29, 2004
We have all read many times over Blair's and Bush's views regarding the War on Islamist terror. But they are hardly the only articulate voices on behalf of civilization and rational behavior.
Many of us have already posted Jose Maria Aznar's WSJ piece last week. But it is worth revisiting. As Shannon, "Yankee From Mississippi" told us:
Do yourselves a favor and read this piece from the Opinion Journal by Jose Maria Aznar. Regardless of where you stand on the war on terror issue, it is good to be acquainted with the best arguments from both sides, and this is one of the most thoughtful and passionate pro-war pieces I've ever read. . .
She's right.
Indeed, frame it. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 29, 2004
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Northeast Intelligence Network has this. Scroll down to 28 March 2004 Who's in Control of Qaeda-al-Jihad?:
. . .we believe that the same Task Force 121 which captured Saddam Hussein in Iraq in December, and Osama bin Laden in the Islamic Republic of Iran in January 2004 has now also killed Ayman al-Zawahiri on or about 16/17 March 2004. . .
Hmm. Just hmmm.
Facts and great research, or imaginations run wild? ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 29, 2004
Northeast Intelligence Network has this. Scroll down to 28 March 2004 Who's in Control of Qaeda-al-Jihad?:
. . .we believe that the same Task Force 121 which captured Saddam Hussein in Iraq in December, and Osama bin Laden in the Islamic Republic of Iran in January 2004 has now also killed Ayman al-Zawahiri on or about 16/17 March 2004. . .
Hmm. Just hmmm.
Facts and great research, or imaginations run wild? ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 29, 2004
IT MUST BE ALL BUSH'S FAULT!
Mark Steyn:
In January 2002, the Enron story broke and the media turned their attention to the critical question: how can we pin this on Bush? As I wrote in this space that weekend: "Short answer: You can't."
So Enron retreated to the business pages, and, after a while, the media and the Democrats came up with an even better wheeze: how can we pin September 11 on Bush? Same answer: you can't. But that doesn't stop them every month or so from taking a wild ride on defective vehicles for their crazy scheme.
The latest is a mid-level bureaucrat called Richard Clarke, and by the time you read this his 15 minutes should be just about up. Mr Clarke was Bill Clinton's terrorism guy for eight years and George W Bush's for a somewhat briefer period, and he has now written a book called If Only They'd Listened to Me - whoops, sorry, that should be Against All Enemies: Inside the White House's War on Terror - What Really Happened (Because They Didn't Listen to Me).
. . .I don't know how good Clarke was at counter-terrorism, but as a media performer he is a total dummy. He seemed to think that he could claim the lucrative star role of Lead Bush Basher without anybody noticing the huge paper trail of statements he has left contradicting the argument in his book. . .
That's right. Read on. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 29, 2004
Mark Steyn:
In January 2002, the Enron story broke and the media turned their attention to the critical question: how can we pin this on Bush? As I wrote in this space that weekend: "Short answer: You can't."
So Enron retreated to the business pages, and, after a while, the media and the Democrats came up with an even better wheeze: how can we pin September 11 on Bush? Same answer: you can't. But that doesn't stop them every month or so from taking a wild ride on defective vehicles for their crazy scheme.
The latest is a mid-level bureaucrat called Richard Clarke, and by the time you read this his 15 minutes should be just about up. Mr Clarke was Bill Clinton's terrorism guy for eight years and George W Bush's for a somewhat briefer period, and he has now written a book called If Only They'd Listened to Me - whoops, sorry, that should be Against All Enemies: Inside the White House's War on Terror - What Really Happened (Because They Didn't Listen to Me).
. . .I don't know how good Clarke was at counter-terrorism, but as a media performer he is a total dummy. He seemed to think that he could claim the lucrative star role of Lead Bush Basher without anybody noticing the huge paper trail of statements he has left contradicting the argument in his book. . .
That's right. Read on. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 29, 2004
TROUBLE WITH FIGURES
Scott Burgess on the Guardian's inability to do math -- and to present certain, basic facts correctly. No surprise there:
. . .As far as London Asians being "mainly Muslim," well, 59% of them are in fact Indian - and since only 12% of Indians are Muslim (and 16% of Bangladeshis, the second largest group, are Hindu), it seems likely that this unsubstantiated assertion is simply wrong. . .
Yeh, but it reads really well. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 29, 2004
Scott Burgess on the Guardian's inability to do math -- and to present certain, basic facts correctly. No surprise there:
. . .As far as London Asians being "mainly Muslim," well, 59% of them are in fact Indian - and since only 12% of Indians are Muslim (and 16% of Bangladeshis, the second largest group, are Hindu), it seems likely that this unsubstantiated assertion is simply wrong. . .
Yeh, but it reads really well. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 29, 2004
BRITISH DEMOCRACY IS SAFE
The BBC reports:
Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith has been cleared of impropriety over the way he ran his private office.
It follows an inquiry by Parliament's watchdog into claims Betsy Duncan Smith did not do enough to justify her salary as her husband's diary secretary.
The watchdog dismissed that complaint but said two officials were paid out of the wrong funds for party work. . .
I'm sorry, but does anyone actually CARE about this, one way or the other.
What is more important is the "journalism" involved -- yet again:
. . .Questions about Mr Duncan Smith's office were raised by investigative journalist Michael Crick in the run-up to last year's Conservative conference.
Mr Crick made his inquiries for BBC Two's Newsnight, although his report was never broadcast. . .
. . .Mr Crick said he accepted the findings but argued: "It was absolutely right that this should have been pursued and absolutely right that the commissioner should have looked into it.". . .
. . .The committee says it has "grave doubts" about some of the techniques used by Mr Crick to gather information for his complaint.
"But these are matters for the BBC," it adds. . .
And we KNOW the BBC will look into things. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 29, 2004
The BBC reports:
Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith has been cleared of impropriety over the way he ran his private office.
It follows an inquiry by Parliament's watchdog into claims Betsy Duncan Smith did not do enough to justify her salary as her husband's diary secretary.
The watchdog dismissed that complaint but said two officials were paid out of the wrong funds for party work. . .
I'm sorry, but does anyone actually CARE about this, one way or the other.
What is more important is the "journalism" involved -- yet again:
. . .Questions about Mr Duncan Smith's office were raised by investigative journalist Michael Crick in the run-up to last year's Conservative conference.
Mr Crick made his inquiries for BBC Two's Newsnight, although his report was never broadcast. . .
. . .Mr Crick said he accepted the findings but argued: "It was absolutely right that this should have been pursued and absolutely right that the commissioner should have looked into it.". . .
. . .The committee says it has "grave doubts" about some of the techniques used by Mr Crick to gather information for his complaint.
"But these are matters for the BBC," it adds. . .
And we KNOW the BBC will look into things. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 29, 2004
FAST FOOD GAS ATTACK
You think the Italian police will call this an attack . . . or an accident? CNN reports:
Italian police say they are investigating whether an explosion that killed a man near a McDonald's fast food restaurant in northern Italy was an accident or a failed attack.
A car loaded with four gas canisters exploded while the driver was in a queue to buy food at the outlet of the U.S. hamburger chain late on Sunday in Brescia.
The driver was killed as he was trying to get out of the car, witnesses quoted by local media said.
The car, whose registered owner was from Morocco, exploded because it was saturated with gas, but it was not clear if the man had opened the values or if they had leaked, police said on Monday. . .
Oh, so the car was loaded with gas containers, in a line at a McDonalds, and some gas happened to leak out all on its own, leading to an explosion then and there.
Yep, that sort of thing happens all the time. . .
Point of fact: Despite attempts by leftists, anti-free traders and Islamists to portray it as an arm of the "evil" C.I.A., and one of the faces of "American imperialism", no McDonalds are owned by the "U.S." It is simply a restaurant chain/brand.
And most McDonalds' are franchises, usually owned locally, and usually using local produce to create the McDonalds' branded fast food. Chances are, that Brescia McDonalds is not owned by "American food imperialists", but by Italians and/or other Europeans. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 29, 2004
You think the Italian police will call this an attack . . . or an accident? CNN reports:
Italian police say they are investigating whether an explosion that killed a man near a McDonald's fast food restaurant in northern Italy was an accident or a failed attack.
A car loaded with four gas canisters exploded while the driver was in a queue to buy food at the outlet of the U.S. hamburger chain late on Sunday in Brescia.
The driver was killed as he was trying to get out of the car, witnesses quoted by local media said.
The car, whose registered owner was from Morocco, exploded because it was saturated with gas, but it was not clear if the man had opened the values or if they had leaked, police said on Monday. . .
Oh, so the car was loaded with gas containers, in a line at a McDonalds, and some gas happened to leak out all on its own, leading to an explosion then and there.
Yep, that sort of thing happens all the time. . .
Point of fact: Despite attempts by leftists, anti-free traders and Islamists to portray it as an arm of the "evil" C.I.A., and one of the faces of "American imperialism", no McDonalds are owned by the "U.S." It is simply a restaurant chain/brand.
And most McDonalds' are franchises, usually owned locally, and usually using local produce to create the McDonalds' branded fast food. Chances are, that Brescia McDonalds is not owned by "American food imperialists", but by Italians and/or other Europeans. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 29, 2004
TARGET: WOMEN OFFICE HOLDERS?
Islamists have for months of course been targeting police, workers, average people and anyone working to make Iraq a reasonable society. That those in the Iraqi Governing Council are being targeted is not surprising.
And it is no secret that Islamists believe women should not even be seen, much less heard. So having "inferiors" like women in government is probably near the top of the Islamist list of things that create among them feelings of "dismay", "fury" and "sadness." They have killed one Iraqi woman minister previously, and have now taken a shot an another. The A.P. reports:
Gunmen opened fire Sunday on a convoy carrying Iraq's minister of public works, killing a driver and a bodyguard and injuring two others, the U.S.-led coalition said. The minister, Nisreen Berwari, was unharmed. . .
. . .Previously, Berwari was development minister in the Kurdistan regional government, and she also served with United Nations organizations in Iraq.
Another female political leader, Aqila al-Hashimi, was assassinated in September. She was a Shiite member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council. . .
And the N.O.W. is where on this, exactly -- as Islamist fighters take shots at women officeholders? I think we can take an educated guess, considering they had the nerve to peddle junk like this, in autumn 2003. It ascended to such heights of la-la altitude, it is almost embarrassing:
. . .Contrary to public assumption, women in Iraq once enjoyed relative equality, frequently contributing to and benefitting from Iraq's largely secular economy. It was even common for Iraqi women to hold political office, and the U.N. ranked Iraq as the Arab country with the highest level of gender equity. Prior to the 2003 invasion, women comprised more than 20% of the Iraqi workforce, holding a wide range of technical, professional, and governmental positions, including a full fifth of the country's parliamentary seats.
Typical blather. Three points:
1) Of course, that there were no officeholders in Iraq other than Saddam and his Baathist cronies -- the rubber-stamp, Saddamite parliament included -- is something the N.O.W. omits. As to the other areas the N.O.W. mentions . . . in any society (be it Arab/Muslim, or anything else) as tyrannical as Saddamite Iraq was, the positive significance of "20%" of the workforce being composed of women is, at best, unclear.
2) Most might think a U.N. ranking on "gender equity" for a society built on mass graves misses the point. After all, the U.N. also considered Iraq to be one of the most vicious regimes on the planet. In the UN's own words, Iraq's Saddamist regime's "accomplishments" in the field of human rights included the likes of:
. . .summary and arbitrary executions, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, enforced or involuntary disappearances, arbitrary arrests and detention and lack of due process and the rule of law and of freedom of thought, of expression, of association and of access to food and health care,. . .
3) Women as window dressing within a particularly appallingly oppressive state, but one with a "secular economy" (and the huge Mother of All Battles and Grand Saddam mosques, one supposes must also indicate "secularism" in the state in the N.O.W's "nuanced" view), is apparently perfectly fine for the N.O.W.
What does the N.O.W. offer Iraqi women, who actually think, and who wish to serve and live in a democratic and reasonable polity? Bean counting, western feminist-style.
However, in the disastrous aftermath of the war, Iraqi women have already become dangerously oppressed because of U.S. funded reconstruction. Following the onset of political occupation, the U.S. government has sought to decrease the influence of Iraqi women by filling their former parliamentary positions with men. At the first meeting for post-Baathist reconstruction, only four out of eighty representatives of the new government were women. Of the 25 newly appointed Cabinet members, only one is a woman. In the recently established Governing Council, women fill only three of 25 seats. Even more disturbingly, on September 20, one of the three female council members was fatally shot in a successful assassination attempt. . .
So we are clear, according to the N.O.W., America's not urging the re-appointment of Saddamite women to the Governing Council is America's fault, and Islamists killing women is America's fault.
Indeed, is N.O.W.'s position perhaps that it would prefer former, Saddamite regime serving women over freedom-minded Iraqi men? I believe that most freedom-minded men in current democratic societies would happily live any day of the week under the guidance of an elected cabinet of all Margaret Thatchers, rather than under the thumb of a dictatorship that is 100% male, former Nazis and/or communists. One would hope the N.O.W. might have a similar, sensible outlook.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to. The N.O.W.'s overall position is this: Better faux Saddamite "female equality", encased and carefully circumscribed within a ghastly oppressive apparatus built on mass graves, than facing the real issue of gender equality/inequality, within a democratic and reasonable polity, under the rule of law.
Anyway, the N.O.W. is probably a bit too busy to worry too much in detail about Iraqi women ministers getting shot at -- what with the N.O.W. likely getting all ready for this year's "vital" gender equality issue stateside: the Masters. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 29, 2004
Islamists have for months of course been targeting police, workers, average people and anyone working to make Iraq a reasonable society. That those in the Iraqi Governing Council are being targeted is not surprising.
And it is no secret that Islamists believe women should not even be seen, much less heard. So having "inferiors" like women in government is probably near the top of the Islamist list of things that create among them feelings of "dismay", "fury" and "sadness." They have killed one Iraqi woman minister previously, and have now taken a shot an another. The A.P. reports:
Gunmen opened fire Sunday on a convoy carrying Iraq's minister of public works, killing a driver and a bodyguard and injuring two others, the U.S.-led coalition said. The minister, Nisreen Berwari, was unharmed. . .
. . .Previously, Berwari was development minister in the Kurdistan regional government, and she also served with United Nations organizations in Iraq.
Another female political leader, Aqila al-Hashimi, was assassinated in September. She was a Shiite member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council. . .
And the N.O.W. is where on this, exactly -- as Islamist fighters take shots at women officeholders? I think we can take an educated guess, considering they had the nerve to peddle junk like this, in autumn 2003. It ascended to such heights of la-la altitude, it is almost embarrassing:
. . .Contrary to public assumption, women in Iraq once enjoyed relative equality, frequently contributing to and benefitting from Iraq's largely secular economy. It was even common for Iraqi women to hold political office, and the U.N. ranked Iraq as the Arab country with the highest level of gender equity. Prior to the 2003 invasion, women comprised more than 20% of the Iraqi workforce, holding a wide range of technical, professional, and governmental positions, including a full fifth of the country's parliamentary seats.
Typical blather. Three points:
1) Of course, that there were no officeholders in Iraq other than Saddam and his Baathist cronies -- the rubber-stamp, Saddamite parliament included -- is something the N.O.W. omits. As to the other areas the N.O.W. mentions . . . in any society (be it Arab/Muslim, or anything else) as tyrannical as Saddamite Iraq was, the positive significance of "20%" of the workforce being composed of women is, at best, unclear.
2) Most might think a U.N. ranking on "gender equity" for a society built on mass graves misses the point. After all, the U.N. also considered Iraq to be one of the most vicious regimes on the planet. In the UN's own words, Iraq's Saddamist regime's "accomplishments" in the field of human rights included the likes of:
. . .summary and arbitrary executions, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, enforced or involuntary disappearances, arbitrary arrests and detention and lack of due process and the rule of law and of freedom of thought, of expression, of association and of access to food and health care,. . .
3) Women as window dressing within a particularly appallingly oppressive state, but one with a "secular economy" (and the huge Mother of All Battles and Grand Saddam mosques, one supposes must also indicate "secularism" in the state in the N.O.W's "nuanced" view), is apparently perfectly fine for the N.O.W.
What does the N.O.W. offer Iraqi women, who actually think, and who wish to serve and live in a democratic and reasonable polity? Bean counting, western feminist-style.
However, in the disastrous aftermath of the war, Iraqi women have already become dangerously oppressed because of U.S. funded reconstruction. Following the onset of political occupation, the U.S. government has sought to decrease the influence of Iraqi women by filling their former parliamentary positions with men. At the first meeting for post-Baathist reconstruction, only four out of eighty representatives of the new government were women. Of the 25 newly appointed Cabinet members, only one is a woman. In the recently established Governing Council, women fill only three of 25 seats. Even more disturbingly, on September 20, one of the three female council members was fatally shot in a successful assassination attempt. . .
So we are clear, according to the N.O.W., America's not urging the re-appointment of Saddamite women to the Governing Council is America's fault, and Islamists killing women is America's fault.
Indeed, is N.O.W.'s position perhaps that it would prefer former, Saddamite regime serving women over freedom-minded Iraqi men? I believe that most freedom-minded men in current democratic societies would happily live any day of the week under the guidance of an elected cabinet of all Margaret Thatchers, rather than under the thumb of a dictatorship that is 100% male, former Nazis and/or communists. One would hope the N.O.W. might have a similar, sensible outlook.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to. The N.O.W.'s overall position is this: Better faux Saddamite "female equality", encased and carefully circumscribed within a ghastly oppressive apparatus built on mass graves, than facing the real issue of gender equality/inequality, within a democratic and reasonable polity, under the rule of law.
Anyway, the N.O.W. is probably a bit too busy to worry too much in detail about Iraqi women ministers getting shot at -- what with the N.O.W. likely getting all ready for this year's "vital" gender equality issue stateside: the Masters. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 29, 2004
FORMER GREEN BERET TACKLES KERRY
I was emailed the below (thanks Joe!), and it has obviously been making the rounds. I did a quick search and found it blogged prominently on "A Collection of Thoughts". The original was composed by Vietnam vet Don Bendell. (According to Don's personal site, he will be on Fox News on March 30 at 11:35 Eastern time, U.S.) Some choice bits:
Thank you, John Kerry, for helping make us Vietnam veterans war heroes now, but you also were the primary reason that the American public grabbed sturdy unbending brooms of judgment and swept us into the closet of silence and shame for so many years. Now, with your latest unreported insanity, you are getting ready for our society to grab those same stiff brooms and sweep our brave, noble young men and women fighting against the War on Terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, into that cold, dark cell of heartbreak and betrayal, like we Vietnam veterans had to endure in silent dignity. I cannot and will not watch this country go through that again. . .
. . .on February 27, 2004, in a speech at UCLA , you, while trying to talk tough, despite voting against all major weapons systems for the past 18 years, stated that you will continue the War on Terror, but would use our police forces, and especially those in foreign countries, and you would also put our troops back under the powder blue flag of the United Nations. You recently made comments about Bush making troops fight without Kevlar vests, but you, Senator Kerry, voted against buying them while you were in the Senate. . .
. . .I left it “all on the field” in the jungles back there when I was medevaced out of Vietnam in March of 1969 and sent back to hospitals in “The World.” Although You, Mr. Kerry, painted all of us Vietnam veterans with the yellow brush of My Lai and Tiger Force, most of us, draftees and lifers alike, actually poured our hearts out in the tropical rain forests and in the rice paddies, thoroughly gave it our all, and acted as warriors who had honor. I have a son earning his green beret at Fort Bragg right now and a daughter-in-law on orders for Iraq. I am not going to stand by and watch them go through the same treatment we did, because some of our well-meaning fellow Americans choose to wear blinders and believe things just because they heard it on the network news or simply not care enough to get involved.
I am not a “baby-killer, torturer, or murderer,” John Kerry. I am a Vietnam veteran and an American who will not soon forget, or ever want to see again, any more jets loaded with fuel and screaming, innocent Americans slamming into our buildings on our very own soil. I have shed enough tears for ten lifetimes. We all have. I will never again let my fellow countrymen get away with making American veterans feel like bastard step-children. . .
Just worth noting. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 29, 2004
I was emailed the below (thanks Joe!), and it has obviously been making the rounds. I did a quick search and found it blogged prominently on "A Collection of Thoughts". The original was composed by Vietnam vet Don Bendell. (According to Don's personal site, he will be on Fox News on March 30 at 11:35 Eastern time, U.S.) Some choice bits:
Thank you, John Kerry, for helping make us Vietnam veterans war heroes now, but you also were the primary reason that the American public grabbed sturdy unbending brooms of judgment and swept us into the closet of silence and shame for so many years. Now, with your latest unreported insanity, you are getting ready for our society to grab those same stiff brooms and sweep our brave, noble young men and women fighting against the War on Terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, into that cold, dark cell of heartbreak and betrayal, like we Vietnam veterans had to endure in silent dignity. I cannot and will not watch this country go through that again. . .
. . .on February 27, 2004, in a speech at UCLA , you, while trying to talk tough, despite voting against all major weapons systems for the past 18 years, stated that you will continue the War on Terror, but would use our police forces, and especially those in foreign countries, and you would also put our troops back under the powder blue flag of the United Nations. You recently made comments about Bush making troops fight without Kevlar vests, but you, Senator Kerry, voted against buying them while you were in the Senate. . .
. . .I left it “all on the field” in the jungles back there when I was medevaced out of Vietnam in March of 1969 and sent back to hospitals in “The World.” Although You, Mr. Kerry, painted all of us Vietnam veterans with the yellow brush of My Lai and Tiger Force, most of us, draftees and lifers alike, actually poured our hearts out in the tropical rain forests and in the rice paddies, thoroughly gave it our all, and acted as warriors who had honor. I have a son earning his green beret at Fort Bragg right now and a daughter-in-law on orders for Iraq. I am not going to stand by and watch them go through the same treatment we did, because some of our well-meaning fellow Americans choose to wear blinders and believe things just because they heard it on the network news or simply not care enough to get involved.
I am not a “baby-killer, torturer, or murderer,” John Kerry. I am a Vietnam veteran and an American who will not soon forget, or ever want to see again, any more jets loaded with fuel and screaming, innocent Americans slamming into our buildings on our very own soil. I have shed enough tears for ten lifetimes. We all have. I will never again let my fellow countrymen get away with making American veterans feel like bastard step-children. . .
Just worth noting. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 29, 2004
"THE WAR AHEAD"
CIA director George Tenet's written statement to the "9-11 Commission" is in full on the CIA web site. (Did I just write that?) On "The War Ahead", Tenet notes:
. . . An adversary is out there who has a strategic targeting doctrine. We know what the doctrine is. We have to stop thinking about this from a tactical perspective of depending on discovering the day, time, and place of the next attack. It is the wrong intellectual premise to think about it that way. Rather, we as a nation have to start thinking about how we take what we know about al-Qa‘ida’s doctrine and apply it, in terms of real actions to protect ourselves and to close gaps in our security that will make it harder for the terrorists to succeed.
I must emphasize to the American people that we are going to live with this for the foreseeable future. It is not going away. We need to focus on our heartland and our homeland because people want to come hurt us. It is not going to change. . .
And we must understand that.
Need an example? Well, Hamas has, obviously, "re-considered," and yes, yes, the U.S. is evil and an enemy! The BBC reports:
The new leader of the Palestinian militant group Hamas in Gaza has denounced President George Bush as an "enemy of Muslims".
Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi was speaking to some 5,000 supporters in Gaza City.
He said Mr Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had "declared war against Allah" but "Allah declares war against America, Bush and Sharon". . .
Wow, so that must be Allah at the microphones, then. . . and wearing a baseball cap! One wouldn't think, though, that Allah would need microphones, or a baseball cap.
A Red Sox fan or a Yankee fan? That is the vital question. (We thinks the answer to that is obvious!)
As Debbye points out, there is more than one "actor" involved in this:
. . .We're on Hamas' list, we're off, now we're on again. The only that matters is if Hamas is on our list. . .
They had better keep those Hamas heads down. You never know. Remember, who is in the White House. Don't get him angry. You wouldn't like him, when he gets angry. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 29, 2004
CIA director George Tenet's written statement to the "9-11 Commission" is in full on the CIA web site. (Did I just write that?) On "The War Ahead", Tenet notes:
. . . An adversary is out there who has a strategic targeting doctrine. We know what the doctrine is. We have to stop thinking about this from a tactical perspective of depending on discovering the day, time, and place of the next attack. It is the wrong intellectual premise to think about it that way. Rather, we as a nation have to start thinking about how we take what we know about al-Qa‘ida’s doctrine and apply it, in terms of real actions to protect ourselves and to close gaps in our security that will make it harder for the terrorists to succeed.
I must emphasize to the American people that we are going to live with this for the foreseeable future. It is not going away. We need to focus on our heartland and our homeland because people want to come hurt us. It is not going to change. . .
And we must understand that.
Need an example? Well, Hamas has, obviously, "re-considered," and yes, yes, the U.S. is evil and an enemy! The BBC reports:
The new leader of the Palestinian militant group Hamas in Gaza has denounced President George Bush as an "enemy of Muslims".
Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi was speaking to some 5,000 supporters in Gaza City.
He said Mr Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had "declared war against Allah" but "Allah declares war against America, Bush and Sharon". . .
Wow, so that must be Allah at the microphones, then. . . and wearing a baseball cap! One wouldn't think, though, that Allah would need microphones, or a baseball cap.
A Red Sox fan or a Yankee fan? That is the vital question. (We thinks the answer to that is obvious!)
As Debbye points out, there is more than one "actor" involved in this:
. . .We're on Hamas' list, we're off, now we're on again. The only that matters is if Hamas is on our list. . .
They had better keep those Hamas heads down. You never know. Remember, who is in the White House. Don't get him angry. You wouldn't like him, when he gets angry. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 29, 2004
Sunday, March 28, 2004
A LETTER?
Murdoc's written an excellent "letter to the editor". . .
Question: What the heck is a "letter to the editor"?
Those were, like, done, like, a really long time ago, weren't they? ¶ by Robert, Sunday, March 28, 2004
Murdoc's written an excellent "letter to the editor". . .
Question: What the heck is a "letter to the editor"?
Those were, like, done, like, a really long time ago, weren't they? ¶ by Robert, Sunday, March 28, 2004
FRENCH MEDIA AND THE IRAQ WAR
Erik Svane decided it was about time to have a friendly exchange of ideas with Le Monde's director . . . in person. Posting at "¡No Pasarán!", Erik explains:
Any of you who have seen me over the past 10 days knows how furious I get anytime I read or hear the French media trying to stuff down our throats their self-serving lying charges (those against Aznar, Bush, and Blair, i.e., anybody whom they don't feel any sympathy with).
So when I read that the Mémorial de Caen was organizing a conference with Jean-Marie Colombani, among others ("QUELLE LIBERTÉ POUR L'INFORMATION DANS UN MONDE INQUIÉTANT ?", organized in tandem with Les Amis de l'hebdomadaire La Vie and Reporters sans Frontières), I knew I had to attend. I wanted to give Le Monde's director a piece of my mind (in a diplomatic manner, natch). Three hours before it started at 7 pm on March 23, 2004, I jumped into my trusty jalopy, and drove the 260 km to Caen, arriving just in the nick of time. . .
And, damn it, Erik did.
Read his entire post. . . ¶ by Robert, Sunday, March 28, 2004
Erik Svane decided it was about time to have a friendly exchange of ideas with Le Monde's director . . . in person. Posting at "¡No Pasarán!", Erik explains:
Any of you who have seen me over the past 10 days knows how furious I get anytime I read or hear the French media trying to stuff down our throats their self-serving lying charges (those against Aznar, Bush, and Blair, i.e., anybody whom they don't feel any sympathy with).
So when I read that the Mémorial de Caen was organizing a conference with Jean-Marie Colombani, among others ("QUELLE LIBERTÉ POUR L'INFORMATION DANS UN MONDE INQUIÉTANT ?", organized in tandem with Les Amis de l'hebdomadaire La Vie and Reporters sans Frontières), I knew I had to attend. I wanted to give Le Monde's director a piece of my mind (in a diplomatic manner, natch). Three hours before it started at 7 pm on March 23, 2004, I jumped into my trusty jalopy, and drove the 260 km to Caen, arriving just in the nick of time. . .
And, damn it, Erik did.
Read his entire post. . . ¶ by Robert, Sunday, March 28, 2004
IHT READS "IN NOTTS FOREST"
The International Herald Tribune tells us:
What impact would the capture of Osama bin Laden have on America's campaign against Al Qaeda?
Since Sept. 11, 2001, much of Al Qaeda's original leadership has already been captured, killed or dispersed. The two most prominent survivors - bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, his No. 2 - will eventually be killed or captured, if not during the operation now under way in the Afghan-Pakistani border region, then in one that will surely follow. . .
. . .Yet at this late date, the loss of these two leaders will, in real terms, mean little to the network of Al Qaeda. The Islamic extremists who gathered around bin Laden during the 1980s and 90s returned to their home countries where, like a cancer, they metastasized into the self-sustaining and deadly organisms that have since brought destruction to the United States and its allies as far afield as East Africa, Bali, the Philippines, Morocco, occupied Iraq and, now, Spain. . .
You're kidding! Really?!
Gosh, it's great that we have the IHT to tell us that. . .
Next, this:
. . .The jihadist adversary may never have been as localized an evil as has been so broadly perceived. Al Qaeda may have been the first and most destructive of the many groups consumed with hatred of the United States, but it by no means has central control over the countless clusters of jihadists seeking to confront America around the globe. This is an ideological and spiritual movement rather than a cohesive, quantifiable foe. . .
Obviously, the IHT is stealing from Robert, "In Notts Forest".
The least they could do is to CREDIT HIM!
UPDATE: He is a new father, after all.
UPDATE 2: I deliberately ignored the IHT's use of "occupied Iraq." Obviously, the IHT would never use the phrase "liberated Iraq". Nope, too "one-sided". (Whereas "occupied Iraq" isn't?)
So, they could do us all a favor, since they claim to be so "objective". If the IHT doesn't really consider Iraq a version of "occupied Europe" (which is the best-known use of the word "occupied" in that context, when various countries were controlled by the Nazis, from 1938-1945), and also is appalled by the loaded -- obviously, to the IHT -- word "liberated", how about just writing, well, "Iraq"?
Unfortunately, I think we know the answer: the IHT considers Iraq under coalition liberation like Europe occupied by the Nazis during the Second World War. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, March 28, 2004
The International Herald Tribune tells us:
What impact would the capture of Osama bin Laden have on America's campaign against Al Qaeda?
Since Sept. 11, 2001, much of Al Qaeda's original leadership has already been captured, killed or dispersed. The two most prominent survivors - bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, his No. 2 - will eventually be killed or captured, if not during the operation now under way in the Afghan-Pakistani border region, then in one that will surely follow. . .
. . .Yet at this late date, the loss of these two leaders will, in real terms, mean little to the network of Al Qaeda. The Islamic extremists who gathered around bin Laden during the 1980s and 90s returned to their home countries where, like a cancer, they metastasized into the self-sustaining and deadly organisms that have since brought destruction to the United States and its allies as far afield as East Africa, Bali, the Philippines, Morocco, occupied Iraq and, now, Spain. . .
You're kidding! Really?!
Gosh, it's great that we have the IHT to tell us that. . .
Next, this:
. . .The jihadist adversary may never have been as localized an evil as has been so broadly perceived. Al Qaeda may have been the first and most destructive of the many groups consumed with hatred of the United States, but it by no means has central control over the countless clusters of jihadists seeking to confront America around the globe. This is an ideological and spiritual movement rather than a cohesive, quantifiable foe. . .
Obviously, the IHT is stealing from Robert, "In Notts Forest".
The least they could do is to CREDIT HIM!
UPDATE: He is a new father, after all.
UPDATE 2: I deliberately ignored the IHT's use of "occupied Iraq." Obviously, the IHT would never use the phrase "liberated Iraq". Nope, too "one-sided". (Whereas "occupied Iraq" isn't?)
So, they could do us all a favor, since they claim to be so "objective". If the IHT doesn't really consider Iraq a version of "occupied Europe" (which is the best-known use of the word "occupied" in that context, when various countries were controlled by the Nazis, from 1938-1945), and also is appalled by the loaded -- obviously, to the IHT -- word "liberated", how about just writing, well, "Iraq"?
Unfortunately, I think we know the answer: the IHT considers Iraq under coalition liberation like Europe occupied by the Nazis during the Second World War. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, March 28, 2004
SADDAM TO BE DEFENDED BY FRENCHMAN
MSNBC reports that a Frenchman wants to defend Saddam -- as if there is anything odd about that:
The French lawyer known for defending Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie and guerrilla Carlos the Jackal said on Saturday that Saddam Hussein’s nephew had chosen him to represent the deposed Iraqi president.
Jacques Verges told Reuters in a telephone interview he had received a letter from Ali Barzan al-Tikriti, whose father Barzan al-Tikriti is Saddam’s half-brother, asking him to defend the former Iraqi dictator, captured by U.S. forces in December.
The U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council in Baghdad is setting up a war crimes tribunal to try Saddam on charges which may include genocide and crimes against humanity. . .
Saddam might not be too encouraged by Verges' track record: convicted Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie was sentenced to life and died in 1991, and convicted terrorist (MSNBC's "guerrilla") Ilich Ramirez Sanchez is imprisoned for life. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, March 28, 2004
MSNBC reports that a Frenchman wants to defend Saddam -- as if there is anything odd about that:
The French lawyer known for defending Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie and guerrilla Carlos the Jackal said on Saturday that Saddam Hussein’s nephew had chosen him to represent the deposed Iraqi president.
Jacques Verges told Reuters in a telephone interview he had received a letter from Ali Barzan al-Tikriti, whose father Barzan al-Tikriti is Saddam’s half-brother, asking him to defend the former Iraqi dictator, captured by U.S. forces in December.
The U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council in Baghdad is setting up a war crimes tribunal to try Saddam on charges which may include genocide and crimes against humanity. . .
Saddam might not be too encouraged by Verges' track record: convicted Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie was sentenced to life and died in 1991, and convicted terrorist (MSNBC's "guerrilla") Ilich Ramirez Sanchez is imprisoned for life. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, March 28, 2004
Saturday, March 27, 2004
THE "LAWS OF WAR"?
Reuters reports:
Pakistan condemned on Saturday the "cold-blooded murder" of eight soldiers executed after being ambushed while battling militants near the Afghan border.
The soldiers, their hands tied behind their backs and shot in the head at point-blank range, were found in a ditch on Friday near Wana, the capital of the South Waziristan area in Pakistan's semi-autonomous tribal territories.
"It was a cold-blooded murder," said Major-General Shaukat Sultan, the army's spokesman. "We have identified the local and foreign militants and now we are chasing them.". . .
And what was that yapping about how appalling Guantanamo bay is? It's a flippin' vacation spot for them, compared to what might be their fates if the U.S. was even half as bad as those "appalled" by Guantanamo claim the U.S. is.
By the way, just whom will "human rights advocates" sue on behalf of those murdered, captured Pakistani soldiers, killed in outright and incontrovertible violation of the "laws of war"?
Just curious. . . ¶ by Robert, Saturday, March 27, 2004
Reuters reports:
Pakistan condemned on Saturday the "cold-blooded murder" of eight soldiers executed after being ambushed while battling militants near the Afghan border.
The soldiers, their hands tied behind their backs and shot in the head at point-blank range, were found in a ditch on Friday near Wana, the capital of the South Waziristan area in Pakistan's semi-autonomous tribal territories.
"It was a cold-blooded murder," said Major-General Shaukat Sultan, the army's spokesman. "We have identified the local and foreign militants and now we are chasing them.". . .
And what was that yapping about how appalling Guantanamo bay is? It's a flippin' vacation spot for them, compared to what might be their fates if the U.S. was even half as bad as those "appalled" by Guantanamo claim the U.S. is.
By the way, just whom will "human rights advocates" sue on behalf of those murdered, captured Pakistani soldiers, killed in outright and incontrovertible violation of the "laws of war"?
Just curious. . . ¶ by Robert, Saturday, March 27, 2004
ANOTHER "FINE" £1,000 IDEA
The BBC London reports:
People living in parts of north London could face a £1,000 fine if they do not use their recycling boxes.
From 1 April compulsory recycling is being introduced to four wards in Barnet - Brunswick Park, East Barnet, Oakleigh and Totteridge. . .
. . .Councillor Brian Coleman said they will not be enforcing the rule too strictly.
He told BBC London: "We are just going to say that every household will put out the black box with something in it.
"We'd like them to put the full range of papers, glass, textiles, tin cans and even old shoes. We'd like them to put everything in it.
"But we are not going to check if they put everything in it as long as they put something in it.". . .
Look, they went to all that trouble to give us the "black boxes", and not enough of us are filling them. They just want to make sure we are "conscious" of the importance of saving the planet. I presume other boroughs will eventually take similar steps.
But consider this: If you don't pay for a TV licence AND you don't recycle "something", it will cost you at least £2,000. And the average, entire yearly income for Londoners is what? Between £10,000 and, say, £20,000 or so?
Nothing like a "proportional response." If you aren't sure what the fine should be, call it £1,000. Nice round number. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, March 27, 2004
The BBC London reports:
People living in parts of north London could face a £1,000 fine if they do not use their recycling boxes.
From 1 April compulsory recycling is being introduced to four wards in Barnet - Brunswick Park, East Barnet, Oakleigh and Totteridge. . .
. . .Councillor Brian Coleman said they will not be enforcing the rule too strictly.
He told BBC London: "We are just going to say that every household will put out the black box with something in it.
"We'd like them to put the full range of papers, glass, textiles, tin cans and even old shoes. We'd like them to put everything in it.
"But we are not going to check if they put everything in it as long as they put something in it.". . .
Look, they went to all that trouble to give us the "black boxes", and not enough of us are filling them. They just want to make sure we are "conscious" of the importance of saving the planet. I presume other boroughs will eventually take similar steps.
But consider this: If you don't pay for a TV licence AND you don't recycle "something", it will cost you at least £2,000. And the average, entire yearly income for Londoners is what? Between £10,000 and, say, £20,000 or so?
Nothing like a "proportional response." If you aren't sure what the fine should be, call it £1,000. Nice round number. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, March 27, 2004
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
CNN reports:
An influential Shiite cleric in Iraq called Israel's assassination of the spiritual leader of Hamas a "dirty crime against Islam" and the September 11, 2001, terror attacks "a miracle from God.". . .
. . .Al-Sadr led the worshippers in chants: "No, no Israel! No, no to the Jews! No, no America! No, no to terrorism!"
Al-Sadr, who also has a powerful base in a poor Baghdad neighborhood, railed against the United States' occupation of Iraq.
"I seek the spread of freedom and democracy in the way that satisfies God," he said. "They have planned and paved the ways for a long time, but it is God who is the real planner -- and the proof of this is the fall of the American Twin Towers.". . .
Another "railing" and "influential" Islamic "cleric" who hates Jews, and the U.S.
What else is new. . .
Well, just in case anyone doubts that there is now freedom of religion in Iraq (just as there is now freedom of the press), one has proof of that new freedom in the cleric's comments above. Yet another "influential" Islamic "cleric" -- the qualifications to be an "influential cleric" are what, exactly? -- who will face no retribution from the U.S. for saying such things. He's a lucky and a free man. But of course, he has no idea. . .
In a positive media vein, CNN called September 11, 2001 a terrorist attack, without quotes.
Excellent. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, March 27, 2004
CNN reports:
An influential Shiite cleric in Iraq called Israel's assassination of the spiritual leader of Hamas a "dirty crime against Islam" and the September 11, 2001, terror attacks "a miracle from God.". . .
. . .Al-Sadr led the worshippers in chants: "No, no Israel! No, no to the Jews! No, no America! No, no to terrorism!"
Al-Sadr, who also has a powerful base in a poor Baghdad neighborhood, railed against the United States' occupation of Iraq.
"I seek the spread of freedom and democracy in the way that satisfies God," he said. "They have planned and paved the ways for a long time, but it is God who is the real planner -- and the proof of this is the fall of the American Twin Towers.". . .
Another "railing" and "influential" Islamic "cleric" who hates Jews, and the U.S.
What else is new. . .
Well, just in case anyone doubts that there is now freedom of religion in Iraq (just as there is now freedom of the press), one has proof of that new freedom in the cleric's comments above. Yet another "influential" Islamic "cleric" -- the qualifications to be an "influential cleric" are what, exactly? -- who will face no retribution from the U.S. for saying such things. He's a lucky and a free man. But of course, he has no idea. . .
In a positive media vein, CNN called September 11, 2001 a terrorist attack, without quotes.
Excellent. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, March 27, 2004
Friday, March 26, 2004
THOSE "PARTNERS IN PEACE"
Cox and Forkum provide cartooning evidence of the "Progressive"/Al Qaeda coalition.
How did those who tell us endlessly about wanting to "save humanity" end up in bed with those who want to blow up freedom?
Pathetic. ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 26, 2004
Cox and Forkum provide cartooning evidence of the "Progressive"/Al Qaeda coalition.
How did those who tell us endlessly about wanting to "save humanity" end up in bed with those who want to blow up freedom?
Pathetic. ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 26, 2004
SOMEONE ELSE HAS MOVED ON
Being American In Toronto, Ontario tells us to read Lileks, now. She's right:
So if Al Qaeda had failed on 9/11, do you think OBL and the rest of the merry band would be sitting around a table in Kabul holding hearings about who was to blame? I tend to think they would have moved on.
I tend to think they have moved on. . .
. . .If it weren’t for these hearings I wouldn’t give a tin fig for who didn’t do what when and where. September Eleventh was the bright red gash that separated the Now from the La-la Then, and we’ve been living in the hot spiky Now ever since. I am interested in the Now and the What Next. I don’t have much patience for people who believe that the salvation of Western Civilization depends on hiking the marginal tax rates to pre-2002 levels. But if you want to play Eight Years vs. Eight Months, fine. Just remember that before 9/11, the skies over Afghanistan were clear. After 9/11, they thrummed with the sound of B-52s until the job was done. . .
I felt while watching on Tuesday that things were appearing rather "non-partisan", and I had hoped they would stay that way. Just the facts. Let's have facts.
Instead, we got Richard "I have a book to sell" Clarke, on Wednesday.
Obviously, in Washington, even with the house burning down, and even among political has-beens (as most of the committee members are), "non-partisanship" is now close to impossible.
And as Being American well notes:
Any suggestion that the government can do everything and anything perfectly has frightening implications because I reject the notion of any government that believes itself to be omnipotent. After all, if they are omnipotent then what does that make citizens who disagree with them? Heretics? Unpatriotic?
We can't have it both ways. Either Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act are evil, wicked entities that are setting us on the path to fascist repression or we admit that preserving our freedoms also means preserving our vulnerabilities. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 26, 2004
Being American In Toronto, Ontario tells us to read Lileks, now. She's right:
So if Al Qaeda had failed on 9/11, do you think OBL and the rest of the merry band would be sitting around a table in Kabul holding hearings about who was to blame? I tend to think they would have moved on.
I tend to think they have moved on. . .
. . .If it weren’t for these hearings I wouldn’t give a tin fig for who didn’t do what when and where. September Eleventh was the bright red gash that separated the Now from the La-la Then, and we’ve been living in the hot spiky Now ever since. I am interested in the Now and the What Next. I don’t have much patience for people who believe that the salvation of Western Civilization depends on hiking the marginal tax rates to pre-2002 levels. But if you want to play Eight Years vs. Eight Months, fine. Just remember that before 9/11, the skies over Afghanistan were clear. After 9/11, they thrummed with the sound of B-52s until the job was done. . .
I felt while watching on Tuesday that things were appearing rather "non-partisan", and I had hoped they would stay that way. Just the facts. Let's have facts.
Instead, we got Richard "I have a book to sell" Clarke, on Wednesday.
Obviously, in Washington, even with the house burning down, and even among political has-beens (as most of the committee members are), "non-partisanship" is now close to impossible.
And as Being American well notes:
Any suggestion that the government can do everything and anything perfectly has frightening implications because I reject the notion of any government that believes itself to be omnipotent. After all, if they are omnipotent then what does that make citizens who disagree with them? Heretics? Unpatriotic?
We can't have it both ways. Either Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act are evil, wicked entities that are setting us on the path to fascist repression or we admit that preserving our freedoms also means preserving our vulnerabilities. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 26, 2004
FIGHTING IN FALLUJA
UPDATE: The BBC reports now that the fighting is apparently finished:
At least four people have died in heavy fighting between US soldiers and Iraqi insurgents in the central town of Falluja, hospital officials say.
The shooting broke out when US Marines moved into the centre of the town on Friday, witnesses said. . .
. . .US troops later sealed off the area, the Associated Press reported.
Gunshots and shelling rocked the town on Friday as the marines moved in, the agency said.
US soldiers fought for an hour with masked insurgents armed with mortars and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, according to witnesses. . .
Better in Falluja than in lower Manhattan.
INITIAL POST
The BBC is reporting:
Heavy fighting between US soldiers and Iraqi insurgents in the central city of Falluja has resulted in casualties. . .
. . .The shooting broke out when US Marines moved into the centre of the city, according to witnesses.
US troops rarely venture into Falluja. The town is located within the "Sunni triangle" - the power base of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
The fighting continues. ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 26, 2004
UPDATE: The BBC reports now that the fighting is apparently finished:
At least four people have died in heavy fighting between US soldiers and Iraqi insurgents in the central town of Falluja, hospital officials say.
The shooting broke out when US Marines moved into the centre of the town on Friday, witnesses said. . .
. . .US troops later sealed off the area, the Associated Press reported.
Gunshots and shelling rocked the town on Friday as the marines moved in, the agency said.
US soldiers fought for an hour with masked insurgents armed with mortars and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, according to witnesses. . .
Better in Falluja than in lower Manhattan.
INITIAL POST
The BBC is reporting:
Heavy fighting between US soldiers and Iraqi insurgents in the central city of Falluja has resulted in casualties. . .
. . .The shooting broke out when US Marines moved into the centre of the city, according to witnesses.
US troops rarely venture into Falluja. The town is located within the "Sunni triangle" - the power base of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
The fighting continues. ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 26, 2004
FORMER ARCHBISHOP INDUCES "DISMAY", "FURY" AND "SADNESS"
This is hilarious. That thoughtful comments on theology and government made by any present or former Archbishop of Canterbury could produce "dismay", "fury" and "sadness" on the part of anyone seems hard to imagine.
The exception, of course, is when it comes to certain "Muslim leaders", for whom "dismay", "fury" and "sadness" seem to be default positions on just about everything. ITV reports:
. . . Lord Carey accused Islamic societies of being authoritarian and committed to power and privilege - often led by people who rose to power "at the point of a gun".
He also criticised the Islamic faith, saying Muslim theological scholarship had declined over the last 500 years, "leading to strong resistance to modernity". . .
Of course, the reviews were, urrrr, shall we say, at best mixed:
. . . Iqbal Sacranie, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, was swift to dismiss the former archbishop's words.
He said: "Frankly, one is dismayed by Lord Carey's comments.
"One is surprised to find Lord Carey recycling the same old religious prejudice in the 21st Century.". . .
But is Carey's critique untrue?
. . .His comments were greeted with fury by Manzoor Moghal, chairman of the Federation of Muslim Organisations in Leicester, where more than 40,000 Muslims are based.
He said: "This is a disastrous statement from the former Archbishop. He has fallen prey to the campaign tactics of racists in this country."
Rejecting the claim that Muslim leaders do not do enough to criticise terrorists, he said: "That is nonsense - we condemn suicide bombers, we go on radio, on television, we have made statements. What more can we do?". . .
We still haven't gotten an answer to the question: Is what Carey said untrue?
The way these things go, we will probably never get an answer to that. So, how about another question?
Notice how the second gentleman is quoted as stating that "Muslim leaders" have spoken out seemingly everywhere. Very commendable that.
One thing, though: He didn't mention their speaking out in mosques.
Question: Is that omission deliberate?
UPDATE: Carey's original statements appeared in the Telegraph. At one point, he is quoted by the paper:
. . .Dr Carey said that, while Christianity and Judaism had a long history of often painful critical scholarship, Islamic theology was only now being challenged to become more open to examination.
"In the case of Islam, Mohammed, acknowledged by all in spite of his religious greatness to be an illiterate man, is said to have received God's word direct, word by word from angels, and scribes recorded them later.
"Thus believers are told, because they have come direct from Allah, they are not to be questioned or revised.
"In the first few centuries of the Islamic era, Islamic theologians sought to meet the challenge this implied, but during the past 500 years critical scholarship has declined, leading to strong resistance to modernity.". . .
Seems pretty darn reasonable and scholarly. But apparently comments like that are too much. Mr Sacranie, again:
. . .Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said that Dr Carey's comments "saddened" him. . .
So, they are not just "dismayed" and full of "fury" but "saddened", too.
And then, the final word.
. . ."Dr Carey is trampling on a very sensitive area by referring to the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet."
Simply: No more discussion, please. We're Muslims.
And they question Carey's views on religion and "modernity"? Such a response as the above seems to indicate that Carey has got it pretty right. As long as characters like these are those "speaking for Islam", "Islam" will never be known as the "religion of inquiry."
While they aren't "inquirers", they do like press releases. In this one, the Muslim Council of Britain phrases their reaction this way:
. . .Lord Carey appears clearly to be quite frustrated by the fact the Muslims the world over continue to believe and try to live by the Words of God as revealed in the Qur'an to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). . .
And the MCB is apparently quite frustrated that a former Archbishop of Canterbury is a Christian who questions. . .
Let's dissect this particularly interesting bit, line by line, shall we:
. . ."Furthermore, his biased view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fails to recognise that it is the lengthy and brutal nature of Israel's US-backed occupation of Palestinian lands which is leading some Palestinians to engage in desperate actions.
In non-press release speak, that means they have no objection to Palestinians blowing themselves up in restaurants. Oh, and if they could blow up Americans, too, that would be even more helpful, since America is behind the whole thing.
What kind of moral leadership does Lord Carey show when he asks us to condemn the occupied peoples but remains silent about the dehumanising behaviour of the occupiers?". . .
Once more, in non-press release speak the meaning of the first part seems to be, again, that they think Palestinians blowing themselves up in restaurants is justified. The second part is unclear grammatically. They apparently feel that Carey "remains silent" about the "dehumanising behaviour of the occupiers" -- meaning the democratic state of Israel, as it tries to protect itself from Palestinians who blow themselves up in restaurants.
Hmm. . . "dehumanising behaviour . . ."
Have Israelis also taken to blowing themselves up in restaurants?
The BBC notes:
. . .BBC religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said Lord Carey's speech had probably been more balanced than the impression given by the newspaper.
"One of the things that underlines his concern is the growth of Wahhabism - a very radical part of Islam - which is becoming quite dominant in the developing world," he told Radio 4's Today programme. . .
Doesn't matter. They are still "dismayed", full of "fury" and "saddened".
UPDATE 2: The BBC reports:
There have been angry Arab reactions to the US veto of a UN Security Council resolution condemning the killing of the spiritual leader of Hamas. . .
The BBC didn't even bother to put "spiritual leader" in quotes. Typical.
Anyway, let me take a wild guess: They are not merely just "angry", but are probably "dismayed", full of "fury", and greatly "saddened", right? ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 26, 2004
This is hilarious. That thoughtful comments on theology and government made by any present or former Archbishop of Canterbury could produce "dismay", "fury" and "sadness" on the part of anyone seems hard to imagine.
The exception, of course, is when it comes to certain "Muslim leaders", for whom "dismay", "fury" and "sadness" seem to be default positions on just about everything. ITV reports:
. . . Lord Carey accused Islamic societies of being authoritarian and committed to power and privilege - often led by people who rose to power "at the point of a gun".
He also criticised the Islamic faith, saying Muslim theological scholarship had declined over the last 500 years, "leading to strong resistance to modernity". . .
Of course, the reviews were, urrrr, shall we say, at best mixed:
. . . Iqbal Sacranie, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, was swift to dismiss the former archbishop's words.
He said: "Frankly, one is dismayed by Lord Carey's comments.
"One is surprised to find Lord Carey recycling the same old religious prejudice in the 21st Century.". . .
But is Carey's critique untrue?
. . .His comments were greeted with fury by Manzoor Moghal, chairman of the Federation of Muslim Organisations in Leicester, where more than 40,000 Muslims are based.
He said: "This is a disastrous statement from the former Archbishop. He has fallen prey to the campaign tactics of racists in this country."
Rejecting the claim that Muslim leaders do not do enough to criticise terrorists, he said: "That is nonsense - we condemn suicide bombers, we go on radio, on television, we have made statements. What more can we do?". . .
We still haven't gotten an answer to the question: Is what Carey said untrue?
The way these things go, we will probably never get an answer to that. So, how about another question?
Notice how the second gentleman is quoted as stating that "Muslim leaders" have spoken out seemingly everywhere. Very commendable that.
One thing, though: He didn't mention their speaking out in mosques.
Question: Is that omission deliberate?
UPDATE: Carey's original statements appeared in the Telegraph. At one point, he is quoted by the paper:
. . .Dr Carey said that, while Christianity and Judaism had a long history of often painful critical scholarship, Islamic theology was only now being challenged to become more open to examination.
"In the case of Islam, Mohammed, acknowledged by all in spite of his religious greatness to be an illiterate man, is said to have received God's word direct, word by word from angels, and scribes recorded them later.
"Thus believers are told, because they have come direct from Allah, they are not to be questioned or revised.
"In the first few centuries of the Islamic era, Islamic theologians sought to meet the challenge this implied, but during the past 500 years critical scholarship has declined, leading to strong resistance to modernity.". . .
Seems pretty darn reasonable and scholarly. But apparently comments like that are too much. Mr Sacranie, again:
. . .Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said that Dr Carey's comments "saddened" him. . .
So, they are not just "dismayed" and full of "fury" but "saddened", too.
And then, the final word.
. . ."Dr Carey is trampling on a very sensitive area by referring to the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet."
Simply: No more discussion, please. We're Muslims.
And they question Carey's views on religion and "modernity"? Such a response as the above seems to indicate that Carey has got it pretty right. As long as characters like these are those "speaking for Islam", "Islam" will never be known as the "religion of inquiry."
While they aren't "inquirers", they do like press releases. In this one, the Muslim Council of Britain phrases their reaction this way:
. . .Lord Carey appears clearly to be quite frustrated by the fact the Muslims the world over continue to believe and try to live by the Words of God as revealed in the Qur'an to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). . .
And the MCB is apparently quite frustrated that a former Archbishop of Canterbury is a Christian who questions. . .
Let's dissect this particularly interesting bit, line by line, shall we:
. . ."Furthermore, his biased view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fails to recognise that it is the lengthy and brutal nature of Israel's US-backed occupation of Palestinian lands which is leading some Palestinians to engage in desperate actions.
In non-press release speak, that means they have no objection to Palestinians blowing themselves up in restaurants. Oh, and if they could blow up Americans, too, that would be even more helpful, since America is behind the whole thing.
What kind of moral leadership does Lord Carey show when he asks us to condemn the occupied peoples but remains silent about the dehumanising behaviour of the occupiers?". . .
Once more, in non-press release speak the meaning of the first part seems to be, again, that they think Palestinians blowing themselves up in restaurants is justified. The second part is unclear grammatically. They apparently feel that Carey "remains silent" about the "dehumanising behaviour of the occupiers" -- meaning the democratic state of Israel, as it tries to protect itself from Palestinians who blow themselves up in restaurants.
Hmm. . . "dehumanising behaviour . . ."
Have Israelis also taken to blowing themselves up in restaurants?
The BBC notes:
. . .BBC religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said Lord Carey's speech had probably been more balanced than the impression given by the newspaper.
"One of the things that underlines his concern is the growth of Wahhabism - a very radical part of Islam - which is becoming quite dominant in the developing world," he told Radio 4's Today programme. . .
Doesn't matter. They are still "dismayed", full of "fury" and "saddened".
UPDATE 2: The BBC reports:
There have been angry Arab reactions to the US veto of a UN Security Council resolution condemning the killing of the spiritual leader of Hamas. . .
The BBC didn't even bother to put "spiritual leader" in quotes. Typical.
Anyway, let me take a wild guess: They are not merely just "angry", but are probably "dismayed", full of "fury", and greatly "saddened", right? ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 26, 2004
A NEW ROADMAP
Clearly, the "Roadmap to Solution of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" between Israel and those people determined to blow Israel up, is by now seeming a bit creased, mangled and torn.
So IMAO has created an entirely new "roadmap". And this new one looks promising. It might even be the way to, at last, "break the impasse" and end the "cycle of violence". . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 26, 2004
Clearly, the "Roadmap to Solution of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" between Israel and those people determined to blow Israel up, is by now seeming a bit creased, mangled and torn.
So IMAO has created an entirely new "roadmap". And this new one looks promising. It might even be the way to, at last, "break the impasse" and end the "cycle of violence". . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 26, 2004
E.U. ANTI-TERROR TSAR
Sky reports:
EU TERROR TSAR APPOINTED
What is it that the media love about using the title of Russian monarchs to denote certain policy coordinator posts in democratic governments? First, we had an anti-drug "czar" in the U.S. Now, Europe as an anti-terror "tsar". (And they can't even settle on a common spelling.) Anyway, let's hope the war on Islamist terror doesn't degenerate into another "war on drugs" -- or, frankly, we're sunk.
EU leaders meeting in Brussels have agreed to a range of tough new measures to combat the growing threat of terrorism.
An anti-terror co-ordinator has been appointed to pool Europe-wide intelligence on suspects.
The naming of the new counter-terrorism co-ordinator - former Dutch justice minister Gijs de Vries - came just six days after the idea was first put forward. . .
Well, I know I'll sleep better tonight. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 26, 2004
Sky reports:
EU TERROR TSAR APPOINTED
What is it that the media love about using the title of Russian monarchs to denote certain policy coordinator posts in democratic governments? First, we had an anti-drug "czar" in the U.S. Now, Europe as an anti-terror "tsar". (And they can't even settle on a common spelling.) Anyway, let's hope the war on Islamist terror doesn't degenerate into another "war on drugs" -- or, frankly, we're sunk.
EU leaders meeting in Brussels have agreed to a range of tough new measures to combat the growing threat of terrorism.
An anti-terror co-ordinator has been appointed to pool Europe-wide intelligence on suspects.
The naming of the new counter-terrorism co-ordinator - former Dutch justice minister Gijs de Vries - came just six days after the idea was first put forward. . .
Well, I know I'll sleep better tonight. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 26, 2004
THE APOLOGY
Jarvis on Richard Clarke's "apology":
. . .It may seem like he's quite the mensch by including himself in this apology: "I failed." But he's throwing himself on his rhetorical sword so he can accuse the government -- the administration -- of failing and thus, by its sins of omission and negligence, of practically being complicit in the deaths. I find that offensive; As I said yesterday, it plays into the politicization of 9/11; it makes this about us vs. us instead of us vs. them.
When I first heard Clarke's apology and the start of his testimony, I thought there might be something to listen to here. I haven't said much about Clarke because I haven't yet decided what I think of what he's saying. But I have to say that as his apology sat on the stomach like a bad burrito and came up this morning like a burp, I came to think that his apology was disingenous, melodramatic, and ultimately divisive. ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 26, 2004
Jarvis on Richard Clarke's "apology":
. . .It may seem like he's quite the mensch by including himself in this apology: "I failed." But he's throwing himself on his rhetorical sword so he can accuse the government -- the administration -- of failing and thus, by its sins of omission and negligence, of practically being complicit in the deaths. I find that offensive; As I said yesterday, it plays into the politicization of 9/11; it makes this about us vs. us instead of us vs. them.
When I first heard Clarke's apology and the start of his testimony, I thought there might be something to listen to here. I haven't said much about Clarke because I haven't yet decided what I think of what he's saying. But I have to say that as his apology sat on the stomach like a bad burrito and came up this morning like a burp, I came to think that his apology was disingenous, melodramatic, and ultimately divisive. ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 26, 2004
BACKIN' YASSIN'
You really gotta hand it to the UN. What an organization. CNN reports:
The United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution Thursday condemning Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin.
The veto came after Algeria, the resolution's sponsor, rejected a U.S. demand that the measure also condemn violence by Hamas and other militant groups by name.
The resolution "is silent about the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said before the vote. He called the measure "unbalanced, one-sided.". . .
I think the U.S. position is eminently "transparent". Until the U.N. is willing to use its, ummm, "moral authority" to condemn BY NAME Islamist groups that, among other "hobbies", organize suicide bombings of Israeli restaurants, it is at best exceedingly unlikely that the U.S. will ever support any Security Council resolution condemning Israelis for killing a leader of one of those groups.
Hellllllllllllllo! It's not complicated! ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 26, 2004
You really gotta hand it to the UN. What an organization. CNN reports:
The United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution Thursday condemning Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin.
The veto came after Algeria, the resolution's sponsor, rejected a U.S. demand that the measure also condemn violence by Hamas and other militant groups by name.
The resolution "is silent about the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said before the vote. He called the measure "unbalanced, one-sided.". . .
I think the U.S. position is eminently "transparent". Until the U.N. is willing to use its, ummm, "moral authority" to condemn BY NAME Islamist groups that, among other "hobbies", organize suicide bombings of Israeli restaurants, it is at best exceedingly unlikely that the U.S. will ever support any Security Council resolution condemning Israelis for killing a leader of one of those groups.
Hellllllllllllllo! It's not complicated! ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 26, 2004
THE NEW YORK FOOTBALL TEAM AND THE 2012 OLYMPICS
The New York Post reports:
The Jets yesterday kicked off their drive to cross the Hudson and touch down on the West Side of Manhattan, next door to an expanded Javits Convention Center. . .
. . .The 75,000-seat stadium along with the convention center, which would double in size, would serve as the centerpiece for the 2012 Olympics, should the city win its bid to host the games.
"Woody, congratulations," Bloomberg said, turning to Jets owner Woody Johnson. "Welcome back to New York, where the New York Jets belong.". . .
. . . Pataki, describing himself as a "long-suffering Jets fan," praised the stadium and convention center plan.
"Not only will we have the convention space, not only will we have the Olympic Stadium, but we will have a home to bring the Jets back from New Jersey and the NFL back to New York," said Pataki. . .
Indulge me for a second, please: "J-E-T-S . . . JETS! JETS! JETS!"
Okay, I feel better now.
But seriously. There are obviously obstacles. New Yorkers don't do things without a good argument:
. . .City Councilwoman Chris Quinn vowed to oppose any rezoning efforts needed to support a stadium proposal.
"We'll fight it at City Hall, we'll fight it in the Legislature, we'll fight it in the streets, and we'll fight it in court if we have to," said Quinn. . .
Just like in London. . .
But the city and state seem committed:
Some opponents have suggested moving the stadium to a site in Flushing, which has been included as a backup site in the city's 2012 Olympic bid.
But Johnson, the Jets owner since 2000, flatly ruled out a move to Queens.
"We wouldn't consider Queens," said Johnson. "Absolutely not. We're committed to Manhattan."
Bloomberg discounted the opponents as a "handful of critics outside," and predicted the projects would benefit "millions of people."
Building a huge facility like that on Manhattan's West Side has been a contentious issue for what seems like decades. (And it obviously still is.) On top of that, they're even expanding the Javits Center and extending a subway line.
So, if NYC is willing finally to do such things, and in a cohesive manner, you know the city REALLY wants the 2012 games.
London's Olympic bid organizers had better take note of that. ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 26, 2004
The New York Post reports:
The Jets yesterday kicked off their drive to cross the Hudson and touch down on the West Side of Manhattan, next door to an expanded Javits Convention Center. . .
. . .The 75,000-seat stadium along with the convention center, which would double in size, would serve as the centerpiece for the 2012 Olympics, should the city win its bid to host the games.
"Woody, congratulations," Bloomberg said, turning to Jets owner Woody Johnson. "Welcome back to New York, where the New York Jets belong.". . .
. . . Pataki, describing himself as a "long-suffering Jets fan," praised the stadium and convention center plan.
"Not only will we have the convention space, not only will we have the Olympic Stadium, but we will have a home to bring the Jets back from New Jersey and the NFL back to New York," said Pataki. . .
Indulge me for a second, please: "J-E-T-S . . . JETS! JETS! JETS!"
Okay, I feel better now.
But seriously. There are obviously obstacles. New Yorkers don't do things without a good argument:
. . .City Councilwoman Chris Quinn vowed to oppose any rezoning efforts needed to support a stadium proposal.
"We'll fight it at City Hall, we'll fight it in the Legislature, we'll fight it in the streets, and we'll fight it in court if we have to," said Quinn. . .
Just like in London. . .
But the city and state seem committed:
Some opponents have suggested moving the stadium to a site in Flushing, which has been included as a backup site in the city's 2012 Olympic bid.
But Johnson, the Jets owner since 2000, flatly ruled out a move to Queens.
"We wouldn't consider Queens," said Johnson. "Absolutely not. We're committed to Manhattan."
Bloomberg discounted the opponents as a "handful of critics outside," and predicted the projects would benefit "millions of people."
Building a huge facility like that on Manhattan's West Side has been a contentious issue for what seems like decades. (And it obviously still is.) On top of that, they're even expanding the Javits Center and extending a subway line.
So, if NYC is willing finally to do such things, and in a cohesive manner, you know the city REALLY wants the 2012 games.
London's Olympic bid organizers had better take note of that. ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 26, 2004
Thursday, March 25, 2004
BLAIR IN TRIPOLI
The BBC reports:
Tony Blair says Libya's Muammar Gaddafi is willing to make "common cause" with Britain in the fight against terrorism.
After shaking hands with Colonel Gaddafi at the start of the historic talks, the prime minister said there was real hope for a "new relationship".
People should not forget the past, but should move beyond it, Mr Blair said.
Thursday's Tripoli meeting follows Libya's renunciation of weapons of mass destruction in December. Mr Blair said such changes were "extraordinary".
It's great, yes, Mr Blair. But let's not get too carried away, please. . .
Ah, wait, the BBC has more to tell us:
As the talks took place, it was announced Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell had signed a deal worth up to £550m for gas exploration rights off the Libyan coast.
Evil Blair! Evil Blair! Trade! Trade! Evil Blair! Evil!
How much is our TV licence tax again, which supports the BBC?
Maybe the BBC would prefer if society returned to subsistence agriculture. Instead of cash, from each address owning a television they would receive a cow or a goat once a year.
Although, without electricity, watching the BBC on television might become a little bit complicated. Perhaps News 24 presenters would just stand on streetcorners and shout out the day's news headlines?
It was also announced that British police officers would travel to Libya on 3 April to continue investigations into the murder of Pc Yvonne Fletcher.
Good. Very good indeed.
. . . Asked if he had felt queasy about meeting Colonel Gaddafi, Mr Blair said: "It was strange given the history to come here and do this and of course I am conscious of the pain that people have suffered as a result of terrorist actions in the past.
"But the world is changing and we have got to do everything we possibly can to tackle the security threat that faces us.". . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 25, 2004
The BBC reports:
Tony Blair says Libya's Muammar Gaddafi is willing to make "common cause" with Britain in the fight against terrorism.
After shaking hands with Colonel Gaddafi at the start of the historic talks, the prime minister said there was real hope for a "new relationship".
People should not forget the past, but should move beyond it, Mr Blair said.
Thursday's Tripoli meeting follows Libya's renunciation of weapons of mass destruction in December. Mr Blair said such changes were "extraordinary".
It's great, yes, Mr Blair. But let's not get too carried away, please. . .
Ah, wait, the BBC has more to tell us:
As the talks took place, it was announced Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell had signed a deal worth up to £550m for gas exploration rights off the Libyan coast.
Evil Blair! Evil Blair! Trade! Trade! Evil Blair! Evil!
How much is our TV licence tax again, which supports the BBC?
Maybe the BBC would prefer if society returned to subsistence agriculture. Instead of cash, from each address owning a television they would receive a cow or a goat once a year.
Although, without electricity, watching the BBC on television might become a little bit complicated. Perhaps News 24 presenters would just stand on streetcorners and shout out the day's news headlines?
It was also announced that British police officers would travel to Libya on 3 April to continue investigations into the murder of Pc Yvonne Fletcher.
Good. Very good indeed.
. . . Asked if he had felt queasy about meeting Colonel Gaddafi, Mr Blair said: "It was strange given the history to come here and do this and of course I am conscious of the pain that people have suffered as a result of terrorist actions in the past.
"But the world is changing and we have got to do everything we possibly can to tackle the security threat that faces us.". . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 25, 2004
WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT "ATTACKS"?
I just found out that someone tried to break into my brother-in-law's house, here in London, at about 5 AM this morning. He went downstairs, and found a fellow, who probably just has not yet found his true calling, outside a ground floor window, trying to open it. Upstairs were my sister-in-law and their three young children.
My brother-in-law got in real close to the window from the inside, and screamed directly at another of society's hopes for the future standing just outside, "Hey, I know you!". The misunderstood young gentleman dropped his tools and ran.
While this was happening, from upstairs my sister-in-law called police, who -- to their credit -- were on the scene within minutes. But, of course, they didn't get there quickly enough to nab the guy.
Frankly, my brother-in-law may be luckier than he realizes, in that the fellow who was just lacking direction in this life didn't get inside the house.
What in heaven's name is going on, in terms of protecting one's person reasonably? Consider this. The Scotsman reports:
A man who stabbed to death an armed intruder at his home was jailed for eight years today.
Carl Lindsay, 25, answered a knock at his door in Salford, Greater Manchester, to find four men armed with a gun.
When the gang tried to rob him he grabbed a samurai sword and stabbed one of them, 37-year-old Stephen Swindells, four times. . .
. . . After the case, Detective Chief Inspector Sam Haworth said: “Four men, including the victim, had set out purposefully to rob Carl Lindsay and this intent ultimately led to Stephen Swindells’ death.
“I believe the sentences passed today reflect the severity of the circumstances.”. . .
The BBC has the story also -- and essentially the same quote:
. . .Det Chief Insp Sam Haworth said: "Four men including the victims had set out purposefully to rob Carl Lindsay and this intent ultimately led to Stephen Swindell's death.
"I believe the sentences passed today reflect the severity of the circumstances."
That the Detective Chief Inspector feels that way is what THE PROBLEM is. As the BoTW noted yesterday: . . .an Englishman has been sentenced to eight years in prison for minding his own business.
Manchester.com has some more details, but there seems to be more here than meets the eye, or appeared in the Scotsman or on the BBC.
However, unless there is a lot more to this than we are being told, I'm sorry but this is disgraceful. . .
Except, it DOESN'T seem to be disgraceful, because there appears to have been a lot more going on here. An utterly innocent and victimized homeowner the jailed man does not appear to be. This Is Bolton, Lancashire told us on March 9:
A DRUG dealer killed a man with a 12-inch sword after a gang of armed robbers slipped into his flat, a court was told.
Carl Lindsay, aged 25, swung the sword after he was threatened with a self-loading pistol.
Manchester Crown Court was told that Stephen Swindells died after suffering four main wounds, all inflicted from behind. One had severed an artery causing massive blood loss and death. . .
. . .Prosecutor Alan Wolstenholme said Lindsay had sold cannabis for some months to callers at his home.
On February 27 last year, two men went there to buy drugs.
Three others - the Crown claim Swindells, Ashton and Ryan - were outside the communal front door. . .
On March 10, the same local source reported:
A DRUG dealer robbed at gunpoint was told on the phone a month earlier that he was "going to get it and they would take his stuff", a murder trial was told.
Carl Lindsay, aged 25, was with a friend, Adam Prince, when he answered his mobile phone, the jury at Manchester Crown Court heard. Mr Prince said Lindsay could not identify the caller.
Around a month later, in February last year, Mr Prince and his friend Darren Pettigrew went to Lindsay's flat in Hollyoake Road, Walkden, for drugs.
Three men slipped in behind them and robbed Lindsay of cash.
But after two guns were pointed at him, Lindsay allegedly took out a Samurai sword, held it shoulder high and chased the trio out of his flat aiming blows at them. . .
And in a short lived link March 25 (I presume it will be archived shortly), This Is Bolton reported:
A WALKDEN drug dealer has started an eight-year jail sentence for stabbing a 37-year-old Salford robber to death with a samurai sword.
Carl Lindsay, aged 25, of Hollyoake Road, Walkden, was cleared of murdering Stephen Swindells on the 11th day of the 16 day trial at Manchester Crown Court, but was convicted of manslaughter.
The jury heard how drug dealer Lindsay was in his Walkden flat at 9.45pm on February 27, 2003 when he answered the door to four men carrying loaded handguns. . .
There was a scuffle in the hallway during which Lindsay stabbed Swindells four times in the back. He died soon afterwards from massive blood loss. Jailing Lindsay for eight years Mr Justice Hughes said the dealer had been severely provoked and initially acted in self defence.
"As they fled you stabbed one assailant four times in the back," he told Lindsay.
"You took a life by deliberate retaliation using a lethal weapon you kept in your home when aware you were a high risk target."
And we hear from the Detective Chief Inspector again:
. . .Appearing in the dock alongside Lindsay were the robbers Ashton, Ryan and Page.
There were loud gasps from the public gallery when they were each jailed for 14 years for armed robbery.
Speaking after the trial Det Chief Insp Sam Haworth said: "Four men, including the victim, had set out purposefully to rob Lindsay and this intent ultimately led to Stephen Swindell's death.
"I believe the sentences passed reflect the severity of the circumstances."
This is getting lots of play on blogs. None of these guys seem all that wonderful. Let's watch our facts in general, everyone -- especially the Scotsman and the BBC, which appear to have left out VITAL details . . . and they are supposed to be in the news gathering business.
UPDATE: Instapundit notes:
Several readers send a link to this story, which unlike the report above says that the defendant was a pot dealer. I'm not sure why that makes a difference in terms of self-defense. The wounds are from behind, which could make a difference, but the facts recited are otherwise largely consistent with the account above.
It doesn't seem to. What matters more here is really the tenor of the reporting, which left out salient facts, and the blogging response, in which it is being played as decent homeowner gets imprisoned for no reason by the awful court system.
I hate to be "nuanced", but it does not appear to have been quite as straightforward as many seemed to think it was. That's what really got my attention. That's all. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 25, 2004
I just found out that someone tried to break into my brother-in-law's house, here in London, at about 5 AM this morning. He went downstairs, and found a fellow, who probably just has not yet found his true calling, outside a ground floor window, trying to open it. Upstairs were my sister-in-law and their three young children.
My brother-in-law got in real close to the window from the inside, and screamed directly at another of society's hopes for the future standing just outside, "Hey, I know you!". The misunderstood young gentleman dropped his tools and ran.
While this was happening, from upstairs my sister-in-law called police, who -- to their credit -- were on the scene within minutes. But, of course, they didn't get there quickly enough to nab the guy.
Frankly, my brother-in-law may be luckier than he realizes, in that the fellow who was just lacking direction in this life didn't get inside the house.
What in heaven's name is going on, in terms of protecting one's person reasonably? Consider this. The Scotsman reports:
A man who stabbed to death an armed intruder at his home was jailed for eight years today.
Carl Lindsay, 25, answered a knock at his door in Salford, Greater Manchester, to find four men armed with a gun.
When the gang tried to rob him he grabbed a samurai sword and stabbed one of them, 37-year-old Stephen Swindells, four times. . .
. . . After the case, Detective Chief Inspector Sam Haworth said: “Four men, including the victim, had set out purposefully to rob Carl Lindsay and this intent ultimately led to Stephen Swindells’ death.
“I believe the sentences passed today reflect the severity of the circumstances.”. . .
The BBC has the story also -- and essentially the same quote:
. . .Det Chief Insp Sam Haworth said: "Four men including the victims had set out purposefully to rob Carl Lindsay and this intent ultimately led to Stephen Swindell's death.
"I believe the sentences passed today reflect the severity of the circumstances."
That the Detective Chief Inspector feels that way is what THE PROBLEM is. As the BoTW noted yesterday: . . .an Englishman has been sentenced to eight years in prison for minding his own business.
Manchester.com has some more details, but there seems to be more here than meets the eye, or appeared in the Scotsman or on the BBC.
However, unless there is a lot more to this than we are being told, I'm sorry but this is disgraceful. . .
Except, it DOESN'T seem to be disgraceful, because there appears to have been a lot more going on here. An utterly innocent and victimized homeowner the jailed man does not appear to be. This Is Bolton, Lancashire told us on March 9:
A DRUG dealer killed a man with a 12-inch sword after a gang of armed robbers slipped into his flat, a court was told.
Carl Lindsay, aged 25, swung the sword after he was threatened with a self-loading pistol.
Manchester Crown Court was told that Stephen Swindells died after suffering four main wounds, all inflicted from behind. One had severed an artery causing massive blood loss and death. . .
. . .Prosecutor Alan Wolstenholme said Lindsay had sold cannabis for some months to callers at his home.
On February 27 last year, two men went there to buy drugs.
Three others - the Crown claim Swindells, Ashton and Ryan - were outside the communal front door. . .
On March 10, the same local source reported:
A DRUG dealer robbed at gunpoint was told on the phone a month earlier that he was "going to get it and they would take his stuff", a murder trial was told.
Carl Lindsay, aged 25, was with a friend, Adam Prince, when he answered his mobile phone, the jury at Manchester Crown Court heard. Mr Prince said Lindsay could not identify the caller.
Around a month later, in February last year, Mr Prince and his friend Darren Pettigrew went to Lindsay's flat in Hollyoake Road, Walkden, for drugs.
Three men slipped in behind them and robbed Lindsay of cash.
But after two guns were pointed at him, Lindsay allegedly took out a Samurai sword, held it shoulder high and chased the trio out of his flat aiming blows at them. . .
And in a short lived link March 25 (I presume it will be archived shortly), This Is Bolton reported:
A WALKDEN drug dealer has started an eight-year jail sentence for stabbing a 37-year-old Salford robber to death with a samurai sword.
Carl Lindsay, aged 25, of Hollyoake Road, Walkden, was cleared of murdering Stephen Swindells on the 11th day of the 16 day trial at Manchester Crown Court, but was convicted of manslaughter.
The jury heard how drug dealer Lindsay was in his Walkden flat at 9.45pm on February 27, 2003 when he answered the door to four men carrying loaded handguns. . .
There was a scuffle in the hallway during which Lindsay stabbed Swindells four times in the back. He died soon afterwards from massive blood loss. Jailing Lindsay for eight years Mr Justice Hughes said the dealer had been severely provoked and initially acted in self defence.
"As they fled you stabbed one assailant four times in the back," he told Lindsay.
"You took a life by deliberate retaliation using a lethal weapon you kept in your home when aware you were a high risk target."
And we hear from the Detective Chief Inspector again:
. . .Appearing in the dock alongside Lindsay were the robbers Ashton, Ryan and Page.
There were loud gasps from the public gallery when they were each jailed for 14 years for armed robbery.
Speaking after the trial Det Chief Insp Sam Haworth said: "Four men, including the victim, had set out purposefully to rob Lindsay and this intent ultimately led to Stephen Swindell's death.
"I believe the sentences passed reflect the severity of the circumstances."
This is getting lots of play on blogs. None of these guys seem all that wonderful. Let's watch our facts in general, everyone -- especially the Scotsman and the BBC, which appear to have left out VITAL details . . . and they are supposed to be in the news gathering business.
UPDATE: Instapundit notes:
Several readers send a link to this story, which unlike the report above says that the defendant was a pot dealer. I'm not sure why that makes a difference in terms of self-defense. The wounds are from behind, which could make a difference, but the facts recited are otherwise largely consistent with the account above.
It doesn't seem to. What matters more here is really the tenor of the reporting, which left out salient facts, and the blogging response, in which it is being played as decent homeowner gets imprisoned for no reason by the awful court system.
I hate to be "nuanced", but it does not appear to have been quite as straightforward as many seemed to think it was. That's what really got my attention. That's all. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 25, 2004
IF ONLY THEY'D LISTENED TO ME! ME!!!!!
Here we go. The BBC reports:
Former US terror chief slams Bush
That's too easy. . .
But, sorry, I can't resist. Must...Write...This: The U.S. has a "terror chief"? Must be a new post. Clearly, the Bush administration is indeed engaged in thinking "outside the box".
A former White House security expert has said the Bush government did not consider terrorism to be an urgent threat before 11 September 2001.
Richard Clarke told a commission that before the attacks the government considered terrorism "an important issue, but not an urgent issue".
The BBC doesn't think to phrase it as, "A former White House security expert has said the Bush government considered terrorism to be an 'important issue, but not an urgent issue' before 11 September 2001." That would have been more accurate.
Notice, too, that we are back, again, to definitions. As we had "deconstructed" the word "imminent", when it came to Iraq's WMD capabilities, now we are going to distinguish between words like "urgent" and "important."
Okay, I'll play. I tend to think of those two words' meanings in these terms:
1) "Important": There is a problem out there that has to be dealt with, and should not be ignored.
Relevant example: Essentially, we know we have an Islamikaze enemy, because they themselves have told us so, and undertaken actions against us. But there seems no rhyme or reason to their attacks. So, learning about them is "important", so we can begin to develop an idea of what they might do next.
2) "Urgent": We know exactly what is about to happen and we have to take immediate steps to prevent what is about to happen, and dealing with the specific threat we know about takes priority over nearly anything else.
Relevant example: We have uncovered a specific Islamikaze plot, to blow up a landmark within the U.S. using suicide bombers. We don't know all the details, but must "urgently" get to the bottom of the plot, to try to stop it.
He apologised to the families of the 3,000 victims for the "failures" that allowed the attacks to take place. . .
. . ."Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you... For that failure, I would ask... for your understanding and forgiveness," he said.
It is believed to be the first such apology by a public figure. . .
Yeh, yeh, we know. Thank you. Moving right along.
Hmmm. Wait. Come to think of it, the best apology he could have offered, and which I am unaware of Mr Clarke having submitted, was his angry, slam-his-hand-down-on-the-table resignation in protest immediately after September 11, 2001, over the Bush administration's having "ignored" his "warnings" for the previous 8 months.
. . .Earlier, CIA director George Tenet said a specific warning had been impossible. . .
Good that the BBC managed to fit the CIA director in there someplace.
In case you don't know, the CIA director is slightly more in the know and a bit more important than Richard Clarke was, as "terror chief" to the president.
. . . In his testimony on Wednesday, Mr Clarke, who quit his post last year, said Mr Bush was told "dozens of times" that there was an urgent terror threat during 2001.
What "urgent terror threat" was there? Remember, we are being specific here. Bush knew that Islamist terror was a major problem -- abroad. But every birdbrained "academic" and "scholar" was also advising that the threat of Islamist terrorism happening within the U.S. was tiny and overblown.
Indeed, let's be blunt: Anyone who asserted Islamism or Islamist terror was any sort of threat within the U.S. had Islamists and their apologists immediately screaming about "defaming Islam". Remember?
In that climate, the Bush administration -- Mr Clarke included -- was supposed to do what, exactly? Because the U.S.S. Cole was attacked in 2000, 30 seconds after taking the oath of office -- or would waiting 30 seconds have also constituted "neglecting" the threat? -- Bush was to try to infiltrate Islamist organizations? Try to track down their money? Arrest every Muslim male in the U.S. under the age of 40? Oh, yes, all that would have gone over big. . .
Indeed, the Bush administration -- especially, the "evil" Ashcroft -- has been called every name under the sun for attempting to try to figure out what on earth is going on with Islamists within the U.S. . . . AFTER September 11, 2001.
"There was a process under way to address al-Qaeda, but although I continued to say it was an urgent problem, I don't think it was ever treated that way," he told the commission investigating how the attacks were able to take place.
What was "urgent?" Specifics, man.
Although he admitted that an attack could not have been prevented even if his recommendations had been adopted, he made it clear he believed the White House should have done more.
Heaven help us.
Mr Clarke also reiterated his criticism of the decision to invade Iraq, saying Mr Bush had "greatly undermined the war on terrorism".
Well, we finally got there. What took the BBC so long?
Anyway, that's Clarke's opinion. Many others thoroughly disagree with it.
Actually, did Clarke think to suggest, to try to topple Saddam easily -- and thus deal with the Bush "Saddam obsession", which would have allowed the U.S. government to get back to the al Qaeda issue that Condoleezza Rice had never heard of -- that the U.S. should have instead created those sonic booms over Iraq?
Oh, and in case you by now somehow DID NOT KNOW THIS:
. . .Mr Clarke served as head of counter-terrorism under
. . . wait for it, here it comes now . . .
four consecutive US presidents, from Ronald Reagan to George W Bush. . .
The BBC not mentioning that is, well, like a day without sunshine.
Now, for a word from the "evil" Bush administration:
. . .Meanwhile, the White House sought to discredit Mr Clarke, releasing a previously anonymous press briefing which show him praising the president's anti-terrorism strategies.
"He needs to get his story straight," said Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser and Mr Clarke's former boss. . .
Nasty Condi. Expecting him to get his story straight.
Earlier, CIA director George Tenet said warnings had "lit up" in the weeks before 11 September - but had been thin on specifics.
"They indicated that multiple spectacular attacks were planned and that some of the plots were in their final stages.
"The reporting was maddeningly short on actionable details. The most ominous reporting... was also the most vague."
Is that what Clarke considered "urgent"? While it might sound "urgent" rather than "important", if you don't have any clue what is specifically to happen, what are you supposed to do specifically to try to prevent that which you don't know about . . . specifically?
Oh, and by the way:
. . . In a preliminary report on its findings so far, the commission has said that the Clinton and Bush administrations were too slow in moving away from diplomatic pressure to direct military action as a way of dealing with the al-Qaeda leadership.
A Clinton administration? What was that? Oh, yes, but wasn't there was a Gore administration after Clinton?
Of course. Bill Clinton was president from 1993-2001. Didn't they have anything to do with all this?
You wouldn't know that from this BBC "report". That final paragraph is the ONLY place where Clinton's name is even ONCE mentioned in the entire piece. . .
. . . at least until the Beeb changes it, without telling us. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 25, 2004
Here we go. The BBC reports:
Former US terror chief slams Bush
That's too easy. . .
But, sorry, I can't resist. Must...Write...This: The U.S. has a "terror chief"? Must be a new post. Clearly, the Bush administration is indeed engaged in thinking "outside the box".
A former White House security expert has said the Bush government did not consider terrorism to be an urgent threat before 11 September 2001.
Richard Clarke told a commission that before the attacks the government considered terrorism "an important issue, but not an urgent issue".
The BBC doesn't think to phrase it as, "A former White House security expert has said the Bush government considered terrorism to be an 'important issue, but not an urgent issue' before 11 September 2001." That would have been more accurate.
Notice, too, that we are back, again, to definitions. As we had "deconstructed" the word "imminent", when it came to Iraq's WMD capabilities, now we are going to distinguish between words like "urgent" and "important."
Okay, I'll play. I tend to think of those two words' meanings in these terms:
1) "Important": There is a problem out there that has to be dealt with, and should not be ignored.
Relevant example: Essentially, we know we have an Islamikaze enemy, because they themselves have told us so, and undertaken actions against us. But there seems no rhyme or reason to their attacks. So, learning about them is "important", so we can begin to develop an idea of what they might do next.
2) "Urgent": We know exactly what is about to happen and we have to take immediate steps to prevent what is about to happen, and dealing with the specific threat we know about takes priority over nearly anything else.
Relevant example: We have uncovered a specific Islamikaze plot, to blow up a landmark within the U.S. using suicide bombers. We don't know all the details, but must "urgently" get to the bottom of the plot, to try to stop it.
He apologised to the families of the 3,000 victims for the "failures" that allowed the attacks to take place. . .
. . ."Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you... For that failure, I would ask... for your understanding and forgiveness," he said.
It is believed to be the first such apology by a public figure. . .
Yeh, yeh, we know. Thank you. Moving right along.
Hmmm. Wait. Come to think of it, the best apology he could have offered, and which I am unaware of Mr Clarke having submitted, was his angry, slam-his-hand-down-on-the-table resignation in protest immediately after September 11, 2001, over the Bush administration's having "ignored" his "warnings" for the previous 8 months.
. . .Earlier, CIA director George Tenet said a specific warning had been impossible. . .
Good that the BBC managed to fit the CIA director in there someplace.
In case you don't know, the CIA director is slightly more in the know and a bit more important than Richard Clarke was, as "terror chief" to the president.
. . . In his testimony on Wednesday, Mr Clarke, who quit his post last year, said Mr Bush was told "dozens of times" that there was an urgent terror threat during 2001.
What "urgent terror threat" was there? Remember, we are being specific here. Bush knew that Islamist terror was a major problem -- abroad. But every birdbrained "academic" and "scholar" was also advising that the threat of Islamist terrorism happening within the U.S. was tiny and overblown.
Indeed, let's be blunt: Anyone who asserted Islamism or Islamist terror was any sort of threat within the U.S. had Islamists and their apologists immediately screaming about "defaming Islam". Remember?
In that climate, the Bush administration -- Mr Clarke included -- was supposed to do what, exactly? Because the U.S.S. Cole was attacked in 2000, 30 seconds after taking the oath of office -- or would waiting 30 seconds have also constituted "neglecting" the threat? -- Bush was to try to infiltrate Islamist organizations? Try to track down their money? Arrest every Muslim male in the U.S. under the age of 40? Oh, yes, all that would have gone over big. . .
Indeed, the Bush administration -- especially, the "evil" Ashcroft -- has been called every name under the sun for attempting to try to figure out what on earth is going on with Islamists within the U.S. . . . AFTER September 11, 2001.
"There was a process under way to address al-Qaeda, but although I continued to say it was an urgent problem, I don't think it was ever treated that way," he told the commission investigating how the attacks were able to take place.
What was "urgent?" Specifics, man.
Although he admitted that an attack could not have been prevented even if his recommendations had been adopted, he made it clear he believed the White House should have done more.
Heaven help us.
Mr Clarke also reiterated his criticism of the decision to invade Iraq, saying Mr Bush had "greatly undermined the war on terrorism".
Well, we finally got there. What took the BBC so long?
Anyway, that's Clarke's opinion. Many others thoroughly disagree with it.
Actually, did Clarke think to suggest, to try to topple Saddam easily -- and thus deal with the Bush "Saddam obsession", which would have allowed the U.S. government to get back to the al Qaeda issue that Condoleezza Rice had never heard of -- that the U.S. should have instead created those sonic booms over Iraq?
Oh, and in case you by now somehow DID NOT KNOW THIS:
. . .Mr Clarke served as head of counter-terrorism under
. . . wait for it, here it comes now . . .
four consecutive US presidents, from Ronald Reagan to George W Bush. . .
The BBC not mentioning that is, well, like a day without sunshine.
Now, for a word from the "evil" Bush administration:
. . .Meanwhile, the White House sought to discredit Mr Clarke, releasing a previously anonymous press briefing which show him praising the president's anti-terrorism strategies.
"He needs to get his story straight," said Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser and Mr Clarke's former boss. . .
Nasty Condi. Expecting him to get his story straight.
Earlier, CIA director George Tenet said warnings had "lit up" in the weeks before 11 September - but had been thin on specifics.
"They indicated that multiple spectacular attacks were planned and that some of the plots were in their final stages.
"The reporting was maddeningly short on actionable details. The most ominous reporting... was also the most vague."
Is that what Clarke considered "urgent"? While it might sound "urgent" rather than "important", if you don't have any clue what is specifically to happen, what are you supposed to do specifically to try to prevent that which you don't know about . . . specifically?
Oh, and by the way:
. . . In a preliminary report on its findings so far, the commission has said that the Clinton and Bush administrations were too slow in moving away from diplomatic pressure to direct military action as a way of dealing with the al-Qaeda leadership.
A Clinton administration? What was that? Oh, yes, but wasn't there was a Gore administration after Clinton?
Of course. Bill Clinton was president from 1993-2001. Didn't they have anything to do with all this?
You wouldn't know that from this BBC "report". That final paragraph is the ONLY place where Clinton's name is even ONCE mentioned in the entire piece. . .
. . . at least until the Beeb changes it, without telling us. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 25, 2004
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
UNEXPLODED FRENCH RAIL BOMB FOUND
Sometime after 1700, the A.P. reported:
A French railroad worker found an explosive device buried in the bed of a passenger line between France and Switzerland on Wednesday, the Interior Ministry said.
Bomb disposal experts neutralized the device, which was half-buried under a track in the village of Montieramey, on a train line heading from Paris to Basel, Switzerland, about 105 miles southeast of Paris the ministry said in a statement. It was discovered shortly after noon.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility.
The Interior Ministry said the device did not resemble bombs described in threats by a previously unknown group calling itself AZF. An Interior Ministry official said later it was not immediately clear whether the device was capable of exploding. . .
CNN has this:
A rail worker found an explosive device half-buried in the bed of a railway line heading from France to Switzerland, government officials and the French rail service SNCF said.
"An employee from SNCF was working on the trackwhen he found something suspicious and he contacted the police." said an SNCF spokeswoman.
According to a statement from the Interior Ministry, the device -- discovered near the city of Troyes -- had been defused by bomb disposal experts. . .
Since it had not yet "officially" exploded, is that then what CNN might term an "interim" or "acting" explosive device?
And the BBC reports:
. . .The device was discovered shortly after noon (1100GMT), half-buried under a track near Troyes, about 150km (90 miles) southeast of the French capital, Paris.
It was found inside a plastic box about 20cm (8 inches) square, with six detonators wired to a battery. . .
Someone give that rail worker a medal. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Sometime after 1700, the A.P. reported:
A French railroad worker found an explosive device buried in the bed of a passenger line between France and Switzerland on Wednesday, the Interior Ministry said.
Bomb disposal experts neutralized the device, which was half-buried under a track in the village of Montieramey, on a train line heading from Paris to Basel, Switzerland, about 105 miles southeast of Paris the ministry said in a statement. It was discovered shortly after noon.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility.
The Interior Ministry said the device did not resemble bombs described in threats by a previously unknown group calling itself AZF. An Interior Ministry official said later it was not immediately clear whether the device was capable of exploding. . .
CNN has this:
A rail worker found an explosive device half-buried in the bed of a railway line heading from France to Switzerland, government officials and the French rail service SNCF said.
"An employee from SNCF was working on the trackwhen he found something suspicious and he contacted the police." said an SNCF spokeswoman.
According to a statement from the Interior Ministry, the device -- discovered near the city of Troyes -- had been defused by bomb disposal experts. . .
Since it had not yet "officially" exploded, is that then what CNN might term an "interim" or "acting" explosive device?
And the BBC reports:
. . .The device was discovered shortly after noon (1100GMT), half-buried under a track near Troyes, about 150km (90 miles) southeast of the French capital, Paris.
It was found inside a plastic box about 20cm (8 inches) square, with six detonators wired to a battery. . .
Someone give that rail worker a medal. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 24, 2004
SOMEONE'S NERVOUS
The A.P. reports:
The new Hamas leader in Gaza said Wednesday the militant group had no plans to attack U.S. targets, while another top official in the organization said it has targeted Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for death.
The Islamic group had made veiled threats it would retaliate against the United States for Israel's assassination of Hamas spiritual leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin on Monday, but it has rarely attacked American targets during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. . .
. . .Rantisi denied reports that Hamas would join with al-Qaida, calling the claims "Zionist propaganda.". . .
Hamas are murdering slugs, with whom there can be no negotiation -- because their stance consists of such "flexible points" as "kill all the Jews" and "conquer Israel".
But they aren't complete fools. It ain't John Kerry they are afraid of. Remember, George W. Bush is in the White House. . .
Don't get him too angry. You won't like him, when he gets angry.
UPDATE: Here's a great headline and opening paragraph. CNN reports:
Hamas names interim leader in Gaza
Abdel Aziz Rantisi was named acting Gaza leader of Hamas until a new leader is chosen, Hamas officials said Tuesday. . .
"Interim"? "Acting"? You'd think they had just appointed an acting or interim undersecretary of flippin' agriculture, for heaven's sake.
What they've done is more accurately described as having appointed a successor to the mob family's elderly founder, who was recently killed by police. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 24, 2004
The A.P. reports:
The new Hamas leader in Gaza said Wednesday the militant group had no plans to attack U.S. targets, while another top official in the organization said it has targeted Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for death.
The Islamic group had made veiled threats it would retaliate against the United States for Israel's assassination of Hamas spiritual leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin on Monday, but it has rarely attacked American targets during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. . .
. . .Rantisi denied reports that Hamas would join with al-Qaida, calling the claims "Zionist propaganda.". . .
Hamas are murdering slugs, with whom there can be no negotiation -- because their stance consists of such "flexible points" as "kill all the Jews" and "conquer Israel".
But they aren't complete fools. It ain't John Kerry they are afraid of. Remember, George W. Bush is in the White House. . .
Don't get him too angry. You won't like him, when he gets angry.
UPDATE: Here's a great headline and opening paragraph. CNN reports:
Hamas names interim leader in Gaza
Abdel Aziz Rantisi was named acting Gaza leader of Hamas until a new leader is chosen, Hamas officials said Tuesday. . .
"Interim"? "Acting"? You'd think they had just appointed an acting or interim undersecretary of flippin' agriculture, for heaven's sake.
What they've done is more accurately described as having appointed a successor to the mob family's elderly founder, who was recently killed by police. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 24, 2004
US AGAINST US
Jarvis:
I haven't said much about the current blame game going on over September 11th in books, hearings, and political speeches.
The terrorists came within a matter of yards of killing me.
But I don't blame the Bush or Clinton administrations for that. I blame the terrorists. . .
. . . It's us against them, not us against us. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Jarvis:
I haven't said much about the current blame game going on over September 11th in books, hearings, and political speeches.
The terrorists came within a matter of yards of killing me.
But I don't blame the Bush or Clinton administrations for that. I blame the terrorists. . .
. . . It's us against them, not us against us. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 24, 2004
BLAIR TO TRIPOLI?
Sky reports:
Downing Street has confirmed Tony Blair will visit Libya tomorrow to meet the Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi. . .
Do you think that next we are going to be told that Libya will be sending troops to Iraq, to replace Spain's contingent?
Why not? Little is surprising currently.
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott defended the move, saying it was right to engage in dialogue.
The announcement came as Royal Dutch/Shell announced it was to sign an outline deal soon for gas exploration rights off Libya while British aviation firm BAE said it could be set to clinch a deal for a civil aviation facility. . .
Hmm. I am not sure what Sky is implying here -- although I think we can hazard a guess.
I was beginning to think Michael Howard was leading the Conservatives back into the realm of making sense. That belief might have been premature:
. . .The Tories blasted the PM's plans.
Tory leader Michael Howard said the visit would cause "distress" to the Lockerbie families.
"It is quite odd timing to go from a service (Madrid bombings) which commemorates the victims of the biggest terrorist attack on Europe since Lockerbie, to go straight from there to Libya," Mr Howard said. . .
Look, it is like the idea of parole. If a prisoner has a life sentence, with no hope, what reason is there for him to cooperate with his jailers? Libya has, apparently, come clean on its WMD -- in a way that Iraq never did. It has to be demonstrated to the likes of North Korea and Iran that there is a benefit to behaving in a sane manner.
And the alternative is to do what? To continue to pummel Libya with sanctions over Lockerbie, after the case was closed, while Libya creates even nuclear weapons? An outlaw Libya, or a terrorist group which got The Bomb from Libya, exploding a nuke in the middle of a European city . . . would do a lot more damage than a hundred Madrid-style train bombings and a hundred Lockerbies.
Consider this: if Blair and Bush had taken the Howard-style line on Libya, what would the ramifications have been after such a nuclear attack? Aside from dead tens of thousands, and a mushroom cloud over a European city, you just know Howard (or a successor) would then be carrying on over the fact that Blair and Bush were so mesmerized by Lockerbie that they "ignored" and "neglected" intelligence concerning Libya's nuclear ambitions. That is also assuming Westminster remained standing, of course.
These are what are called hard choices.
Now for the required light-hearted finish:
. . . Mr Blair will be welcomed in a traditional Bedouin tent outside Tripoli. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Sky reports:
Downing Street has confirmed Tony Blair will visit Libya tomorrow to meet the Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi. . .
Do you think that next we are going to be told that Libya will be sending troops to Iraq, to replace Spain's contingent?
Why not? Little is surprising currently.
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott defended the move, saying it was right to engage in dialogue.
The announcement came as Royal Dutch/Shell announced it was to sign an outline deal soon for gas exploration rights off Libya while British aviation firm BAE said it could be set to clinch a deal for a civil aviation facility. . .
Hmm. I am not sure what Sky is implying here -- although I think we can hazard a guess.
I was beginning to think Michael Howard was leading the Conservatives back into the realm of making sense. That belief might have been premature:
. . .The Tories blasted the PM's plans.
Tory leader Michael Howard said the visit would cause "distress" to the Lockerbie families.
"It is quite odd timing to go from a service (Madrid bombings) which commemorates the victims of the biggest terrorist attack on Europe since Lockerbie, to go straight from there to Libya," Mr Howard said. . .
Look, it is like the idea of parole. If a prisoner has a life sentence, with no hope, what reason is there for him to cooperate with his jailers? Libya has, apparently, come clean on its WMD -- in a way that Iraq never did. It has to be demonstrated to the likes of North Korea and Iran that there is a benefit to behaving in a sane manner.
And the alternative is to do what? To continue to pummel Libya with sanctions over Lockerbie, after the case was closed, while Libya creates even nuclear weapons? An outlaw Libya, or a terrorist group which got The Bomb from Libya, exploding a nuke in the middle of a European city . . . would do a lot more damage than a hundred Madrid-style train bombings and a hundred Lockerbies.
Consider this: if Blair and Bush had taken the Howard-style line on Libya, what would the ramifications have been after such a nuclear attack? Aside from dead tens of thousands, and a mushroom cloud over a European city, you just know Howard (or a successor) would then be carrying on over the fact that Blair and Bush were so mesmerized by Lockerbie that they "ignored" and "neglected" intelligence concerning Libya's nuclear ambitions. That is also assuming Westminster remained standing, of course.
These are what are called hard choices.
Now for the required light-hearted finish:
. . . Mr Blair will be welcomed in a traditional Bedouin tent outside Tripoli. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 24, 2004
OOOH, IT'S ALMOST TIME!
The BBC can't wait:
A former US official highly critical of President Bush's handling of the al-Qaeda threat is to testify before a hearing on the 11 September attacks.
Former anti-terror aide Richard Clarke will get a chance to explain charges made in a book that Mr Bush ignored warnings before the attacks. . .
And now, we get the BBC's masterful interpretation of the hearings up to now -- and what is to come. Get ready:
. . . no serious blows landed on the Bush administration today for its handling of the terrorist threat.
There were never supposed to be "serious blows". The hearings are an attempt to get at some measure of freakin' truth as to what allowed 19 suicidal/homicidal maniacs from a particular "religion of peace" to enter the U.S., hijack four aircraft and crash three of them into buildings in New York and Washington!
For real fireworks, watch the hearings on Wednesday.
Ah, at least this truth comes out. The BBC is getting into full-scale, anti-Bush mode for today. We know where the Beeb's priorities lie.
Richard Clarke is due to testify. He is the former White House adviser on counterterrorism, a 30 year veteran of intelligence and security who . . .
and, come on, go ahead, take a guess -- you know what's coming:
. . .served under four presidents.
No surprise there, from the Beeb.
Mr Clarke has published a book which excoriates the Bush administration for "ignoring" the terrorist threat from Al-Qaeda, and for launching an "irrelevant" war in Iraq. His testimony is going to be highly politically charged.
Ooh, and the BBC is just salivating. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 24, 2004
The BBC can't wait:
A former US official highly critical of President Bush's handling of the al-Qaeda threat is to testify before a hearing on the 11 September attacks.
Former anti-terror aide Richard Clarke will get a chance to explain charges made in a book that Mr Bush ignored warnings before the attacks. . .
And now, we get the BBC's masterful interpretation of the hearings up to now -- and what is to come. Get ready:
. . . no serious blows landed on the Bush administration today for its handling of the terrorist threat.
There were never supposed to be "serious blows". The hearings are an attempt to get at some measure of freakin' truth as to what allowed 19 suicidal/homicidal maniacs from a particular "religion of peace" to enter the U.S., hijack four aircraft and crash three of them into buildings in New York and Washington!
For real fireworks, watch the hearings on Wednesday.
Ah, at least this truth comes out. The BBC is getting into full-scale, anti-Bush mode for today. We know where the Beeb's priorities lie.
Richard Clarke is due to testify. He is the former White House adviser on counterterrorism, a 30 year veteran of intelligence and security who . . .
and, come on, go ahead, take a guess -- you know what's coming:
. . .served under four presidents.
No surprise there, from the Beeb.
Mr Clarke has published a book which excoriates the Bush administration for "ignoring" the terrorist threat from Al-Qaeda, and for launching an "irrelevant" war in Iraq. His testimony is going to be highly politically charged.
Ooh, and the BBC is just salivating. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 24, 2004
THE HEARINGS
I am at something of a disadvantage here, in blogging terms. The time difference meant we were watching Donald Rumsfeld, General Myers, and Secretary Wolfowitz complete their testimony before the "9-11 Commission" at nearly 10.30 PM. So, others have gotten lots more online about various points. So for this post, just a few comments about the commission and the coverage.
From what I saw, the commission itself displayed good non-partisanship, and generally asked tough and reasonable questions. There was little to no pro-Clinton or pro-Bush grandstanding. Facts, folks. Just the facts. That's what we want. And they did a fairly good job getting at them.
The composition of the commission itself is as follows, according to the commission's web site. I have extracted the bits that appear most immediately relevant:
Thomas Kean, chair, is former governor of New Jersey (1982-1990).
Lee Hamilton, vice chair, served for 34 years in Congress representing Indiana's Ninth District until 1999.
Richard Ben-Veniste is a partner in the Washington law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw. He is probably best known as the minority counsel during "Whitewater", from May 1995 to June 1996.
Fred Fielding is senior partner and head of Wiley, Rein, & Fielding's Government Affairs, Business & Finance, Litigation and Crisis Management/White Collar Crime Practices. Fielding has served as the U.S.-designated arbitrator at the Tribunal on the U.S.-U.K. Air Treaty Dispute (1989-1994), as a member of the president's Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform (1989) and as a member of the secretary of transportation's Task Force on Aviation Disasters. . .
Jamie Gorelick is a partner at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. Prior to joining Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering in July 2003, Gorelick was vice chair of Fannie Mae. Prior to joining Fannie Mae in May 1997, Gorelick was deputy attorney general of the United States, a position she assumed in March 1994. From May 1993 until she joined the Justice Department, Gorelick served as general counsel of the Department of Defense.
Slade Gorton is of counsel at Preston Gates & Ellis LLP. Prior to joining the firm, he represented Washington State in the United States Senate for 18 years, from 1982-2000.
Bob Kerrey represented the State of Nebraska in the United States Senate. Before that he served as Nebraska's Governor for four years. Upon the death of Nebraska's senior United States Senator, Kerrey became a candidate for the U.S. Senate. He was elected in 1988 and re-elected in 1994. He chose not to run for re-election a third time because of the offer to be President of New School University and his desire to return to private life.
John Lehman is chairman of J.F. Lehman & Company, a private equity investment firm. He served 25 years in the naval reserve. Lehman was appointed Secretary of the Navy by President Reagan in 1981 and served until 1987. During his tenure as Secretary of the Navy, Lehman was responsible for building a 600 ship Navy, establishing a strategy of maritime supremacy, and reforming ship and aircraft procurement.
Tim Roemer. . . from 1991-2003 . . . represented the Third District of Indiana in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. . .
James Thompson, Illinois' longest-serving governor (1977-1991), is chairman of the law firm of Winston & Strawn, headquartered in Chicago.
Several of the members were in Congress or in national government during the 1980s and 1990s -- the very time during which the current Islamist War on the U.S. was starting, culminating in the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. So they should tread very carefully when "raising questions" about the likes of preparedness and unpreparedness at those from both the Clinton and the Bush administrations who come before them. After all, many of the commission, too, held influential posts, on the very same watch.
So, we have heard thus far from the likes of Albright, Cohen, Powell and Rumsfeld. We'll see how they do on Wednesday with their first overtly "political" witness -- Richard Clarke. The man -- never famous before in the slightest -- finds himself in the limelight for probably the only time in his career. And he has a book to sell. NOW IS THE TIME! to get those sales up. He may be "history" next week. So, it will be up to the commission to make sure that he, too, sticks to the facts. Again, just the facts.
On the coverage itself. There were British channels that had it, but I did not watch any of their coverage. But with event coverage like that, the Beeb/Sky/ITV usually let things flow fairly well, without too much or no interruption.
I love FOX. Having FOX in Britain is wonderful. For U.S. issues, it is indispensible. Indeed, without it, the British would have only the BBC, those other British based 24 hour channels I mentioned above, the often appalling CNN International . . . and al Jazeera. (Oh, yes, that latter is available on satellite here -- although one's Arabic has to be, urrr, up to the task.)
I will give credit where credit appears due. CNN International's coverage was better than FOX's, mostly because CNN NEVER -- while I was watching CNN -- interrupted the flow.
I had started with FOX, but went over to CNN the first time after FOX had cut back to the studio for something or other. Irritating! After a few minutes on CNN, I then went back to FOX to see if FOX had come to its senses. It had, but not for long. I switched permanently to CNN's coverage after FOX cut-in another time about half an hour later or so, and not for U.S. commercials (which might -- might -- have been understandable), but apparently due to a "change in program". Huh?
For that final straw, I was suddenly looking at Neil Cavuto, as FOX inexplicably split the screen, to leave Rumsfeld speechless, with only the defense secretary's facial and hand gestures visible . . . and there I was, trying to lip read until I suddenly thought "Click to back to CNN!" It was ludicrous!
"Snowflake" to FOX: the hearings are just that -- a verbal exercise mostly. You weren't supplying real-time footage of a burning building or a car chase in southern California, with the need for an "expert" in studio to provide color commentary.
Viewers wanted the originals. They weren't watching to see some reporter yammering on about THE testimony while THE testimony was happening, muted, over his shoulder. And my wife particularly enjoys hearing things directly from Rumsfeld -- the handsome, articulate guy that he is.
Anyway, that was the end of our watching FOX's coverage, and we stayed with CNN the rest of the evening.
So, much as it pains me to say it, CNN did a better job on the hearings yesterday. FOX, much better in general in covering the War on Islamist Terror, appears still to have a bit to learn about covering a live event like that.
"Snowflake 2" to FOX: Next time, just give Neil the evening off, and let the major players speak for themselves uninterrupted, please.
I report. You decide.
And why did Paul Wolfowitz have so many papers scattered around himself? my wife asked at one point. Donald Rumsfeld's "space" was neat and tidy.
The answer is simple: He's Donald Rumsfeld. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 24, 2004
I am at something of a disadvantage here, in blogging terms. The time difference meant we were watching Donald Rumsfeld, General Myers, and Secretary Wolfowitz complete their testimony before the "9-11 Commission" at nearly 10.30 PM. So, others have gotten lots more online about various points. So for this post, just a few comments about the commission and the coverage.
From what I saw, the commission itself displayed good non-partisanship, and generally asked tough and reasonable questions. There was little to no pro-Clinton or pro-Bush grandstanding. Facts, folks. Just the facts. That's what we want. And they did a fairly good job getting at them.
The composition of the commission itself is as follows, according to the commission's web site. I have extracted the bits that appear most immediately relevant:
Thomas Kean, chair, is former governor of New Jersey (1982-1990).
Lee Hamilton, vice chair, served for 34 years in Congress representing Indiana's Ninth District until 1999.
Richard Ben-Veniste is a partner in the Washington law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw. He is probably best known as the minority counsel during "Whitewater", from May 1995 to June 1996.
Fred Fielding is senior partner and head of Wiley, Rein, & Fielding's Government Affairs, Business & Finance, Litigation and Crisis Management/White Collar Crime Practices. Fielding has served as the U.S.-designated arbitrator at the Tribunal on the U.S.-U.K. Air Treaty Dispute (1989-1994), as a member of the president's Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform (1989) and as a member of the secretary of transportation's Task Force on Aviation Disasters. . .
Jamie Gorelick is a partner at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. Prior to joining Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering in July 2003, Gorelick was vice chair of Fannie Mae. Prior to joining Fannie Mae in May 1997, Gorelick was deputy attorney general of the United States, a position she assumed in March 1994. From May 1993 until she joined the Justice Department, Gorelick served as general counsel of the Department of Defense.
Slade Gorton is of counsel at Preston Gates & Ellis LLP. Prior to joining the firm, he represented Washington State in the United States Senate for 18 years, from 1982-2000.
Bob Kerrey represented the State of Nebraska in the United States Senate. Before that he served as Nebraska's Governor for four years. Upon the death of Nebraska's senior United States Senator, Kerrey became a candidate for the U.S. Senate. He was elected in 1988 and re-elected in 1994. He chose not to run for re-election a third time because of the offer to be President of New School University and his desire to return to private life.
John Lehman is chairman of J.F. Lehman & Company, a private equity investment firm. He served 25 years in the naval reserve. Lehman was appointed Secretary of the Navy by President Reagan in 1981 and served until 1987. During his tenure as Secretary of the Navy, Lehman was responsible for building a 600 ship Navy, establishing a strategy of maritime supremacy, and reforming ship and aircraft procurement.
Tim Roemer. . . from 1991-2003 . . . represented the Third District of Indiana in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. . .
James Thompson, Illinois' longest-serving governor (1977-1991), is chairman of the law firm of Winston & Strawn, headquartered in Chicago.
Several of the members were in Congress or in national government during the 1980s and 1990s -- the very time during which the current Islamist War on the U.S. was starting, culminating in the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. So they should tread very carefully when "raising questions" about the likes of preparedness and unpreparedness at those from both the Clinton and the Bush administrations who come before them. After all, many of the commission, too, held influential posts, on the very same watch.
So, we have heard thus far from the likes of Albright, Cohen, Powell and Rumsfeld. We'll see how they do on Wednesday with their first overtly "political" witness -- Richard Clarke. The man -- never famous before in the slightest -- finds himself in the limelight for probably the only time in his career. And he has a book to sell. NOW IS THE TIME! to get those sales up. He may be "history" next week. So, it will be up to the commission to make sure that he, too, sticks to the facts. Again, just the facts.
On the coverage itself. There were British channels that had it, but I did not watch any of their coverage. But with event coverage like that, the Beeb/Sky/ITV usually let things flow fairly well, without too much or no interruption.
I love FOX. Having FOX in Britain is wonderful. For U.S. issues, it is indispensible. Indeed, without it, the British would have only the BBC, those other British based 24 hour channels I mentioned above, the often appalling CNN International . . . and al Jazeera. (Oh, yes, that latter is available on satellite here -- although one's Arabic has to be, urrr, up to the task.)
I will give credit where credit appears due. CNN International's coverage was better than FOX's, mostly because CNN NEVER -- while I was watching CNN -- interrupted the flow.
I had started with FOX, but went over to CNN the first time after FOX had cut back to the studio for something or other. Irritating! After a few minutes on CNN, I then went back to FOX to see if FOX had come to its senses. It had, but not for long. I switched permanently to CNN's coverage after FOX cut-in another time about half an hour later or so, and not for U.S. commercials (which might -- might -- have been understandable), but apparently due to a "change in program". Huh?
For that final straw, I was suddenly looking at Neil Cavuto, as FOX inexplicably split the screen, to leave Rumsfeld speechless, with only the defense secretary's facial and hand gestures visible . . . and there I was, trying to lip read until I suddenly thought "Click to back to CNN!" It was ludicrous!
"Snowflake" to FOX: the hearings are just that -- a verbal exercise mostly. You weren't supplying real-time footage of a burning building or a car chase in southern California, with the need for an "expert" in studio to provide color commentary.
Viewers wanted the originals. They weren't watching to see some reporter yammering on about THE testimony while THE testimony was happening, muted, over his shoulder. And my wife particularly enjoys hearing things directly from Rumsfeld -- the handsome, articulate guy that he is.
Anyway, that was the end of our watching FOX's coverage, and we stayed with CNN the rest of the evening.
So, much as it pains me to say it, CNN did a better job on the hearings yesterday. FOX, much better in general in covering the War on Islamist Terror, appears still to have a bit to learn about covering a live event like that.
"Snowflake 2" to FOX: Next time, just give Neil the evening off, and let the major players speak for themselves uninterrupted, please.
I report. You decide.
And why did Paul Wolfowitz have so many papers scattered around himself? my wife asked at one point. Donald Rumsfeld's "space" was neat and tidy.
The answer is simple: He's Donald Rumsfeld. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 24, 2004
AZNAR'S FINAL WORD
Opinionjournal has Jose Maria Aznar's thoughts on the Madrid attacks:
. . . Ours is a battle between freedom, democracy and civilization, on the one hand, and terror on the other. If on September 11 we were all American, on March 11 the whole world was Spanish. Let's maintain this spirit. We cannot just abandon this battle; it is everyone's fight. . .
. . .ETA or al Qaeda--the difference is important, to be sure, but the response to what has happened should be the same: firmness, political unity and international cooperation. Each and every democrat in the world was on those trains in Madrid. It has been an attack against all of us, against everything we believe in, and against everything we have built.
It is precisely for this reason that we must not send out confusing messages, messages that induce people to believe that we have to make concessions to those demanding that we kneel before bombs. This is not the moment to think about withdrawals of troops. And much less when the terrorists, with their message of death and destruction, have demanded that we surrender. To yield now would set a dangerous precedent that would allow our attackers to believe that they have imposed their conditions on us. It would allow our attackers to believe that they have won.
Unfortunately, in Spain at least, it appears they have . . .
UPDATE: Iberian Notes on how the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol:
. . . rather predictably gives Zap and the Spanish electorate a good verbal thrashing similar to those we've been handing out over the past few days. Kristol then goes all wobbly on us, saying that maybe the problem is that the United States isn't getting its message across to the people of other nations. Well, yeah, but that's pretty hard to do in someplace like Spain, where the universally anti-American media isn't going to help us present that message and, in fact, will label all American attempts to get its message across as blatant propaganda not to be trusted. As for appealing directly to the people, how do you do that without media cooperation? Kristol's just not in touch with reality about popular feelings toward the United States in Europe. He seems to think they can be changed. I know he's wrong.
But let's hope Kristol's not. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Opinionjournal has Jose Maria Aznar's thoughts on the Madrid attacks:
. . . Ours is a battle between freedom, democracy and civilization, on the one hand, and terror on the other. If on September 11 we were all American, on March 11 the whole world was Spanish. Let's maintain this spirit. We cannot just abandon this battle; it is everyone's fight. . .
. . .ETA or al Qaeda--the difference is important, to be sure, but the response to what has happened should be the same: firmness, political unity and international cooperation. Each and every democrat in the world was on those trains in Madrid. It has been an attack against all of us, against everything we believe in, and against everything we have built.
It is precisely for this reason that we must not send out confusing messages, messages that induce people to believe that we have to make concessions to those demanding that we kneel before bombs. This is not the moment to think about withdrawals of troops. And much less when the terrorists, with their message of death and destruction, have demanded that we surrender. To yield now would set a dangerous precedent that would allow our attackers to believe that they have imposed their conditions on us. It would allow our attackers to believe that they have won.
Unfortunately, in Spain at least, it appears they have . . .
UPDATE: Iberian Notes on how the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol:
. . . rather predictably gives Zap and the Spanish electorate a good verbal thrashing similar to those we've been handing out over the past few days. Kristol then goes all wobbly on us, saying that maybe the problem is that the United States isn't getting its message across to the people of other nations. Well, yeah, but that's pretty hard to do in someplace like Spain, where the universally anti-American media isn't going to help us present that message and, in fact, will label all American attempts to get its message across as blatant propaganda not to be trusted. As for appealing directly to the people, how do you do that without media cooperation? Kristol's just not in touch with reality about popular feelings toward the United States in Europe. He seems to think they can be changed. I know he's wrong.
But let's hope Kristol's not. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 24, 2004
SPARE US THE PARTISAN NONSENSE
In the end, the reasons for the attacks were rather straightforward, and we all know it. The Belgravia Dispatch writes:
. . .I trust most Administration critics, when they are alone and taking a real, honest look at themselves in the mirror, would admit that we were all tragically caught off guard on 9/11.
From George Bush, George Tenet and Paul Wolfowitz; to Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, and Al Gore; to a Cantor Fitz trader, a FDNY firefighter, or an illegal Honduran busboy working in Windows on the World.
Given this reality, it's hugely unfortunate that one of the biggest tragedies in American history is metamorphosizing into a political foodfight.
Why not call an end to all the partisan rancor and conclude, roughly, thus:
The Clinton Administration's approach to al-Qaeda was too timid, too legalistic, too episodic.
The Bush Administration's (pre-9/11) approach to al-Qaeda was likely overly influenced by traditional realist security hawks (with a dollop of neo-con thinking thrown in) overly emphasizing state actors as compared to stateless transnational terror groups.
Put differently, there's enough blame to go around. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 24, 2004
In the end, the reasons for the attacks were rather straightforward, and we all know it. The Belgravia Dispatch writes:
. . .I trust most Administration critics, when they are alone and taking a real, honest look at themselves in the mirror, would admit that we were all tragically caught off guard on 9/11.
From George Bush, George Tenet and Paul Wolfowitz; to Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, and Al Gore; to a Cantor Fitz trader, a FDNY firefighter, or an illegal Honduran busboy working in Windows on the World.
Given this reality, it's hugely unfortunate that one of the biggest tragedies in American history is metamorphosizing into a political foodfight.
Why not call an end to all the partisan rancor and conclude, roughly, thus:
The Clinton Administration's approach to al-Qaeda was too timid, too legalistic, too episodic.
The Bush Administration's (pre-9/11) approach to al-Qaeda was likely overly influenced by traditional realist security hawks (with a dollop of neo-con thinking thrown in) overly emphasizing state actors as compared to stateless transnational terror groups.
Put differently, there's enough blame to go around. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
OF THE GUARDIAN AND FISK
Scott Burgess asks us to play the "Who wrote which obituary?" game:
It's interesting to compare the obituaries for Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, published in the Times and Guardian today. See if you can guess which of these excerpts comes from which paper. . .
And he links to A Small Victory's excellent "fisking" of the man whose idiocies and sloppy writings led to that very term being named after him.
Personally, I no longer find "the Master" all that challenging a writer. He is so clearly on the other side, reading him is like visiting the al Jazeera web site -- except al Jazeera is generally more objective.
Oh, and if you still doubt where Fisk's true sympathies lie, well, this masterpiece should clinch it:
But there was something infinitely more dangerous in all this. Yet another Arab had been assassinated. The Americans want to kill Bin Laden. They want to kill Mullah Omar. They killed Saddam's sons. Just as they killed three al-Qaeda men in Yemen.
And only someone opposed to finding, defeating and perhaps, yes, killing them if necessary, could write something like that. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Scott Burgess asks us to play the "Who wrote which obituary?" game:
It's interesting to compare the obituaries for Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, published in the Times and Guardian today. See if you can guess which of these excerpts comes from which paper. . .
And he links to A Small Victory's excellent "fisking" of the man whose idiocies and sloppy writings led to that very term being named after him.
Personally, I no longer find "the Master" all that challenging a writer. He is so clearly on the other side, reading him is like visiting the al Jazeera web site -- except al Jazeera is generally more objective.
Oh, and if you still doubt where Fisk's true sympathies lie, well, this masterpiece should clinch it:
But there was something infinitely more dangerous in all this. Yet another Arab had been assassinated. The Americans want to kill Bin Laden. They want to kill Mullah Omar. They killed Saddam's sons. Just as they killed three al-Qaeda men in Yemen.
And only someone opposed to finding, defeating and perhaps, yes, killing them if necessary, could write something like that. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 23, 2004
MOCKING THY "FRIENDS"
This is one of the funniest things I have ever read in a blog. (Via Being American in Toronto, Ontario.)
Enjoy. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 23, 2004
This is one of the funniest things I have ever read in a blog. (Via Being American in Toronto, Ontario.)
Enjoy. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 23, 2004
PERMISSION?
IMAO on the U.S. having advance knowledge of Israel's plan to kill Hamas's "spiritual leader.":
So the Israelis kill Yassin, and some are pointing their fingers at the U.S. saying we gave the go ahead. Hey, we like the idea of other countries asking us before they do anything, but, since Israel has survived amidst people who want them dead for so long, we trust that they know what they're doing. Kill who you want.
It seems to have escaped most recollections that the Israelis took a direct shot at the Hamas leadership (him included) -- actually, they didn't throw a left; they used an F-16 -- back in September and missed him.
So all the yelping of these last couple of days seems a bit odd and even misplaced. Is anyone REALLY surprised? After all, it must have been obvious to anyone who is not a complete moron, that Israel had been actively trying to get the Hamas leadership -- Yassin included -- for some months now.
Oh, and by the way, is the BBC actually serious, with this "Sheikh Yassin: Life in pictures"? Good freakin' grief. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 23, 2004
IMAO on the U.S. having advance knowledge of Israel's plan to kill Hamas's "spiritual leader.":
So the Israelis kill Yassin, and some are pointing their fingers at the U.S. saying we gave the go ahead. Hey, we like the idea of other countries asking us before they do anything, but, since Israel has survived amidst people who want them dead for so long, we trust that they know what they're doing. Kill who you want.
It seems to have escaped most recollections that the Israelis took a direct shot at the Hamas leadership (him included) -- actually, they didn't throw a left; they used an F-16 -- back in September and missed him.
So all the yelping of these last couple of days seems a bit odd and even misplaced. Is anyone REALLY surprised? After all, it must have been obvious to anyone who is not a complete moron, that Israel had been actively trying to get the Hamas leadership -- Yassin included -- for some months now.
Oh, and by the way, is the BBC actually serious, with this "Sheikh Yassin: Life in pictures"? Good freakin' grief. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 23, 2004
THIS WEEK'S 9-11 HEARINGS, BBC-VERSION
The BBC reports:
Top US officials are due to appear at a public hearing of the independent commission looking into the 11 September attacks on America.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are due to testify on Tuesday.
Two former Clinton officials will also appear to see whether they claim to have given specific warnings to the incoming Bush team which were ignored. . .
That is an almost hilarious mischaracterization. But it reflects the tenor of this "report".
As is probably to be expected, within the main body of the "report" more text space is given to Richard Clarke (who is apparently currently the BBC's favorite former member of the Bush administration) than to Powell and Rumsfeld, who get to share a paragraph, and are placed on the defensive:
A former official earlier slated the White House on its anti-terror tactics.
On Monday, former White House terrorism co-ordinator Richard Clarke said the White House ignored the growing threat from al-Qaeda preferring to concentrate on a perceived threat from Iraq.
Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Powell will defend the current administration against the wider charge that it simply did not take al-Qaeda seriously enough, says the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington.
Mr Clarke is due to testify before the commission on Wednesday. . .
Does the BBC know that Clarke was not a cabinet level official? That he was a security adviser, and one of many?
And, of course, the BBC doesn't bother to point out UNTIL THE LAST PARAGRAPH that the commission's specific role is to try to figure out what on earth went on regarding al Qaeda from 1998-2001 within the Clinton administration, and then from President Bush's assuming office in January 2001 until September 11, 2001.
. . .The hearings "will investigate the formulation and conduct of US counter-terrorism" with particular emphasis on the period from the August 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania to 11 September 2001, the commission said.
Well, at least the BBC found the space to mention it. The goal of the commission is to get some sense of what breakdowns might have made it easier for the attacks of September 11, 2001 to take place in the manner in which they did. But from this BBC "report", one would think the hearings and the commission's remit were actually more about why the Bush administration was willing to be sloppy, indifferent and let it all happen, while brave holdovers from the Clinton years like Clarke were pleading in vain with the complacent Bush to hit bin Laden hard. (Something which, interestingly enough, aside from a couple of half-hearted cruise missiles lobbed in the "philosopher's" general direction, the Clinton administration was never prepared to do.)
In its general coverage of the hearings, the BBC seems determined to give the decided mis-impression that eagle-eyed, outgoing Clinton people were forever telling incoming Bush people to immediately "Get bin Laden!" and "Kill bin Laden!" and "Take him out at all costs!" (And, of course, had the Bush administration attacked bin Laden in Afghanistan in February 2001, the BBC would have, urrrr, wholeheartedly supported just such an attack.)
By mid-October 2001 -- less than a month after the attacks on New York and Washington -- the Bush administration was the one with "boots on the ground" in Afghanistan, and bin Laden's Taliban government ally had barely a month left "in office". But, as I recall, the BBC wasn't all that thrilled and had lots of second thoughts over the U.S.'s attempting to get bin Laden . . . AFTER September 11, 2001. And, indeed, how quickly we forget: much of the rest of the "world" wasn't too thrilled either.
. . . And they really would have "loved" us, had Bush attacked bin Laden in February 2001 . . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 23, 2004
The BBC reports:
Top US officials are due to appear at a public hearing of the independent commission looking into the 11 September attacks on America.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are due to testify on Tuesday.
Two former Clinton officials will also appear to see whether they claim to have given specific warnings to the incoming Bush team which were ignored. . .
That is an almost hilarious mischaracterization. But it reflects the tenor of this "report".
As is probably to be expected, within the main body of the "report" more text space is given to Richard Clarke (who is apparently currently the BBC's favorite former member of the Bush administration) than to Powell and Rumsfeld, who get to share a paragraph, and are placed on the defensive:
A former official earlier slated the White House on its anti-terror tactics.
On Monday, former White House terrorism co-ordinator Richard Clarke said the White House ignored the growing threat from al-Qaeda preferring to concentrate on a perceived threat from Iraq.
Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Powell will defend the current administration against the wider charge that it simply did not take al-Qaeda seriously enough, says the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington.
Mr Clarke is due to testify before the commission on Wednesday. . .
Does the BBC know that Clarke was not a cabinet level official? That he was a security adviser, and one of many?
And, of course, the BBC doesn't bother to point out UNTIL THE LAST PARAGRAPH that the commission's specific role is to try to figure out what on earth went on regarding al Qaeda from 1998-2001 within the Clinton administration, and then from President Bush's assuming office in January 2001 until September 11, 2001.
. . .The hearings "will investigate the formulation and conduct of US counter-terrorism" with particular emphasis on the period from the August 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania to 11 September 2001, the commission said.
Well, at least the BBC found the space to mention it. The goal of the commission is to get some sense of what breakdowns might have made it easier for the attacks of September 11, 2001 to take place in the manner in which they did. But from this BBC "report", one would think the hearings and the commission's remit were actually more about why the Bush administration was willing to be sloppy, indifferent and let it all happen, while brave holdovers from the Clinton years like Clarke were pleading in vain with the complacent Bush to hit bin Laden hard. (Something which, interestingly enough, aside from a couple of half-hearted cruise missiles lobbed in the "philosopher's" general direction, the Clinton administration was never prepared to do.)
In its general coverage of the hearings, the BBC seems determined to give the decided mis-impression that eagle-eyed, outgoing Clinton people were forever telling incoming Bush people to immediately "Get bin Laden!" and "Kill bin Laden!" and "Take him out at all costs!" (And, of course, had the Bush administration attacked bin Laden in Afghanistan in February 2001, the BBC would have, urrrr, wholeheartedly supported just such an attack.)
By mid-October 2001 -- less than a month after the attacks on New York and Washington -- the Bush administration was the one with "boots on the ground" in Afghanistan, and bin Laden's Taliban government ally had barely a month left "in office". But, as I recall, the BBC wasn't all that thrilled and had lots of second thoughts over the U.S.'s attempting to get bin Laden . . . AFTER September 11, 2001. And, indeed, how quickly we forget: much of the rest of the "world" wasn't too thrilled either.
. . . And they really would have "loved" us, had Bush attacked bin Laden in February 2001 . . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 23, 2004
AMBUSH IN PAKISTAN
The A.P. reports:
Attackers ambushed a Pakistani army convoy heading toward a counterterrorism sweep against al-Qaida militants near the Afghan border, killing at least 12 soldiers and wounding 15, officials said Tuesday.
The attackers fired rockets that hit at least six army trucks in the ambush near Sarwakai, about 30 miles east of Wana, the main town of the South Waziristan tribal region.
Some of the trucks were carrying fuel and were destroyed by fire in the attack Monday, a government official in Sarwakai said on condition of anonymity. He said 12 soldiers were killed and 15 were wounded. . .
Sounds like western "progressives' " "partners in peace" again. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 23, 2004
The A.P. reports:
Attackers ambushed a Pakistani army convoy heading toward a counterterrorism sweep against al-Qaida militants near the Afghan border, killing at least 12 soldiers and wounding 15, officials said Tuesday.
The attackers fired rockets that hit at least six army trucks in the ambush near Sarwakai, about 30 miles east of Wana, the main town of the South Waziristan tribal region.
Some of the trucks were carrying fuel and were destroyed by fire in the attack Monday, a government official in Sarwakai said on condition of anonymity. He said 12 soldiers were killed and 15 were wounded. . .
Sounds like western "progressives' " "partners in peace" again. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 23, 2004
SOME DAYS. . .
Something about last weekend's "global" carryings on led me to remember, and dig up, this quote I had saved from a letter published in the International Herald Tribune, September 20, 2000. Obviously, it appeared less than a year before we were to be reminded horribly, and yet again, about the fragility of freedom. The Prague-based author castigated a western writer for her views on Ronald Reagan:
The writer thinks Ronald Reagan shamed the United States for eight years. I do not wish her to live under Leonid Brezhnev for one year, but it would have served her well. And cured her. Only western leftists – “useful idiots” in Lenin’s words – can’t appreciate the achievements of Mr. Reagan. He defeated communism – which was as evil as Nazism had been. He is our liberator. It’s that simple.
Think about it. Isn't it both sad and amazing that we find ourselves yet again having to defend not just freedom from freedom's obvious and outright enemies, but also the ideas of freedom, too, from some extremely arrogant and loudmouthed, over-pampered sons and daughters of freedom itself? ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Something about last weekend's "global" carryings on led me to remember, and dig up, this quote I had saved from a letter published in the International Herald Tribune, September 20, 2000. Obviously, it appeared less than a year before we were to be reminded horribly, and yet again, about the fragility of freedom. The Prague-based author castigated a western writer for her views on Ronald Reagan:
The writer thinks Ronald Reagan shamed the United States for eight years. I do not wish her to live under Leonid Brezhnev for one year, but it would have served her well. And cured her. Only western leftists – “useful idiots” in Lenin’s words – can’t appreciate the achievements of Mr. Reagan. He defeated communism – which was as evil as Nazism had been. He is our liberator. It’s that simple.
Think about it. Isn't it both sad and amazing that we find ourselves yet again having to defend not just freedom from freedom's obvious and outright enemies, but also the ideas of freedom, too, from some extremely arrogant and loudmouthed, over-pampered sons and daughters of freedom itself? ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Monday, March 22, 2004
BE ALERT
The State Department issued a new travel warning, on March 19:
. . .The U.S. Government remains deeply concerned about the security of U.S. citizens overseas. U.S. citizens are cautioned to maintain a high level of vigilance, to remain alert and to take appropriate steps to increase their security awareness. We are seeing indications that Al-Qaida continues to prepare to strike U.S. interests abroad.
Al-Qaida and its associated organizations have most recently struck in the Middle East and in Europe but other geographic locations could also be venues for attacks. Future Al-Qaida attacks could possibly involve non-conventional weapons such as chemical or biological agents as well as conventional weapons of terror. We also cannot rule out that Al-Qaida will attempt a catastrophic attack within the U.S.
Terrorist actions may include, but are not limited to, suicide operations, hijackings, bombings or kidnappings. These may involve aviation and other transportation and maritime interests, and may also include conventional weapons, such as explosive devices. Terrorists do not distinguish between official and civilian targets. These may include facilities where U.S. citizens and other foreigners congregate or visit, including residential areas, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, schools, hotels and public areas. U.S. citizens are encouraged to maintain a high level of vigilance and to take appropriate steps to increase their security awareness. . .
. . . just in case this is all news to you. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 22, 2004
The State Department issued a new travel warning, on March 19:
. . .The U.S. Government remains deeply concerned about the security of U.S. citizens overseas. U.S. citizens are cautioned to maintain a high level of vigilance, to remain alert and to take appropriate steps to increase their security awareness. We are seeing indications that Al-Qaida continues to prepare to strike U.S. interests abroad.
Al-Qaida and its associated organizations have most recently struck in the Middle East and in Europe but other geographic locations could also be venues for attacks. Future Al-Qaida attacks could possibly involve non-conventional weapons such as chemical or biological agents as well as conventional weapons of terror. We also cannot rule out that Al-Qaida will attempt a catastrophic attack within the U.S.
Terrorist actions may include, but are not limited to, suicide operations, hijackings, bombings or kidnappings. These may involve aviation and other transportation and maritime interests, and may also include conventional weapons, such as explosive devices. Terrorists do not distinguish between official and civilian targets. These may include facilities where U.S. citizens and other foreigners congregate or visit, including residential areas, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, schools, hotels and public areas. U.S. citizens are encouraged to maintain a high level of vigilance and to take appropriate steps to increase their security awareness. . .
. . . just in case this is all news to you. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 22, 2004
ON TRAITORS, AND THE SUBSIDIES THAT SUPPORT THEM
Lileks:
. . .The Movement to Reinstall Saddam commemorated the first anniversary of the Iraq campaign by expressing their outrage at the loss of an ally in the war against America. These people are the fringe of the left; yes. They are the Klan with out the sheets. Worse: they don’t have the inbred moonshine-addled mah-pappy-hated-nigras-an-I-hate-‘em-too dense-as-a-neutron-star stupidity of your average Kluxer. They didn’t come to this level of stupidity naturally. They had to work at it. I’m sure you’ll find in these pictures people who have cool jobs in San Francisco, people who get grants, write code, run the coffee-frother at a funky bookstore, and have no problem marching alongside someone who spells Israel with swastika instead of an S.
Or with this guy (Via LGF; the site has dozens of shots. Judge for yourself.)
That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is a traitor. He may be an idiot, a maroon, a 33rd degree moonbat, but he’s still a traitor. That is a man who celebrates the death of Americans (and others) and supports the people who killed them. Oh, sure, he’s nuts. But he fits right in. . .
. . .This has nothing to do with Iraq. This is all about the hard left’s worse nightmare. . .
UPDATE: As sharp has Lileks is, Debbye does have a good point as to where he is on some thin ice.
My own view is that in the midst of a war, wishing your own people dead at the hands of the enemy makes you, at the very least good, possible traitor material. And why should anyone believe "that guy" might not be willing to give outright assistance to the enemy in order to accomplish what his sign announces to all that he wishes to see?
I don't mean -- heaven forbid! -- to sound "nuanced", but there may be a need for some third term, that pinpoints a nutcase who falls somewhere between being on one's country's side and joining up with the enemy side. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 22, 2004
Lileks:
. . .The Movement to Reinstall Saddam commemorated the first anniversary of the Iraq campaign by expressing their outrage at the loss of an ally in the war against America. These people are the fringe of the left; yes. They are the Klan with out the sheets. Worse: they don’t have the inbred moonshine-addled mah-pappy-hated-nigras-an-I-hate-‘em-too dense-as-a-neutron-star stupidity of your average Kluxer. They didn’t come to this level of stupidity naturally. They had to work at it. I’m sure you’ll find in these pictures people who have cool jobs in San Francisco, people who get grants, write code, run the coffee-frother at a funky bookstore, and have no problem marching alongside someone who spells Israel with swastika instead of an S.
Or with this guy (Via LGF; the site has dozens of shots. Judge for yourself.)
That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is a traitor. He may be an idiot, a maroon, a 33rd degree moonbat, but he’s still a traitor. That is a man who celebrates the death of Americans (and others) and supports the people who killed them. Oh, sure, he’s nuts. But he fits right in. . .
. . .This has nothing to do with Iraq. This is all about the hard left’s worse nightmare. . .
UPDATE: As sharp has Lileks is, Debbye does have a good point as to where he is on some thin ice.
My own view is that in the midst of a war, wishing your own people dead at the hands of the enemy makes you, at the very least good, possible traitor material. And why should anyone believe "that guy" might not be willing to give outright assistance to the enemy in order to accomplish what his sign announces to all that he wishes to see?
I don't mean -- heaven forbid! -- to sound "nuanced", but there may be a need for some third term, that pinpoints a nutcase who falls somewhere between being on one's country's side and joining up with the enemy side. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 22, 2004
IF ABE LINCOLN COULD HAVE SNOWBOARDED
No one over the age of 40 should be permitted anywhere near a snowboard -- especially if he is a presidential candidate.
"Nuanced" and "sophisticated" older people skiing is just fine.
But snowboarding -- uh, no. . .
And, generally, Americans prefer a president who projects an image more like this:
¶ by Robert, Monday, March 22, 2004
No one over the age of 40 should be permitted anywhere near a snowboard -- especially if he is a presidential candidate.
"Nuanced" and "sophisticated" older people skiing is just fine.
But snowboarding -- uh, no. . .
And, generally, Americans prefer a president who projects an image more like this:
¶ by Robert, Monday, March 22, 2004
PHOTOS OF THE PEACE THAT COULD BE, IF ONLY. . .
Tim Blair has several links to photos of last weekend's protests for "peace".
If only we would just "give peace a chance," how happy the world would be. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 22, 2004
Tim Blair has several links to photos of last weekend's protests for "peace".
If only we would just "give peace a chance," how happy the world would be. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 22, 2004
OF RICHARD CLARKE . . .
This morning, on BBC Breakfast, we were told three times between only 6:30 and 7:15 -- and as the second major news story of the day, as if it were some sort of bombshell -- about how one Richard Clarke, who served "four presidents", has stated that he believes that President Bush was "obsessed" by Iraq and "ignored" al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001.
No reasonable rebuttal view from inside the administration was shown. The BBC's on air "report" (sneer included) noted only that the administration rejects Clarke's contentions. And on the Beeb's web site, we get this "report":
. . .Mr Clarke said it was "outrageous" Mr Bush was running for re-election on his record fighting terrorism, when in fact he had "ignored it" before 9/11.
"He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know.". . .
If anything is "outrageous", it is, once again, the BBC's "reporting".
Richard Clarke -- hardly a household name even in the U.S. -- is hawking a book. The BBC flashed the book jacket on the screen for a moment, but as I recall uttered not a word regarding the book. And, naturally, the web "report" doesn't bother to tell us this until the very last line:
. . .Mr Clarke's comments came ahead of the publication of his book, Against All Enemies, on Monday.
Most laughable is this:
. . .Later this week the ex-security adviser will go before a special US commission investigating whether the 11 September attacks were preventable.
Our correspondent says if Mr Clarke makes a similar attack on the president at the hearing, it could prove very damaging for the White House.
Mr Clarke helped shape US policy on terrorism under President Reagan and also the first President Bush.
He also worked under President Clinton as his "terrorism tsar" and was then retained by the current President Bush. . .
The BBC makes no attempt to analyze what Mr Clarke was doing when drawing a government salary during his years serving in the Clinton administration.
As we all know, President Bush was in office for barely 8 months prior to September 11, 2001. What exactly Bush was supposed to have done to bin Laden's thugs prior to September 11, which the Clinton administration didn't do, is unclear. Somehow, it is hard to imagine the BBC in February 2001 backing a U.S. attack on al Qaeda in Afghanistan, because one Richard Clarke thought it was a good idea.
How's this: There was no way we could have prevented the attacks of September 11, 2001. No way. There was no will to do so. There was no sense that sort of thing could happen. There would have been no support among Americans, let alone among the wider world, for any "pre-emptive attack." For heaven's sake, there was yelling, protesting, screaming and various carryings on around the world AFTER September 11, 2001, as the U.S. decided it was long past time to go into Afghanistan to deal with bin Laden.
And, in case the BBC doesn't realize this, advisers advise only. And, of course, the BBC also doesn't bother to point out that there is another Bush official, of cabinet level, who has served EVERY president since Richard Nixon, and who believes Bush's approach to the War on Islamist terror is realistic and sound: Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Be all that as it may, most importantly, Clarke is opinionating well outside the area of his expertise. He is -- apparently -- a cyber-terrorism specialist. A quick Google by the BBC would have brought to their attention the following two pieces. The first appeared on Computer World.com, on January 27, 2003:
. . .Vince Cannistraro, former chief of operations at the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, said people at the agency "resented" Clarke "because he was a hands-on bureaucratic guerrilla who rode roughshod over the bureaucracies." Cannistraro acknowledged, however, that such an approach is sometimes useful.
Cannistraro knew Clarke during his tenure as deputy chief of intelligence and research at the National Security Council, where Clarke "often came up with questionable proposals for covert action," Cannistraro said. "He was contemptuous of the bureaucracy, and this attitude earned him few friends."
Prior to taking his post as cybersecurity adviser (see story), Clarke was responsible for recommending and planning the bombing of the Al Shifa plant in Sudan, which Cannistraro said was probably conducted on the basis of faulty intelligence.
The CIA also resented Clarke for airing his views to the press about the intelligence failures that contributed to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, said Cannistraro. "Of course the intelligence community screwed up. But Clarke also screwed up. He was, after [all], the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 took place," he said. . .
And Security Focus.com had this, February 27, 2003:
The retirement of Richard Clarke is appropriate to the reality of the war on terror. Years ago, Clarke bet his national security career on the idea that electronic war was going to be real war. He lost, because as al Qaeda and Iraq have shown, real action is still of the blood and guts kind.
In happier times prior to 9/11, Clarke -- as Bill Clinton's counter-terror point man in the National Security Council -- devoted great effort to convincing national movers and shakers that cyberattack was the coming thing. While ostensibly involved in preparations for bioterrorism and trying to sound alarms about Osama bin Laden, Clarke was most often seen in the news predicting ways in which electronic attacks were going to change everything and rewrite the calculus of conflict.
September 11 spoiled the fun, though, and electronic attack was shoved onto the back-burner in favor of special operations men calling in B-52 precision air strikes on Taliban losers. One-hundred fifty-thousand U.S. soldiers on station outside Iraq make it perfectly clear that cyberspace is only a trivial distraction.
Saddam will not be brought down by people stealing his e-mail or his generals being spammed with exhortations to surrender. . .
. . .with his retirement, Clarke's career accomplishments should be noted.
In 1986, as a State Department bureaucrat with pull, he came up with a plan to battle terrorism and subvert Muammar Qaddafi by having SR-71s produce sonic booms over Libya. This was to be accompanied by rafts washing onto the sands of Tripoli, the aim of which was to create the illusion of a coming attack. When this nonsense was revealed, it created embarrassment for the Reagan administration and was buried.
In 1998, according to the New Republic, Clarke "played a key role in the Clinton administration's misguided retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which targeted bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan." The pharmaceutical factory was, apparently, just a pharmaceutical factory, and we now know how impressed bin Laden was by cruise missiles that miss. . .
Clearly, carrying out those post-Hutton reforms on poor reporting and sloppy editorializing are high on the BBC's agenda. . .
UPDATE: FOX reports that Joseph Lieberman thinks Clarke is full of something -- and it ain't facts:
. . .Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday he doesn't believe Clarke's charge that Bush — who defeated him and former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election — was focused more on Iraq than al-Qaida during the days after the terror attacks.
"I see no basis for it," Lieberman said on "Fox News Sunday." "I think we've got to be careful to speak facts and not rhetoric.". . .
And even Joe Biden said:
. . ."I think it's unfair to blame the president for the spread of terror and the diffuseness of it. Even if he had followed the advice of me and many other people, I still think the same thing would have happened.". . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 22, 2004
This morning, on BBC Breakfast, we were told three times between only 6:30 and 7:15 -- and as the second major news story of the day, as if it were some sort of bombshell -- about how one Richard Clarke, who served "four presidents", has stated that he believes that President Bush was "obsessed" by Iraq and "ignored" al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001.
No reasonable rebuttal view from inside the administration was shown. The BBC's on air "report" (sneer included) noted only that the administration rejects Clarke's contentions. And on the Beeb's web site, we get this "report":
. . .Mr Clarke said it was "outrageous" Mr Bush was running for re-election on his record fighting terrorism, when in fact he had "ignored it" before 9/11.
"He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know.". . .
If anything is "outrageous", it is, once again, the BBC's "reporting".
Richard Clarke -- hardly a household name even in the U.S. -- is hawking a book. The BBC flashed the book jacket on the screen for a moment, but as I recall uttered not a word regarding the book. And, naturally, the web "report" doesn't bother to tell us this until the very last line:
. . .Mr Clarke's comments came ahead of the publication of his book, Against All Enemies, on Monday.
Most laughable is this:
. . .Later this week the ex-security adviser will go before a special US commission investigating whether the 11 September attacks were preventable.
Our correspondent says if Mr Clarke makes a similar attack on the president at the hearing, it could prove very damaging for the White House.
Mr Clarke helped shape US policy on terrorism under President Reagan and also the first President Bush.
He also worked under President Clinton as his "terrorism tsar" and was then retained by the current President Bush. . .
The BBC makes no attempt to analyze what Mr Clarke was doing when drawing a government salary during his years serving in the Clinton administration.
As we all know, President Bush was in office for barely 8 months prior to September 11, 2001. What exactly Bush was supposed to have done to bin Laden's thugs prior to September 11, which the Clinton administration didn't do, is unclear. Somehow, it is hard to imagine the BBC in February 2001 backing a U.S. attack on al Qaeda in Afghanistan, because one Richard Clarke thought it was a good idea.
How's this: There was no way we could have prevented the attacks of September 11, 2001. No way. There was no will to do so. There was no sense that sort of thing could happen. There would have been no support among Americans, let alone among the wider world, for any "pre-emptive attack." For heaven's sake, there was yelling, protesting, screaming and various carryings on around the world AFTER September 11, 2001, as the U.S. decided it was long past time to go into Afghanistan to deal with bin Laden.
And, in case the BBC doesn't realize this, advisers advise only. And, of course, the BBC also doesn't bother to point out that there is another Bush official, of cabinet level, who has served EVERY president since Richard Nixon, and who believes Bush's approach to the War on Islamist terror is realistic and sound: Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Be all that as it may, most importantly, Clarke is opinionating well outside the area of his expertise. He is -- apparently -- a cyber-terrorism specialist. A quick Google by the BBC would have brought to their attention the following two pieces. The first appeared on Computer World.com, on January 27, 2003:
. . .Vince Cannistraro, former chief of operations at the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, said people at the agency "resented" Clarke "because he was a hands-on bureaucratic guerrilla who rode roughshod over the bureaucracies." Cannistraro acknowledged, however, that such an approach is sometimes useful.
Cannistraro knew Clarke during his tenure as deputy chief of intelligence and research at the National Security Council, where Clarke "often came up with questionable proposals for covert action," Cannistraro said. "He was contemptuous of the bureaucracy, and this attitude earned him few friends."
Prior to taking his post as cybersecurity adviser (see story), Clarke was responsible for recommending and planning the bombing of the Al Shifa plant in Sudan, which Cannistraro said was probably conducted on the basis of faulty intelligence.
The CIA also resented Clarke for airing his views to the press about the intelligence failures that contributed to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, said Cannistraro. "Of course the intelligence community screwed up. But Clarke also screwed up. He was, after [all], the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 took place," he said. . .
And Security Focus.com had this, February 27, 2003:
The retirement of Richard Clarke is appropriate to the reality of the war on terror. Years ago, Clarke bet his national security career on the idea that electronic war was going to be real war. He lost, because as al Qaeda and Iraq have shown, real action is still of the blood and guts kind.
In happier times prior to 9/11, Clarke -- as Bill Clinton's counter-terror point man in the National Security Council -- devoted great effort to convincing national movers and shakers that cyberattack was the coming thing. While ostensibly involved in preparations for bioterrorism and trying to sound alarms about Osama bin Laden, Clarke was most often seen in the news predicting ways in which electronic attacks were going to change everything and rewrite the calculus of conflict.
September 11 spoiled the fun, though, and electronic attack was shoved onto the back-burner in favor of special operations men calling in B-52 precision air strikes on Taliban losers. One-hundred fifty-thousand U.S. soldiers on station outside Iraq make it perfectly clear that cyberspace is only a trivial distraction.
Saddam will not be brought down by people stealing his e-mail or his generals being spammed with exhortations to surrender. . .
. . .with his retirement, Clarke's career accomplishments should be noted.
In 1986, as a State Department bureaucrat with pull, he came up with a plan to battle terrorism and subvert Muammar Qaddafi by having SR-71s produce sonic booms over Libya. This was to be accompanied by rafts washing onto the sands of Tripoli, the aim of which was to create the illusion of a coming attack. When this nonsense was revealed, it created embarrassment for the Reagan administration and was buried.
In 1998, according to the New Republic, Clarke "played a key role in the Clinton administration's misguided retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which targeted bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan." The pharmaceutical factory was, apparently, just a pharmaceutical factory, and we now know how impressed bin Laden was by cruise missiles that miss. . .
Clearly, carrying out those post-Hutton reforms on poor reporting and sloppy editorializing are high on the BBC's agenda. . .
UPDATE: FOX reports that Joseph Lieberman thinks Clarke is full of something -- and it ain't facts:
. . .Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday he doesn't believe Clarke's charge that Bush — who defeated him and former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election — was focused more on Iraq than al-Qaida during the days after the terror attacks.
"I see no basis for it," Lieberman said on "Fox News Sunday." "I think we've got to be careful to speak facts and not rhetoric.". . .
And even Joe Biden said:
. . ."I think it's unfair to blame the president for the spread of terror and the diffuseness of it. Even if he had followed the advice of me and many other people, I still think the same thing would have happened.". . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 22, 2004
HANS AGAIN
CNN reports:
The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time. . .
Yes, yes, we know. We've heard it before.
But toward the end, we get hedging, more hedging and lots of "nuancing". . .
. . ."I think they lost their patience much too early," Blix said.
"I can see that they wanted to have a picture that was either black or white, and we presented a picture that had, you know, gray in it, as well," he said.
Iraq had been shown to have biological and chemical weapons before, "and there was no record of either destruction or production; there was this nagging question: Do they still have them?" ElBaradei said.
Blix said he had not been able to say definitively that Iraq had no such weapons, but added that he felt history has shown he was not wrong.
"At least we didn't fall into the trap that the U.S. and the U.K. did in asserting that they existed," he said.
"History" has as yet shown no such thing. The tough 130,000 coalition troops and those with them who know specifically what to look for are those who will give the definitive YES or a definitive NO. Blix is in la-la land, talking about Iraq's disarmament as if he is discussing the long-term significance of the outcome of, say, the Seven Years' War.
ElBaradei faulted Iraq for "the opaque nature of that Saddam Hussein regime."
"We should not forget that," he said. "For a couple of months, their cooperation was not by any way transparent, for whatever reason.". . .
"The opaque nature" of the Hussein regime? The UN should know. After all, the UN has, especially in recent years, turned "opaque" diplomacy into an art form. . .
How appalling and unreasonable to demand the UN eventually commit, and blurt out a YES or a NO. Simple. But Blix and his "inspectors" were not willing ever to come down and make a call -- either way.
For decision-makers, that is just infuriating. So, considering that the UN "inspections" could not provide a definitive YES or a definitive NO, then it was up to the elected leaders of nation-states that considered Saddam a threat to deal with his regime, in order to get to a definitive YES or a definitive NO.
"History" is likely also to tell us this: Now that Saddam's "government" is gone, we will shortly be much more certain about his horrific regime's actual capabilities than we would ever have been if we had relied on the UN Weapons "Hedging" team -- led by lawyer-speak, never commit myself, always allow for possibilities, Hans Blix. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 22, 2004
CNN reports:
The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time. . .
Yes, yes, we know. We've heard it before.
But toward the end, we get hedging, more hedging and lots of "nuancing". . .
. . ."I think they lost their patience much too early," Blix said.
"I can see that they wanted to have a picture that was either black or white, and we presented a picture that had, you know, gray in it, as well," he said.
Iraq had been shown to have biological and chemical weapons before, "and there was no record of either destruction or production; there was this nagging question: Do they still have them?" ElBaradei said.
Blix said he had not been able to say definitively that Iraq had no such weapons, but added that he felt history has shown he was not wrong.
"At least we didn't fall into the trap that the U.S. and the U.K. did in asserting that they existed," he said.
"History" has as yet shown no such thing. The tough 130,000 coalition troops and those with them who know specifically what to look for are those who will give the definitive YES or a definitive NO. Blix is in la-la land, talking about Iraq's disarmament as if he is discussing the long-term significance of the outcome of, say, the Seven Years' War.
ElBaradei faulted Iraq for "the opaque nature of that Saddam Hussein regime."
"We should not forget that," he said. "For a couple of months, their cooperation was not by any way transparent, for whatever reason.". . .
"The opaque nature" of the Hussein regime? The UN should know. After all, the UN has, especially in recent years, turned "opaque" diplomacy into an art form. . .
How appalling and unreasonable to demand the UN eventually commit, and blurt out a YES or a NO. Simple. But Blix and his "inspectors" were not willing ever to come down and make a call -- either way.
For decision-makers, that is just infuriating. So, considering that the UN "inspections" could not provide a definitive YES or a definitive NO, then it was up to the elected leaders of nation-states that considered Saddam a threat to deal with his regime, in order to get to a definitive YES or a definitive NO.
"History" is likely also to tell us this: Now that Saddam's "government" is gone, we will shortly be much more certain about his horrific regime's actual capabilities than we would ever have been if we had relied on the UN Weapons "Hedging" team -- led by lawyer-speak, never commit myself, always allow for possibilities, Hans Blix. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 22, 2004
DEAD HAMAS "SPIRITUAL LEADER"
UPDATE: The "World" condemns the Israelis for having the nerve to aim at and successfully kill the man who led a group dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and which thinks it falls within the acceptable boundaries of warfare to self-detonate inside restaurants. Here are three European gems:
Brussels - EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana
"This is very, very bad news for the peace process."
I'm sorry, but did he SERIOUSLY say that?
France - Foreign Ministry spokesman
"France condemns the action carried out against Sheik (Ahmed) Yassin, as it has always condemned the principal of extra-judicial executions."
It wasn't an execution: It was a military assault, on an enemy leader.
Like France wouldn't have taken a shot at, say, the Nazi party's "spiritual leader" Alfred Rosenberg, in the midst of the Second World War, had France had the chance?
Hmm. Wait a minute. On second thought . . .
Sweden - Foreign Minister Laila Freivalds
"We cannot accept extra-judicial executions. Terrorism must go before the courts and be tried by legal means."
Did the French and Swedes come up with their draft responses together? More worrisome, does the Swedish foreign minister know the difference between issuing a traffic ticket and killing an enemy in wartime?
And things are especially bad when normally intelligent and clear-sighted British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says:
. . ."We therefore condemn it. It's unacceptable, it's unjustified, and it's very unlikely to achieve its objective," he said. . .
Good grief. Following all that European "reasoning", if the Forces had bin Laden in their sights in Afghanistan, and could get him with one good missile shot, they shouldn't.
Sky reports:
Israel has killed the founder and spiritual leader of the militant terror group Hamas, provoking outrage throughout the Arab world.
Army helicopters fired at Sheik Ahmed Yassin as he left a mosque in Gaza City just after dawn.
In all eight people died in the attack including two of Yassin's bodyguards. His son Abed was among the 17 injured. . .
The current, "moderate" Palestinian prime minister -- they are all "moderate" -- stated:
. . ."This is a crazy and very dangerous act. Yassin is known for his moderation and he was controlling Hamas," said Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurie. . .
Yassin's "moderate" supporters have responded, of course, "moderately", and demand only a "measured" and a "proportionate" response:
. . . In a spontaneous outpouring of rage and grief, thousands of Palestinians poured into the streets.
At Shifa Hospital, where Yassin's body was taken, masked gunmen shot in the air.
Cars drove through the streets blaring calls for revenge over loudspeakers and mosques read passages from the Koran.
"Words cannot describe the emotion of anger and hate inside our hearts," said Hamas official Ismail Haniyeh, a close associate of Yassin. . .
and
. . .Mohammed Mahdi Akef, leader of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, issued a warning to all Americans and Israelis.
"There can be no life for the Americans and Zionists in the region," he said. "We will not rest until they (Israelis) are expelled.". . .
Gosh, one wonders what "radicals" might want to see done in response?! ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 22, 2004
UPDATE: The "World" condemns the Israelis for having the nerve to aim at and successfully kill the man who led a group dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and which thinks it falls within the acceptable boundaries of warfare to self-detonate inside restaurants. Here are three European gems:
Brussels - EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana
"This is very, very bad news for the peace process."
I'm sorry, but did he SERIOUSLY say that?
France - Foreign Ministry spokesman
"France condemns the action carried out against Sheik (Ahmed) Yassin, as it has always condemned the principal of extra-judicial executions."
It wasn't an execution: It was a military assault, on an enemy leader.
Like France wouldn't have taken a shot at, say, the Nazi party's "spiritual leader" Alfred Rosenberg, in the midst of the Second World War, had France had the chance?
Hmm. Wait a minute. On second thought . . .
Sweden - Foreign Minister Laila Freivalds
"We cannot accept extra-judicial executions. Terrorism must go before the courts and be tried by legal means."
Did the French and Swedes come up with their draft responses together? More worrisome, does the Swedish foreign minister know the difference between issuing a traffic ticket and killing an enemy in wartime?
And things are especially bad when normally intelligent and clear-sighted British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says:
. . ."We therefore condemn it. It's unacceptable, it's unjustified, and it's very unlikely to achieve its objective," he said. . .
Good grief. Following all that European "reasoning", if the Forces had bin Laden in their sights in Afghanistan, and could get him with one good missile shot, they shouldn't.
Sky reports:
Israel has killed the founder and spiritual leader of the militant terror group Hamas, provoking outrage throughout the Arab world.
Army helicopters fired at Sheik Ahmed Yassin as he left a mosque in Gaza City just after dawn.
In all eight people died in the attack including two of Yassin's bodyguards. His son Abed was among the 17 injured. . .
The current, "moderate" Palestinian prime minister -- they are all "moderate" -- stated:
. . ."This is a crazy and very dangerous act. Yassin is known for his moderation and he was controlling Hamas," said Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurie. . .
Yassin's "moderate" supporters have responded, of course, "moderately", and demand only a "measured" and a "proportionate" response:
. . . In a spontaneous outpouring of rage and grief, thousands of Palestinians poured into the streets.
At Shifa Hospital, where Yassin's body was taken, masked gunmen shot in the air.
Cars drove through the streets blaring calls for revenge over loudspeakers and mosques read passages from the Koran.
"Words cannot describe the emotion of anger and hate inside our hearts," said Hamas official Ismail Haniyeh, a close associate of Yassin. . .
and
. . .Mohammed Mahdi Akef, leader of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, issued a warning to all Americans and Israelis.
"There can be no life for the Americans and Zionists in the region," he said. "We will not rest until they (Israelis) are expelled.". . .
Gosh, one wonders what "radicals" might want to see done in response?! ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 22, 2004
Sunday, March 21, 2004
AH, FRIENDLY, THOUGHTFUL PEOPLE
If you host a blog and publish an email contact, you get all sorts of stuff coming your way. In fact, one of the reasons I don't have a comments feature is not only because free Blogger doesn't support it, but also because maintaining and overlooking what's said is a hassle I am not really keen to deal with. We all know bad TV is always being broadcast, and I can tune in if I want to, but I'm not forced to have it constantly on in my own living room.
Mostly, people who are willing to take the time to write emails are decent, and even if they disagree, they disagree mostly in intelligent terms. Doesn't bother me. That's how we learn. Anyone who knows me, knows I enjoy a good exchange of views. . .
But when I get "idiot emails" -- and an "idiot email" is identifiable generally within two sentences, perhaps even one, such as when a writer has trouble with the meaning of the word "jingoistic" -- it gets deleted almost immediately. I usually don't even get to the conclusion. Zap. Gone. It's my in-box. So, if you are a nasty person, and don't know what a spell check is, don't bother to spend time composing illiterate incoherency. You are just wasting your time -- it ain't gonna get read. I don't have enough time to read all the good stuff I want to read, much less be bothered making time to wade through mind-numbing, junk.
And enemies beware, I have already contacted those "friends at the Pentagon" -- How did you know! -- and they might right now be watching your every move, with that Predator that was just sent into your general direction. . .
And happy U.K. Mother's Day everyone! ¶ by Robert, Sunday, March 21, 2004
If you host a blog and publish an email contact, you get all sorts of stuff coming your way. In fact, one of the reasons I don't have a comments feature is not only because free Blogger doesn't support it, but also because maintaining and overlooking what's said is a hassle I am not really keen to deal with. We all know bad TV is always being broadcast, and I can tune in if I want to, but I'm not forced to have it constantly on in my own living room.
Mostly, people who are willing to take the time to write emails are decent, and even if they disagree, they disagree mostly in intelligent terms. Doesn't bother me. That's how we learn. Anyone who knows me, knows I enjoy a good exchange of views. . .
But when I get "idiot emails" -- and an "idiot email" is identifiable generally within two sentences, perhaps even one, such as when a writer has trouble with the meaning of the word "jingoistic" -- it gets deleted almost immediately. I usually don't even get to the conclusion. Zap. Gone. It's my in-box. So, if you are a nasty person, and don't know what a spell check is, don't bother to spend time composing illiterate incoherency. You are just wasting your time -- it ain't gonna get read. I don't have enough time to read all the good stuff I want to read, much less be bothered making time to wade through mind-numbing, junk.
And enemies beware, I have already contacted those "friends at the Pentagon" -- How did you know! -- and they might right now be watching your every move, with that Predator that was just sent into your general direction. . .
And happy U.K. Mother's Day everyone! ¶ by Robert, Sunday, March 21, 2004
Saturday, March 20, 2004
THE DOCTOR IS NOT IN?
While al Qaeda's "partners in peace" in Britain and elsewhere scale tall buildings of the sort which their ideological compatriots like to crash hijacked airliners into
and dress up in their best weapons inspector costumes
the process of "enforcing the law" continues on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. Sky reports:
Pakistani forces believe al Qaeda's second in command may have escaped despite arresting 100 suspects.
Troops have carried out sustained artillery and mortar fire on suspected al Qaeda fighters near the Afghanistan border.
At first it was thought Osama bin Laden's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahri, was among up to 400 militants holding out in the South Waziristan tribal area. . .
The war will continue . . .
UPDATE, 1645 British time: Last year, at "anti-war" protests, we were told they drew a million people. This year's 25,000 might fill Wembley Arena. Organizers said 75,000.
Okay, even 75,000 means 925,000 stayed home -- and today's England v. Wales rugby match is not THAT important.
But the ideological mouthing off is, of course, undiminished. The BBC quotes one Lindsey German, of the Stop the War Coalition, and their pro-al Qaeda talking points are about what you would expect:
. . ."We are continuing to march because we want to make clear the strength of anti-war feeling in this country.
"Everything we said about the war has turned out to be true and everything the government said has turned out to be a lie.
Really? I recall the following "arguments" made by the "anti-war", pro-Saddam, pro-al Qaeda enablers. There were supposed to be thousands of dead British and U.S. soldiers. While there have been casualties, "Stalingrad" it hasn't been in the slightest. (And Iraq has attracted numerous potential U.S. flying school students, whom have chosen to head there to take on the infidel -- better there than York or New York -- and whom the Forces are dutifully dispatching to their maker as quickly as possible.) Saddamite WMD was supposed to rain down across the Middle East. (Which, we were told, too, we were not supposed to be worried about Saddam's possessing, because he was, urrr, "contained.") Didn't happen. There were supposed to be hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Nope, didn't happen. There was supposed to be a "humanitarian disaster." Nope, didn't happen. The evil Ariel Sharon and the "Zionists" were going to use the "cover" of the coalition attack on Iraq to slaughter the Palestinians. Nope, didn't happen either.
What exactly were you right about again?
On the other hand, the government is "lying" about facts like these? Iraqis are now freer than ever before. Saddam's horrid regime is history. Saddamists are no longer any threat to the region. Palestinian suicide bombers' families will no longer receive Saddamite checks. Saddamite Iraq will never again invade Kurdistan or Kuwait. Saddamites will never toss missiles into Israel or Kuwait ever again. Mass graves are being unearthed, opened, and families will retrieve at least their loved ones' DNA. A long nightmare is over.
Gotcha. Glad we are clear on that.
"The tragic events in Madrid shows clearly that we are not safer from terrorism.". . .
Unsurprisingly, framing the issue in such terms is what we have come to expect from a group which opposes fighting Islamist terror.
The question is more appropriately framed along these lines: Did the attacks in Madrid "prove" that we are "not safer" from Islamist terrorism? No, they didn't. What happened in Madrid actually demonstrates that the enemy remains active, and we must continue to kill that enemy, wherever we find him. And, yes, the world will be better and safer when we finally do triumph.
It will hardly be so if we lose, and the price for peace is, say, "burqas" for all women. Apparently, though, that is precisely what Stop the War wants: Victory for the Islamists. . .
. . .because "progressives" prefer the world according to bin Laden to a world that includes the "evil" Bush. That's their dimwitted choice. But "progressives" aren't going to be taking the rest of us down the Islamist path with them -- at least not willingly. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, March 20, 2004
While al Qaeda's "partners in peace" in Britain and elsewhere scale tall buildings of the sort which their ideological compatriots like to crash hijacked airliners into
and dress up in their best weapons inspector costumes
the process of "enforcing the law" continues on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. Sky reports:
Pakistani forces believe al Qaeda's second in command may have escaped despite arresting 100 suspects.
Troops have carried out sustained artillery and mortar fire on suspected al Qaeda fighters near the Afghanistan border.
At first it was thought Osama bin Laden's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahri, was among up to 400 militants holding out in the South Waziristan tribal area. . .
The war will continue . . .
UPDATE, 1645 British time: Last year, at "anti-war" protests, we were told they drew a million people. This year's 25,000 might fill Wembley Arena. Organizers said 75,000.
Okay, even 75,000 means 925,000 stayed home -- and today's England v. Wales rugby match is not THAT important.
But the ideological mouthing off is, of course, undiminished. The BBC quotes one Lindsey German, of the Stop the War Coalition, and their pro-al Qaeda talking points are about what you would expect:
. . ."We are continuing to march because we want to make clear the strength of anti-war feeling in this country.
"Everything we said about the war has turned out to be true and everything the government said has turned out to be a lie.
Really? I recall the following "arguments" made by the "anti-war", pro-Saddam, pro-al Qaeda enablers. There were supposed to be thousands of dead British and U.S. soldiers. While there have been casualties, "Stalingrad" it hasn't been in the slightest. (And Iraq has attracted numerous potential U.S. flying school students, whom have chosen to head there to take on the infidel -- better there than York or New York -- and whom the Forces are dutifully dispatching to their maker as quickly as possible.) Saddamite WMD was supposed to rain down across the Middle East. (Which, we were told, too, we were not supposed to be worried about Saddam's possessing, because he was, urrr, "contained.") Didn't happen. There were supposed to be hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Nope, didn't happen. There was supposed to be a "humanitarian disaster." Nope, didn't happen. The evil Ariel Sharon and the "Zionists" were going to use the "cover" of the coalition attack on Iraq to slaughter the Palestinians. Nope, didn't happen either.
What exactly were you right about again?
On the other hand, the government is "lying" about facts like these? Iraqis are now freer than ever before. Saddam's horrid regime is history. Saddamists are no longer any threat to the region. Palestinian suicide bombers' families will no longer receive Saddamite checks. Saddamite Iraq will never again invade Kurdistan or Kuwait. Saddamites will never toss missiles into Israel or Kuwait ever again. Mass graves are being unearthed, opened, and families will retrieve at least their loved ones' DNA. A long nightmare is over.
Gotcha. Glad we are clear on that.
"The tragic events in Madrid shows clearly that we are not safer from terrorism.". . .
Unsurprisingly, framing the issue in such terms is what we have come to expect from a group which opposes fighting Islamist terror.
The question is more appropriately framed along these lines: Did the attacks in Madrid "prove" that we are "not safer" from Islamist terrorism? No, they didn't. What happened in Madrid actually demonstrates that the enemy remains active, and we must continue to kill that enemy, wherever we find him. And, yes, the world will be better and safer when we finally do triumph.
It will hardly be so if we lose, and the price for peace is, say, "burqas" for all women. Apparently, though, that is precisely what Stop the War wants: Victory for the Islamists. . .
. . .because "progressives" prefer the world according to bin Laden to a world that includes the "evil" Bush. That's their dimwitted choice. But "progressives" aren't going to be taking the rest of us down the Islamist path with them -- at least not willingly. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, March 20, 2004
THE PAQ COALITION TAKES TO THE STREETS -- AGAIN
The BBC reports:
Tens of thousands of protesters are expected to take to the streets of London to mark the anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq.
Madrid and New York are among cities around the world due to hold similar protests against the war and the continuing "occupation" of Iraq.
Two anti-war protesters climbed Big Ben and refused police requests to come down, Scotland Yard said. . .
And they unfolded a banner proclaiming "Time for Truth". (As of 1015, British time, they are still on Big Ben.)
The BBC continues:
. . .Saturday's protest is expected to attract large numbers of people, with coaches laid on from dozens of towns and cities across the UK.
The event has been backed by the Stop the War Coalition, CND and Muslim Association of Britain.
London mayor Ken Livingstone, MP George Galloway, rail workers' union leader Bob Crow and Guantanamo Bay lawyer Louise Christian will speak at a rally. . .
Indeed, it is "Time for Truth": What we are going to see today is another coming together of the "Progressive"/Al Qaeda coalition.
UPDATE: To be clear, by their own admission, "Stop The War" was founded on September 21, 2001.
So, which war were they interested in halting, one wonders? Well, they wanted to prevent the initial U.S. strike back against those who had actually opened hostilities -- and leaving no room for doubt -- on September 11, 2001. (Islamists, as we know, had been upping attacks on U.S. targets for years before those devastating assaults on New York and Washington.)
It seems pretty clear that "Stop the War" are a bunch whose sympathies have been on the other side from the get-go, doesn't it? ¶ by Robert, Saturday, March 20, 2004
The BBC reports:
Tens of thousands of protesters are expected to take to the streets of London to mark the anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq.
Madrid and New York are among cities around the world due to hold similar protests against the war and the continuing "occupation" of Iraq.
Two anti-war protesters climbed Big Ben and refused police requests to come down, Scotland Yard said. . .
And they unfolded a banner proclaiming "Time for Truth". (As of 1015, British time, they are still on Big Ben.)
The BBC continues:
. . .Saturday's protest is expected to attract large numbers of people, with coaches laid on from dozens of towns and cities across the UK.
The event has been backed by the Stop the War Coalition, CND and Muslim Association of Britain.
London mayor Ken Livingstone, MP George Galloway, rail workers' union leader Bob Crow and Guantanamo Bay lawyer Louise Christian will speak at a rally. . .
Indeed, it is "Time for Truth": What we are going to see today is another coming together of the "Progressive"/Al Qaeda coalition.
UPDATE: To be clear, by their own admission, "Stop The War" was founded on September 21, 2001.
So, which war were they interested in halting, one wonders? Well, they wanted to prevent the initial U.S. strike back against those who had actually opened hostilities -- and leaving no room for doubt -- on September 11, 2001. (Islamists, as we know, had been upping attacks on U.S. targets for years before those devastating assaults on New York and Washington.)
It seems pretty clear that "Stop the War" are a bunch whose sympathies have been on the other side from the get-go, doesn't it? ¶ by Robert, Saturday, March 20, 2004
Friday, March 19, 2004
THE NEXT PRIME MINISTER WILL BE?
The fall of Aznar's Popular Party has gotten everyone talking. So, among the right links, I've just put up a little poll.
Blair will eventually hand over to whom? ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 19, 2004
The fall of Aznar's Popular Party has gotten everyone talking. So, among the right links, I've just put up a little poll.
Blair will eventually hand over to whom? ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 19, 2004
OFFICERS ARE "ON THE SCENE"
UPDATE VII: And as for the 300-400 Islamists now apparently trapped between the U.S./Afghans and Pakistani armies, we will see what, if anything, Saturday brings . . .
UPDATE VI: The president, today, on the War on Islamist terror:
. . . The war on terror is not a figure of speech. It is an inescapable calling of our generation. The terrorists are offended not merely by our policies -- they are offended by our existence as free nations. No concession will appease their hatred. No accommodation will satisfy their endless demands. Their ultimate ambitions are to control the peoples of the Middle East, and to blackmail the rest of the world with weapons of mass terror. There can be no separate peace with the terrorist enemy. Any sign of weakness or retreat simply validates terrorist violence, and invites more violence for all nations. The only certain way to protect our people is by early, united, and decisive action. . .
UPDATE V: Sky reports at 2215 British time:
. . . They are said to have thrown a six by three-mile cordon around the militants, who are putting up fierce resistance.
The Pakistani troops are being supported by US-led forces on the Afghan side of the border.
It has been claimed they 100 British special forces have also joined the hunt for the militants. . .
NOTE: Some of my earlier posts on this ended up who knows where. So, I have sorted it as best as I could.
UPDATE IV: The BBC reports at 1740:
A [Pakistani] military spokesman said at least two of the fighters had died attempting to break the cordon on Friday. . .
. . .He described the fighters as "well dug-in" and ready "to fight until the end".
General Sultan said the two fighters who died were in a group of 10 that tried to break through Pakistani lines. They were later identified as a Chechen and an Arab national. . .
UPDATE III: The A.P. notes:
. . . "He is bin Laden's brain," said Montasser el-Zayat, a prominent Egyptian attorney who defends Islamic radicals and spent three years in prison with al-Zawahri. "He's the planner, the organizer and the thinker who laid the ground for the idea of an Islamic front.". . .
. . . If he is killed, "he will become a saint and a source of inspiration for the (Islamic) movements," el-Zayat said. "His thoughts ... have become a phenomenon."
And the sooner we might help him reach that lofty status, the better.
Come to think of it, surrounded slugs' supporters always say those sorts of things.
UPDATE II: Reuters reports:
. . . "We are closing in on them. Their defense seems to be dying down," said senior security official Brigadier Mehmood Shah .
"Either they've run out of ammunition or they want to surprise us when we get closer," he told Reuters. . .
Then there is this curious point, made a bit further down:
. . . The militants' armored vehicle had come under fire and there was speculation some of those inside, perhaps Zawahri, might have been wounded, the official said. . .
Armored "vehicle"? Singular? As in there is only "one"?
Finally:
. . . U.S.-led troops are also striking from the Afghan side in what the Pentagon is calling a "hammer and anvil" operation.
Afghanistan sent hundreds of extra troops to its border with Pakistan, opposite the area of the battle, to stop militants crossing over to escape the onslaught, an official in Kabul said . . .
So, we wait.
UPDATE: Even France's TV5 says:
De 300 à 400 membres présumés des talibans et d'Al-Qaïda étaient assiégés vendredi par les forces pakistanaises dans la zone tribale frontalière de l'Afghanistan, a annoncé l'armée qui s'est refusée à confirmer la présence parmi eux du numéro deux d'al-Qaïda. . .
Sorry, I keep hoping someone will have something new to say!
INITIAL POST
The BBC reports:
Pakistan's army says it has cornered up to 400 heavily-armed militants near the Afghan border.
"They are surrounded and they are trying to break the cordon and get away," military spokesman Major-General Shaukat Sultan told a news briefing. . .
Hopefully, the "bastards are in the bag".
Note to appeasement Spanish prime minister and John Kerry: Law enforcement officers are simply doing their job, getting ready to arrest the suspects. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 19, 2004
UPDATE VII: And as for the 300-400 Islamists now apparently trapped between the U.S./Afghans and Pakistani armies, we will see what, if anything, Saturday brings . . .
UPDATE VI: The president, today, on the War on Islamist terror:
. . . The war on terror is not a figure of speech. It is an inescapable calling of our generation. The terrorists are offended not merely by our policies -- they are offended by our existence as free nations. No concession will appease their hatred. No accommodation will satisfy their endless demands. Their ultimate ambitions are to control the peoples of the Middle East, and to blackmail the rest of the world with weapons of mass terror. There can be no separate peace with the terrorist enemy. Any sign of weakness or retreat simply validates terrorist violence, and invites more violence for all nations. The only certain way to protect our people is by early, united, and decisive action. . .
UPDATE V: Sky reports at 2215 British time:
. . . They are said to have thrown a six by three-mile cordon around the militants, who are putting up fierce resistance.
The Pakistani troops are being supported by US-led forces on the Afghan side of the border.
It has been claimed they 100 British special forces have also joined the hunt for the militants. . .
NOTE: Some of my earlier posts on this ended up who knows where. So, I have sorted it as best as I could.
UPDATE IV: The BBC reports at 1740:
A [Pakistani] military spokesman said at least two of the fighters had died attempting to break the cordon on Friday. . .
. . .He described the fighters as "well dug-in" and ready "to fight until the end".
General Sultan said the two fighters who died were in a group of 10 that tried to break through Pakistani lines. They were later identified as a Chechen and an Arab national. . .
UPDATE III: The A.P. notes:
. . . "He is bin Laden's brain," said Montasser el-Zayat, a prominent Egyptian attorney who defends Islamic radicals and spent three years in prison with al-Zawahri. "He's the planner, the organizer and the thinker who laid the ground for the idea of an Islamic front.". . .
. . . If he is killed, "he will become a saint and a source of inspiration for the (Islamic) movements," el-Zayat said. "His thoughts ... have become a phenomenon."
And the sooner we might help him reach that lofty status, the better.
Come to think of it, surrounded slugs' supporters always say those sorts of things.
UPDATE II: Reuters reports:
. . . "We are closing in on them. Their defense seems to be dying down," said senior security official Brigadier Mehmood Shah .
"Either they've run out of ammunition or they want to surprise us when we get closer," he told Reuters. . .
Then there is this curious point, made a bit further down:
. . . The militants' armored vehicle had come under fire and there was speculation some of those inside, perhaps Zawahri, might have been wounded, the official said. . .
Armored "vehicle"? Singular? As in there is only "one"?
Finally:
. . . U.S.-led troops are also striking from the Afghan side in what the Pentagon is calling a "hammer and anvil" operation.
Afghanistan sent hundreds of extra troops to its border with Pakistan, opposite the area of the battle, to stop militants crossing over to escape the onslaught, an official in Kabul said . . .
So, we wait.
UPDATE: Even France's TV5 says:
De 300 à 400 membres présumés des talibans et d'Al-Qaïda étaient assiégés vendredi par les forces pakistanaises dans la zone tribale frontalière de l'Afghanistan, a annoncé l'armée qui s'est refusée à confirmer la présence parmi eux du numéro deux d'al-Qaïda. . .
Sorry, I keep hoping someone will have something new to say!
INITIAL POST
The BBC reports:
Pakistan's army says it has cornered up to 400 heavily-armed militants near the Afghan border.
"They are surrounded and they are trying to break the cordon and get away," military spokesman Major-General Shaukat Sultan told a news briefing. . .
Hopefully, the "bastards are in the bag".
Note to appeasement Spanish prime minister and John Kerry: Law enforcement officers are simply doing their job, getting ready to arrest the suspects. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 19, 2004
THIS IS FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
What a difference a year makes. Anyone doubt that now in Iraq there is by far the freest press in the entire "Arab world"? Sky reports:
Iraqi journalists have walked out of a press conference with US Secretary of State Colin Powell in protest against the deaths of two Iraqi reporters.
The Al-Arabiya news agency claims the two reporters were killed by US forces in Baghdad on Thursday night. . .
. . .One Arab journalist stood up as soon as Mr Powell walked into the room at the Baghdad convention centre and read a statement criticising the "US occupation".
"We demand an open investigation in front of the mass media," the Arab journalist said. "We also demand that security be guaranteed to journalists working in Iraq."
Seconds later, more than 20 journalists walked out of the room. . .
Which is what freedom means -- the right to walk out, bitch and protest.
Unlike what would have been the case had they tried that before a "high official" of the Saddamite regime, for carrying on front of Powell none of those journalists faces the possibility that some thugs are going to chase him down, toss him in a darkened cell, hang him upside down, and rip his testicles off. (If a woman . . . let's not even go there.)
It's called freedom.
Nice, ain't it? ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 19, 2004
What a difference a year makes. Anyone doubt that now in Iraq there is by far the freest press in the entire "Arab world"? Sky reports:
Iraqi journalists have walked out of a press conference with US Secretary of State Colin Powell in protest against the deaths of two Iraqi reporters.
The Al-Arabiya news agency claims the two reporters were killed by US forces in Baghdad on Thursday night. . .
. . .One Arab journalist stood up as soon as Mr Powell walked into the room at the Baghdad convention centre and read a statement criticising the "US occupation".
"We demand an open investigation in front of the mass media," the Arab journalist said. "We also demand that security be guaranteed to journalists working in Iraq."
Seconds later, more than 20 journalists walked out of the room. . .
Which is what freedom means -- the right to walk out, bitch and protest.
Unlike what would have been the case had they tried that before a "high official" of the Saddamite regime, for carrying on front of Powell none of those journalists faces the possibility that some thugs are going to chase him down, toss him in a darkened cell, hang him upside down, and rip his testicles off. (If a woman . . . let's not even go there.)
It's called freedom.
Nice, ain't it? ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 19, 2004
HERE'S AN ENDORSEMENT!
Fox News reports:
He may have not been one of the foreign leaders with whom John Kerry spoke about his presidential candidacy, but former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad endorsed Kerry anyway on Thursday.
The former prime minister, who made headlines in October for saying at an Islamic Summit Conference that "the Muslims will forever be oppressed and dominated by the Europeans and the Jews," said Kerry would keep the world safer than President Bush.
"I think Kerry would be much more willing to listen to the voices of people and of the rest of the world," Mahathir, who retired in October after 22 years in power, told The Associated Press in an interview.
"But in the U.S., the Jewish lobby is very strong, and any American who wants to become president cannot change the policy toward Palestine radically," he said.
Kerry said last week that he has talked with several foreign leaders who said they want him to win the presidential election in November in order to introduce "new policies.". . .
This is not surprising. Someone should have warned John of the danger:
Suggest moonbatish policies. . .
Get moonbat's endorsement. ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 19, 2004
Fox News reports:
He may have not been one of the foreign leaders with whom John Kerry spoke about his presidential candidacy, but former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad endorsed Kerry anyway on Thursday.
The former prime minister, who made headlines in October for saying at an Islamic Summit Conference that "the Muslims will forever be oppressed and dominated by the Europeans and the Jews," said Kerry would keep the world safer than President Bush.
"I think Kerry would be much more willing to listen to the voices of people and of the rest of the world," Mahathir, who retired in October after 22 years in power, told The Associated Press in an interview.
"But in the U.S., the Jewish lobby is very strong, and any American who wants to become president cannot change the policy toward Palestine radically," he said.
Kerry said last week that he has talked with several foreign leaders who said they want him to win the presidential election in November in order to introduce "new policies.". . .
This is not surprising. Someone should have warned John of the danger:
Suggest moonbatish policies. . .
Get moonbat's endorsement. ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 19, 2004
LONDON TO MADRID?
The Telegraph reports:
Police are investigating a "definite" London link with the terrorists who killed more than 200 people in the Madrid train bombings, Scotland Yard has confirmed.
The Independent reported that anti-terrorist officers and MI5 were trying to establish whether Islamic extremists based in the UK gave money to one of the prime suspects in the Madrid attacks.
Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir John Stevens said: "We believe there is a London link with what happened in Madrid.". . .
Impossible! There aren't any Islamikazes in London, or in Britain!
Just lots of wedding attenders/computer students/those looking to find themselves/those looking to learn Arabic in Pakistan and those who preach peace and goodwill toward all people! ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 19, 2004
The Telegraph reports:
Police are investigating a "definite" London link with the terrorists who killed more than 200 people in the Madrid train bombings, Scotland Yard has confirmed.
The Independent reported that anti-terrorist officers and MI5 were trying to establish whether Islamic extremists based in the UK gave money to one of the prime suspects in the Madrid attacks.
Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir John Stevens said: "We believe there is a London link with what happened in Madrid.". . .
Impossible! There aren't any Islamikazes in London, or in Britain!
Just lots of wedding attenders/computer students/those looking to find themselves/those looking to learn Arabic in Pakistan and those who preach peace and goodwill toward all people! ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 19, 2004
ONCE THEY ARE IN CHARGE. . .
CNN reports:
Some 100 Bahraini Islamists shouting "God is Greatest" stormed a French restaurant serving alcohol in the pro-Western Gulf Arab state and threatened diners with knives, witnesses said Thursday.
One diner managed to wrest a knife away from the Islamists and stabbed one with it, causing him severe injuries, a witness said.
They said the assailants, opposed to the consumption of alcohol banned by Islam, also threw Molotov cocktails at customers' cars parked outside the restaurant near the capital Manama late Wednesday, damaging nine vehicles. . .
Now, Bahrain . . .
Eventually, Paris? Madrid? Rome? ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 19, 2004
CNN reports:
Some 100 Bahraini Islamists shouting "God is Greatest" stormed a French restaurant serving alcohol in the pro-Western Gulf Arab state and threatened diners with knives, witnesses said Thursday.
One diner managed to wrest a knife away from the Islamists and stabbed one with it, causing him severe injuries, a witness said.
They said the assailants, opposed to the consumption of alcohol banned by Islam, also threw Molotov cocktails at customers' cars parked outside the restaurant near the capital Manama late Wednesday, damaging nine vehicles. . .
Now, Bahrain . . .
Eventually, Paris? Madrid? Rome? ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 19, 2004
A YEAR IN IRAQ
What has the Coalition done in Iraq? If you really want to know, here are some actual facts:
Operation Iraqi Freedom Coalition Forces have successfully liberated 25 million Iraqis from the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. . .
Read the rest. . .
And a Spanish appeasement prime minister considers the likes of that a "fiasco" . . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 19, 2004
What has the Coalition done in Iraq? If you really want to know, here are some actual facts:
Operation Iraqi Freedom Coalition Forces have successfully liberated 25 million Iraqis from the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. . .
Read the rest. . .
And a Spanish appeasement prime minister considers the likes of that a "fiasco" . . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 19, 2004
Thursday, March 18, 2004
IT IS STARTING TO SEEM LIKE A LONG TIME AGO. . .
Looking through some old books earlier, I opened one I hadn't read in ages, and came across this:
. . . General Patton, one of the greatest commanders in the American Army, came in. He was unaffected and cordial. I expressed France's admiration and gratitude for all that the Americans had done. "No need to, not at all," he said. "You were the ones who showed us the way in 1917.". . .
From former French premier Edouard Daladier's personal/prison journal, May 8, 1945. In Austria, on May 5, Daladier experienced the end of nearly 5 years in French collaborationist and then in Nazi captivity. His SS captors had abruptly fled advancing U.S. troops, and let him go.
Just interesting history, now, apparently. Not much more.
How sad.
Now, "90 percent" of them want to "counterbalance" a friend, a large majority "have less confidence that the US is trustworthy", and a majority apparently even think we want to take over the world. . .
Sigh.
Do we live on the same, freakin' planet?! ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 18, 2004
Looking through some old books earlier, I opened one I hadn't read in ages, and came across this:
. . . General Patton, one of the greatest commanders in the American Army, came in. He was unaffected and cordial. I expressed France's admiration and gratitude for all that the Americans had done. "No need to, not at all," he said. "You were the ones who showed us the way in 1917.". . .
From former French premier Edouard Daladier's personal/prison journal, May 8, 1945. In Austria, on May 5, Daladier experienced the end of nearly 5 years in French collaborationist and then in Nazi captivity. His SS captors had abruptly fled advancing U.S. troops, and let him go.
Just interesting history, now, apparently. Not much more.
How sad.
Now, "90 percent" of them want to "counterbalance" a friend, a large majority "have less confidence that the US is trustworthy", and a majority apparently even think we want to take over the world. . .
Sigh.
Do we live on the same, freakin' planet?! ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 18, 2004
WHO'S COMING?
AOL's news tells us:
The Islamic militant group that claimed responsibility for last week's Madrid train bombings has warned its next target could be Britain.
An Arabic newspaper, Al-Quds al-Arabi, said on its Web site that it received a statement from "The Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri (al-Qaida)" in which the group reiterated its responsibility for the March 11 attacks. . .
. . . "Our brigades are getting ready now for the coming strike,'' the statement said.
"Whose turn will it be next? Is it Japan, America, Italy, Britain, Saudi Arabia or Australia?"
The statement warned that "the brigades of death are at your doors,'' adding that they would strike "with an iron hand at the right time and place". . .
Oh, I'll go out on a limb here and take a wild guess, that they are more followers of the religion of "To Kill First and Be Killed".
Poor, deluded fools. It is we actually -- we -- who are coming for them.
And they haven't a clue . . .
They continue:
. . .The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of US President George Bush: "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."
Addressing Bush, the statement says: "We know that a heavyweight operation would destroy your government, and this is what we don't want. We are not going to find a bigger idiot than you.". . .
Gosh, calling the president an "idiot". . .
Well, we know this much: They aren't about to blow us away with their astounding vocabulary. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 18, 2004
AOL's news tells us:
The Islamic militant group that claimed responsibility for last week's Madrid train bombings has warned its next target could be Britain.
An Arabic newspaper, Al-Quds al-Arabi, said on its Web site that it received a statement from "The Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri (al-Qaida)" in which the group reiterated its responsibility for the March 11 attacks. . .
. . . "Our brigades are getting ready now for the coming strike,'' the statement said.
"Whose turn will it be next? Is it Japan, America, Italy, Britain, Saudi Arabia or Australia?"
The statement warned that "the brigades of death are at your doors,'' adding that they would strike "with an iron hand at the right time and place". . .
Oh, I'll go out on a limb here and take a wild guess, that they are more followers of the religion of "To Kill First and Be Killed".
Poor, deluded fools. It is we actually -- we -- who are coming for them.
And they haven't a clue . . .
They continue:
. . .The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of US President George Bush: "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."
Addressing Bush, the statement says: "We know that a heavyweight operation would destroy your government, and this is what we don't want. We are not going to find a bigger idiot than you.". . .
Gosh, calling the president an "idiot". . .
Well, we know this much: They aren't about to blow us away with their astounding vocabulary. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 18, 2004
MORE MADRID ARRESTS
Sky reports at about 1700:
Spanish police have reportedly arrested a tenth suspect in connection with the Madrid train bombings which killed 201 people.
A total of five men have now been arrested today - including one suspected of having a direct role in the terror attacks.
One of the arrested men is also reportedly wanted by Moroccan police for a terrorist attack in Casablanca last May which killed 45 people. . .
The BBC reported at 1500:
. . . According to Spain's El Pais newspaper, police believe the Madrid attacks were carried out by people linked to a group called the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, believed to have al-Qaeda funding.
Police were reported to be hunting for 20 Moroccans in connection with the attacks.
The Catalan newspaper El Periodico reported that police in the northern city of Barcelona had launched a huge search among the city's North African community. . .
I think we are all just SHOCKED! SHOCKED! ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 18, 2004
Sky reports at about 1700:
Spanish police have reportedly arrested a tenth suspect in connection with the Madrid train bombings which killed 201 people.
A total of five men have now been arrested today - including one suspected of having a direct role in the terror attacks.
One of the arrested men is also reportedly wanted by Moroccan police for a terrorist attack in Casablanca last May which killed 45 people. . .
The BBC reported at 1500:
. . . According to Spain's El Pais newspaper, police believe the Madrid attacks were carried out by people linked to a group called the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, believed to have al-Qaeda funding.
Police were reported to be hunting for 20 Moroccans in connection with the attacks.
The Catalan newspaper El Periodico reported that police in the northern city of Barcelona had launched a huge search among the city's North African community. . .
I think we are all just SHOCKED! SHOCKED! ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 18, 2004
INDECISIVE?
At about the same time as the Mount Lebanon Hotel bombing, the BBC has let Paul Reynolds loose again:
A year after the invasion and the end-game in Iraq has not yet begun. The war, so divisive in its effect on international opinion, has not so far been decisive in shaping the future of Iraq itself.
Really? Gosh.
"not so far been decisive". Hmm. . .
. . . as in, say, "indecisive"?
But remind me then: Where is the man who ran Iraq with an iron fist for a quarter century, until April 2003?
The outcome will help determine whether the United States and Britain will be able to argue before history that, whatever the arguments over weapons of mass destruction, they did destroy a dictatorship and, as with Germany and Japan, re-ordered a society with beneficial implications for the region and the world.
By the way, would someone please diagram that sentence?
The answer, to whatever his point is, appears to be, uh, yes.
For others, the end will never justify the means. They will continue to argue that the United Nations was flouted and that the war was fought on the basis of, at best, exaggeration and, at worst, lies, with ominous implications for the region and the world.
And there are "others", today, who believe that Hitler was flippin' fantastic.
There is equally no agreed opinion about the effect of the war in Iraq on the war on terror declared by President Bush after the 11 September attacks against the US.
Simply insert "Afghanistan" for "Iraq" and that sort of statement could have been made in December 2001.
And (in LOTS more words) it was.
It was not supposed to be this way, of course. The idea was that the triumphant allied troops would be greeted as liberators and that the Iraqis, shorn of their Baathist leadership, would rally round and rapidly agree to new and democratic structures of government.
Reynolds knows how it was "supposed to be"? That makes him a lot more insightful than the rest of us.
His Cassandra-like qualities apparently fail him when it comes to what happens a day or two ago. Reynolds must have missed where "56 percent" of Iraqis polled said that their lives are better now than they were before the liberation.
Or, are the only polls that matter those that tell us that those "90 percent" disagree with something with which you also disagree?
That was probably why so little planning was put into the aftermath of war. A retired American general, Jay Garner, a man with a solid enough record for work among the Kurds after the first Gulf War, was sent in as the chief of "Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance". That, in itself, indicated where the priorities lay: with rebuilding the infrastructure. It was as if the politics would take care of themselves. They did not.
That is ludicrous. Where the heck was Reynolds a year ago? In the immediate aftermath of the liberation, reconstruction and humanitarian assistance WERE the priorities!
Presumably even the BBC would at that time have agreed that establishing a parliament on April 10, 2003 would have been a bit premature. Indeed, every anti-war crackpot imaginable was screaming about the coalition's need to make top priority those things which are vital to daily life -- electricity, water, food, medicine, general security and . . . museums. A parliament was not yet on the radar screen.
Once a measure of normality was restored during the summer, the business of organizing a non-thug government began in earnest.
Quite rapidly, General Garner was replaced by Paul "Gerry" Bremer, a veteran diplomat from the anti-terrorism school. Mr Bremer's first plan for constitutional development turned out to be too leisurely and Iraq is now probably on Plan C or even D.
Whether the constitution is even plan XX doesn't matter one iota. What Bremer did was take his cue from Iraqis. They wanted to move quicker and alter things, and they were allowed to do so.
One supposes that Reynolds and those who "think" like him, would have been thrilled if Bremer and the coalition rammed down Iraqis' throats a Westminster or Potomac form of government, without allowing Iraqis to have much say?
It was always going to be difficult. It took the British empire a hundred years or so before it developed democratic rule in some of its colonies. In Iraq, this is being tried in just over one year.
So, Reynolds is in favor of an "1885" solution: the West should colonize Iraq and give the Iraqis independence somewhere around 2110?
Actually, a much better comparison is with South Africa (which was and is at least as divided internally as is Iraq). That country, with its general poverty as well as great potential wealth, saw democratic rule for EVERYONE come about at last in 1994.
And the last time anyone looked democracy seems to be doing okay there.
The idea now is that there will be a handover to an interim Iraqi government on 30 June, that Mr Bremer will then depart and that elections will be held for a transitional assembly by January next year. This will, in turn, draw up a permanent constitution and set elections by the end of 2005 for a fully-fledged Iraqi government.
Pessimists voice doubts as to whether it will all work out.
Patrick Basham, senior fellow with the Center for Representative Government of the Cato Institute in Washington, asked recently: "Is Iraq capable of moving smoothly from dictatorship to democracy?".
He concluded: "The White House will be gravely disappointed with the result of its effort to establish a stable liberal democracy in Iraq, or any other nation home to a large population of Muslims or Arabs, at least in the short-to-medium term... Paradoxically, a more democratic Iraq may also be a repressive one. It is one thing to adopt formal democracy but quite another to attain stable democracy."
Reynolds doesn't bother to tell us that the Cato Institute was opposed to the liberation of Iraq.
On the other hand, optimists, of whom there are not that many and who qualify everything they say, look to the longer term. Jonathan Paris of the Middle East Centre at St Antony's College, Oxford, believes in the J curve effect. "Things will get worse before they get better," he told BBC News Online.
"I think the chances of the transitional period going smoothly are below 50-50. But the graph should go up once the Iraqi people have got a government they can support. Then they will start to ostracize the people causing the trouble.
The goal is just what "optimist" Jonathan Paris states. The longer term is what is at stake. Not next week.
. . . Some of the economic figures favour the optimists. E Anthony Wayne, the US Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs, told Congress in February that Iraqi oil production, which provides 95% of government revenues, was being sustained at 2.2 to 2.3 millions of barrels per day, despite sabotage of the northern pipeline. . .
. . .But there is too much instability to be sure of the future. Economic figures do not always reflect political reality. In the late 1970s, the small Central American country of El Salvador had high growth, low inflation, low unemployment and a strong currency. It also had a developing civil war. . .
Is Paul Reynolds actually trying to compare late 1970s-early 1980s El Salvador with what is now happening in Iraq?
And which El Salvador is Reynolds talking about? Infoplease tells us:
. . .In the 1970s El Salvador's overpopulation, economic problems, and inequitable social system led to social and political unrest; by the end of the decade, murder and other terrorism by leftist guerrillas and especially by right-wing “death squads” had become common. In 1979, Gen. Carlos Humberto Romero, the last in a series of presidents whose elections were denounced by many as fraudulent, was overthrown by a military junta. Murders and other terrorism continued, and the unrest erupted into a full-scale civil war between the government and guerrillas of the leading opposition group, the FMLN . . .
The reason there was a Salvadoran civil war was because Marxists (supported by Cuba and other communist regimes) tried to overthrow the government. Al Qaeda, for all its murderousness, is incapable of overthrowing an Iraqi democratic government, which is backed by the coalition and the Iraqi people. . .
. . . Oh, and the Salvadoran Marxists didn't succeed in overthrowing the government.
If Iraq produces positive results, then there might be a truce between the US and its critics in Europe, though the scars will remain.
If not, suspicion and accusations will linger.
Who said that history had ended?
Francis Fukuyama wrote it. And this was the context, according to Fukuyama himself:
The distant origins of the present volume lie in an article entitled "The End of History?" which I wrote for the journal The National Interest in the summer of 1989. In it, I argued that a remarkable consensus concerning the legitimacy of liberal democracy as a system of government had emerged throughout the world over the past few years, as it conquered rival ideologies like hereditary monarchy, fascism, and most recently communism. More than that, however, I argued that liberal democracy may constitute the "end point of mankind's ideological evolution" and the "final form of human government," and as such constituted the "end of history." That is, while earlier forms of government were characterised by grave defects and irrationalities that led to their eventual collapse, liberal democracy was arguably free from such fundamental internal contradictions. This was not to say that today's stable democracies, like the United States, France, or Switzerland, were not without injustice or serious social problems. But these problems were ones of incomplete implementation of the twin principles of liberty and equality on which modern democracy is founded, rather than of flaws in the principles themselves. While some present-day countries might fail to achieve stable liberal democracy, and others might lapse back into other, more primitive forms of rule like theocracy or military dictatorship, the ideal of liberal democracy could not be improved on. . .
Can anyone really disagree with that?
Reynolds would probably conclude that events had "not so far been decisive" enough for us to be able to make that judgement, however. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 18, 2004
At about the same time as the Mount Lebanon Hotel bombing, the BBC has let Paul Reynolds loose again:
A year after the invasion and the end-game in Iraq has not yet begun. The war, so divisive in its effect on international opinion, has not so far been decisive in shaping the future of Iraq itself.
Really? Gosh.
"not so far been decisive". Hmm. . .
. . . as in, say, "indecisive"?
But remind me then: Where is the man who ran Iraq with an iron fist for a quarter century, until April 2003?
The outcome will help determine whether the United States and Britain will be able to argue before history that, whatever the arguments over weapons of mass destruction, they did destroy a dictatorship and, as with Germany and Japan, re-ordered a society with beneficial implications for the region and the world.
By the way, would someone please diagram that sentence?
The answer, to whatever his point is, appears to be, uh, yes.
For others, the end will never justify the means. They will continue to argue that the United Nations was flouted and that the war was fought on the basis of, at best, exaggeration and, at worst, lies, with ominous implications for the region and the world.
And there are "others", today, who believe that Hitler was flippin' fantastic.
There is equally no agreed opinion about the effect of the war in Iraq on the war on terror declared by President Bush after the 11 September attacks against the US.
Simply insert "Afghanistan" for "Iraq" and that sort of statement could have been made in December 2001.
And (in LOTS more words) it was.
It was not supposed to be this way, of course. The idea was that the triumphant allied troops would be greeted as liberators and that the Iraqis, shorn of their Baathist leadership, would rally round and rapidly agree to new and democratic structures of government.
Reynolds knows how it was "supposed to be"? That makes him a lot more insightful than the rest of us.
His Cassandra-like qualities apparently fail him when it comes to what happens a day or two ago. Reynolds must have missed where "56 percent" of Iraqis polled said that their lives are better now than they were before the liberation.
Or, are the only polls that matter those that tell us that those "90 percent" disagree with something with which you also disagree?
That was probably why so little planning was put into the aftermath of war. A retired American general, Jay Garner, a man with a solid enough record for work among the Kurds after the first Gulf War, was sent in as the chief of "Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance". That, in itself, indicated where the priorities lay: with rebuilding the infrastructure. It was as if the politics would take care of themselves. They did not.
That is ludicrous. Where the heck was Reynolds a year ago? In the immediate aftermath of the liberation, reconstruction and humanitarian assistance WERE the priorities!
Presumably even the BBC would at that time have agreed that establishing a parliament on April 10, 2003 would have been a bit premature. Indeed, every anti-war crackpot imaginable was screaming about the coalition's need to make top priority those things which are vital to daily life -- electricity, water, food, medicine, general security and . . . museums. A parliament was not yet on the radar screen.
Once a measure of normality was restored during the summer, the business of organizing a non-thug government began in earnest.
Quite rapidly, General Garner was replaced by Paul "Gerry" Bremer, a veteran diplomat from the anti-terrorism school. Mr Bremer's first plan for constitutional development turned out to be too leisurely and Iraq is now probably on Plan C or even D.
Whether the constitution is even plan XX doesn't matter one iota. What Bremer did was take his cue from Iraqis. They wanted to move quicker and alter things, and they were allowed to do so.
One supposes that Reynolds and those who "think" like him, would have been thrilled if Bremer and the coalition rammed down Iraqis' throats a Westminster or Potomac form of government, without allowing Iraqis to have much say?
It was always going to be difficult. It took the British empire a hundred years or so before it developed democratic rule in some of its colonies. In Iraq, this is being tried in just over one year.
So, Reynolds is in favor of an "1885" solution: the West should colonize Iraq and give the Iraqis independence somewhere around 2110?
Actually, a much better comparison is with South Africa (which was and is at least as divided internally as is Iraq). That country, with its general poverty as well as great potential wealth, saw democratic rule for EVERYONE come about at last in 1994.
And the last time anyone looked democracy seems to be doing okay there.
The idea now is that there will be a handover to an interim Iraqi government on 30 June, that Mr Bremer will then depart and that elections will be held for a transitional assembly by January next year. This will, in turn, draw up a permanent constitution and set elections by the end of 2005 for a fully-fledged Iraqi government.
Pessimists voice doubts as to whether it will all work out.
Patrick Basham, senior fellow with the Center for Representative Government of the Cato Institute in Washington, asked recently: "Is Iraq capable of moving smoothly from dictatorship to democracy?".
He concluded: "The White House will be gravely disappointed with the result of its effort to establish a stable liberal democracy in Iraq, or any other nation home to a large population of Muslims or Arabs, at least in the short-to-medium term... Paradoxically, a more democratic Iraq may also be a repressive one. It is one thing to adopt formal democracy but quite another to attain stable democracy."
Reynolds doesn't bother to tell us that the Cato Institute was opposed to the liberation of Iraq.
On the other hand, optimists, of whom there are not that many and who qualify everything they say, look to the longer term. Jonathan Paris of the Middle East Centre at St Antony's College, Oxford, believes in the J curve effect. "Things will get worse before they get better," he told BBC News Online.
"I think the chances of the transitional period going smoothly are below 50-50. But the graph should go up once the Iraqi people have got a government they can support. Then they will start to ostracize the people causing the trouble.
The goal is just what "optimist" Jonathan Paris states. The longer term is what is at stake. Not next week.
. . . Some of the economic figures favour the optimists. E Anthony Wayne, the US Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs, told Congress in February that Iraqi oil production, which provides 95% of government revenues, was being sustained at 2.2 to 2.3 millions of barrels per day, despite sabotage of the northern pipeline. . .
. . .But there is too much instability to be sure of the future. Economic figures do not always reflect political reality. In the late 1970s, the small Central American country of El Salvador had high growth, low inflation, low unemployment and a strong currency. It also had a developing civil war. . .
Is Paul Reynolds actually trying to compare late 1970s-early 1980s El Salvador with what is now happening in Iraq?
And which El Salvador is Reynolds talking about? Infoplease tells us:
. . .In the 1970s El Salvador's overpopulation, economic problems, and inequitable social system led to social and political unrest; by the end of the decade, murder and other terrorism by leftist guerrillas and especially by right-wing “death squads” had become common. In 1979, Gen. Carlos Humberto Romero, the last in a series of presidents whose elections were denounced by many as fraudulent, was overthrown by a military junta. Murders and other terrorism continued, and the unrest erupted into a full-scale civil war between the government and guerrillas of the leading opposition group, the FMLN . . .
The reason there was a Salvadoran civil war was because Marxists (supported by Cuba and other communist regimes) tried to overthrow the government. Al Qaeda, for all its murderousness, is incapable of overthrowing an Iraqi democratic government, which is backed by the coalition and the Iraqi people. . .
. . . Oh, and the Salvadoran Marxists didn't succeed in overthrowing the government.
If Iraq produces positive results, then there might be a truce between the US and its critics in Europe, though the scars will remain.
If not, suspicion and accusations will linger.
Who said that history had ended?
Francis Fukuyama wrote it. And this was the context, according to Fukuyama himself:
The distant origins of the present volume lie in an article entitled "The End of History?" which I wrote for the journal The National Interest in the summer of 1989. In it, I argued that a remarkable consensus concerning the legitimacy of liberal democracy as a system of government had emerged throughout the world over the past few years, as it conquered rival ideologies like hereditary monarchy, fascism, and most recently communism. More than that, however, I argued that liberal democracy may constitute the "end point of mankind's ideological evolution" and the "final form of human government," and as such constituted the "end of history." That is, while earlier forms of government were characterised by grave defects and irrationalities that led to their eventual collapse, liberal democracy was arguably free from such fundamental internal contradictions. This was not to say that today's stable democracies, like the United States, France, or Switzerland, were not without injustice or serious social problems. But these problems were ones of incomplete implementation of the twin principles of liberty and equality on which modern democracy is founded, rather than of flaws in the principles themselves. While some present-day countries might fail to achieve stable liberal democracy, and others might lapse back into other, more primitive forms of rule like theocracy or military dictatorship, the ideal of liberal democracy could not be improved on. . .
Can anyone really disagree with that?
Reynolds would probably conclude that events had "not so far been decisive" enough for us to be able to make that judgement, however. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 18, 2004
"MUNICH" AS THE MODEL
Reuters reports:
Military families and anti-war activists urged Congress on Wednesday to censure President Bush for what they called his deception and manipulation of intelligence before the Iraq war. . .
It is not "military families" but a few "military families". The overwhelming majority of the Forces back the War on the Islamist Terror -- and we are lucky to have them.
Ah, but we've got "anti-war" activists, too. This should be good:
. . . The censure campaign is led by Win Without War -- a coalition of 42 organizations -- along with MoveOn.org, True Majority, Working Assets and Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities. . .
Ah, truth dribbles out. Now, these people are of course permitted to hold all those wrongheaded views. What is curious is that they choose to style themselves "Win Without War." Two points:
1) Has anyone identified any sizeable contingent on the enemy side holding a similar perspective? In short, where is an Islamist "peace movement"?
Well, there isn't one -- because Islamists don't want "peace". They want all infidels (that's all "anti-war" activists, too, by the way) dead.
2) It has never been possible to "win without war", when one side is trying to end the war while the other side (in this war, the bombing bastards) is still trying to win.
For if one, shall we say, "unilaterally," stops facing the enemy, he will roll over you -- and you will lose.
But then, one supposes, you will have your "peace" . . .
. . . Like France, in June 1940, and . . .
. . . Like Spain, in March 2004. Fox reports:
The Islamic militant group that claimed responsibility for last week's Madrid train bombings has called a truce with Spain to give the new government time to withdraw troops from Iraq, a London-based Arabic-language newspaper said Wednesday. . .
. . . A U.S. counterterrorism official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Wednesday the latest statement should be viewed with skepticism because the group has made false claims in the past. The official said it was unclear what relationship the group has with Al Qaeda. . .
Be that as it may, the plain fact that some Islamists see fit to make any such "announcement" is proof again that Spain is seen as having capitulated. Appeasement prime minister Zapatero can claim to be tough on terror all he likes -- "They will not have a moment of rest,". . . -- but Islamists are laughing at Spain, just as they used to laugh at America.
. . . "fighting terrorism with bombs ... with Tomahawk missiles, isn't the way to defeat terrorism. ...
Frankly, Zapatero is wrong. Tomahawk missiles helped kill numerous potential flying school students in Afghanistan. Killing an enemy, by definition, means you must have one less problem to worry about. He's dead, after all.
"Terrorism is combatted by the state of law. ... That's what I think Europe and the international community have to debate," he said.
Again, wrong. This "terror" is not like the ETA terror campaign in the least. The only goal of Islamists is to kill infidels, inspire fear, and get infidels to beg for Islamist mercy. Islamist terror is an extension of a battlefield conflict, by an enemy which cannot stand up to infidel firepower in a "traditional" fight.
"Anti-war activists" and the likes of appeasement prime minister Zapatero claim to crave "peace." Everyone wants peace. Asserting one wants peace, as if those of us who believe in freedom want "WAR!, WAR!" is moronic.
Peace, yes. But not another "Munich".
Because that was not "peace". It was an illusion of "peace". For the question afterwards was -- and is now again -- "When will they come for the rest?" ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 18, 2004
Reuters reports:
Military families and anti-war activists urged Congress on Wednesday to censure President Bush for what they called his deception and manipulation of intelligence before the Iraq war. . .
It is not "military families" but a few "military families". The overwhelming majority of the Forces back the War on the Islamist Terror -- and we are lucky to have them.
Ah, but we've got "anti-war" activists, too. This should be good:
. . . The censure campaign is led by Win Without War -- a coalition of 42 organizations -- along with MoveOn.org, True Majority, Working Assets and Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities. . .
Ah, truth dribbles out. Now, these people are of course permitted to hold all those wrongheaded views. What is curious is that they choose to style themselves "Win Without War." Two points:
1) Has anyone identified any sizeable contingent on the enemy side holding a similar perspective? In short, where is an Islamist "peace movement"?
Well, there isn't one -- because Islamists don't want "peace". They want all infidels (that's all "anti-war" activists, too, by the way) dead.
2) It has never been possible to "win without war", when one side is trying to end the war while the other side (in this war, the bombing bastards) is still trying to win.
For if one, shall we say, "unilaterally," stops facing the enemy, he will roll over you -- and you will lose.
But then, one supposes, you will have your "peace" . . .
. . . Like France, in June 1940, and . . .
. . . Like Spain, in March 2004. Fox reports:
The Islamic militant group that claimed responsibility for last week's Madrid train bombings has called a truce with Spain to give the new government time to withdraw troops from Iraq, a London-based Arabic-language newspaper said Wednesday. . .
. . . A U.S. counterterrorism official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Wednesday the latest statement should be viewed with skepticism because the group has made false claims in the past. The official said it was unclear what relationship the group has with Al Qaeda. . .
Be that as it may, the plain fact that some Islamists see fit to make any such "announcement" is proof again that Spain is seen as having capitulated. Appeasement prime minister Zapatero can claim to be tough on terror all he likes -- "They will not have a moment of rest,". . . -- but Islamists are laughing at Spain, just as they used to laugh at America.
. . . "fighting terrorism with bombs ... with Tomahawk missiles, isn't the way to defeat terrorism. ...
Frankly, Zapatero is wrong. Tomahawk missiles helped kill numerous potential flying school students in Afghanistan. Killing an enemy, by definition, means you must have one less problem to worry about. He's dead, after all.
"Terrorism is combatted by the state of law. ... That's what I think Europe and the international community have to debate," he said.
Again, wrong. This "terror" is not like the ETA terror campaign in the least. The only goal of Islamists is to kill infidels, inspire fear, and get infidels to beg for Islamist mercy. Islamist terror is an extension of a battlefield conflict, by an enemy which cannot stand up to infidel firepower in a "traditional" fight.
"Anti-war activists" and the likes of appeasement prime minister Zapatero claim to crave "peace." Everyone wants peace. Asserting one wants peace, as if those of us who believe in freedom want "WAR!, WAR!" is moronic.
Peace, yes. But not another "Munich".
Because that was not "peace". It was an illusion of "peace". For the question afterwards was -- and is now again -- "When will they come for the rest?" ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 18, 2004
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
THE BRITISH BUDGET
If you are outside the U.K., you don't care. However, I feel obliged to mention this, because next year's British government budget is "BIG" news here. So, let's just hit the high (or low) points quickly and be done with it:
1) Chancellor of the Exchequer [meaning head of the Treasury] Gordon Brown is going to raise taxes, in some cases substantially.
2) He is going to fire 40,000 civil servants. (The public sector union strikes should commence any moment now.)
3) Lots of the money is going into schoolsandhospitals. (That is one word in British English.) And, of course, five years from now, the schoolsandhospitals will exclaim, "Oh, no, we are doing splendidly now! We have more money than we could ever hope to use. The students are brilliant and the NHS is perfect. Here's a load of it back."
Catching bin Laden is infinitely more likely than ever seeing a British tax cut. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 17, 2004
If you are outside the U.K., you don't care. However, I feel obliged to mention this, because next year's British government budget is "BIG" news here. So, let's just hit the high (or low) points quickly and be done with it:
1) Chancellor of the Exchequer [meaning head of the Treasury] Gordon Brown is going to raise taxes, in some cases substantially.
2) He is going to fire 40,000 civil servants. (The public sector union strikes should commence any moment now.)
3) Lots of the money is going into schoolsandhospitals. (That is one word in British English.) And, of course, five years from now, the schoolsandhospitals will exclaim, "Oh, no, we are doing splendidly now! We have more money than we could ever hope to use. The students are brilliant and the NHS is perfect. Here's a load of it back."
Catching bin Laden is infinitely more likely than ever seeing a British tax cut. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 17, 2004
ENEMY # 1
Erik Svane (who knows a lot more about the French and Europe than does John Kerry) points out, regarding the bizarre reaction to the bombings in Spain ("Islamists blew us up; it is America's, and their lackey Aznar's, fault!") that:
. . . I have written before that to a large part of the European population, it hardly matters who you are, or what you’ve done, as long as you recognize that the number 1 enemy in this world is America and its capitalistic society. Since it seems that they (or their leaders) are racist hypocrites, arrogant war-mongerers, simplistic morons, greedy capitalists, and/or… treacherous liars, it must stand to reason to those who are allied with them are the lackeys of the racist hypocrites, arrogant war-mongerers, simplistic morons, greedy capitalists, and/or… the treacherous liars. When bad things happen to America, the reason given is that somehow or other, they deserved it. And so it must be with her allies. . .
. . .So by saying “they deserved it”, Europeans are not referring to the fate of the 200 dead and 1,500 wounded in Madrid, of course (as Al Qaeda operatives are), but they are certainly thinking of Aznar and his Spanish allies. In this case, it is hard not to arrive at the logical conclusion that somehow, as Europeans are wont to think in their usual humanistic way, the Madrid bombings produced something good (!). The destruction of the World Trade Center was to show Americans how hypocritical, greedy, treacherous, etc, etc, etc they really are, while the bombing of the Madrid trains was to show Spaniards that the only “reasonable” thing to do was to withdraw support from those horrible people in the White House.
So it stands to reason that the only logical conclusion to this point of view is that if murderous bombings are what is needed to isolate the monstrous America superpower (and/or build Europe), then perhaps that is what should be allowed to happen. If Britain, Italy, Poland, and Europe's Eastern nations weren't "polite" enough to "keep quiet", maybe it would be better for all if they should be the next targets. (Although this point of view shouldn't be advertised too loudly.) And if 200 victims don't do the trick, maybe there should be 2,000. And if that isn't enough, 20,000 may turn the electoral tide. Of course, the wise, generous, humanistic, solidaires anti-Americans will deny this vehemently, and that in good faith, but again, if their reaction to Sunday's election is taken to its logical conclusion, then that is what they are implying, knowingly or not. And when a French radio commentator calls the elections a "bénédiction" for France and European unity, then you can hardly deny this outright. (Incidentally, these are the same justice-loving people who called, not totally without reason, America's 2000 election a sham — but when a truly shamful election benefits — or seems to benefit — their camp, suddenly the venemous words are found to be wanting.). . .
Read the whole thing. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Erik Svane (who knows a lot more about the French and Europe than does John Kerry) points out, regarding the bizarre reaction to the bombings in Spain ("Islamists blew us up; it is America's, and their lackey Aznar's, fault!") that:
. . . I have written before that to a large part of the European population, it hardly matters who you are, or what you’ve done, as long as you recognize that the number 1 enemy in this world is America and its capitalistic society. Since it seems that they (or their leaders) are racist hypocrites, arrogant war-mongerers, simplistic morons, greedy capitalists, and/or… treacherous liars, it must stand to reason to those who are allied with them are the lackeys of the racist hypocrites, arrogant war-mongerers, simplistic morons, greedy capitalists, and/or… the treacherous liars. When bad things happen to America, the reason given is that somehow or other, they deserved it. And so it must be with her allies. . .
. . .So by saying “they deserved it”, Europeans are not referring to the fate of the 200 dead and 1,500 wounded in Madrid, of course (as Al Qaeda operatives are), but they are certainly thinking of Aznar and his Spanish allies. In this case, it is hard not to arrive at the logical conclusion that somehow, as Europeans are wont to think in their usual humanistic way, the Madrid bombings produced something good (!). The destruction of the World Trade Center was to show Americans how hypocritical, greedy, treacherous, etc, etc, etc they really are, while the bombing of the Madrid trains was to show Spaniards that the only “reasonable” thing to do was to withdraw support from those horrible people in the White House.
So it stands to reason that the only logical conclusion to this point of view is that if murderous bombings are what is needed to isolate the monstrous America superpower (and/or build Europe), then perhaps that is what should be allowed to happen. If Britain, Italy, Poland, and Europe's Eastern nations weren't "polite" enough to "keep quiet", maybe it would be better for all if they should be the next targets. (Although this point of view shouldn't be advertised too loudly.) And if 200 victims don't do the trick, maybe there should be 2,000. And if that isn't enough, 20,000 may turn the electoral tide. Of course, the wise, generous, humanistic, solidaires anti-Americans will deny this vehemently, and that in good faith, but again, if their reaction to Sunday's election is taken to its logical conclusion, then that is what they are implying, knowingly or not. And when a French radio commentator calls the elections a "bénédiction" for France and European unity, then you can hardly deny this outright. (Incidentally, these are the same justice-loving people who called, not totally without reason, America's 2000 election a sham — but when a truly shamful election benefits — or seems to benefit — their camp, suddenly the venemous words are found to be wanting.). . .
Read the whole thing. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 17, 2004
JUST A SMALL MINORITY
Laban Tall does some math. The numbers are so wonderfully re-assuring:
. . . Interesting Guardian survey, showing that Muslim support for Labour has fallen from 75% to 38%. Of the lost 37%, 26% has gone to the Lib Dems and 11% to the Tories. And 13% ('a small minority') would support further terrorist attacks on the US. I'm assuming few of those will be Tories.
Let me see, 13% of 1.6 million - that makes 208,000 terrorism supporters living in the UK. Compared to, say, 400,000 Muslim Tory supporters. Thank heavens its only a small minority.
And those are just the ones willing to ADMIT it!
It explains also the urgency to have another suicide-bomber supporter on the Lib Dem front bench, so as to reflect adequately the "diverse" and "wide-ranging" opinions of the party faithful. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Laban Tall does some math. The numbers are so wonderfully re-assuring:
. . . Interesting Guardian survey, showing that Muslim support for Labour has fallen from 75% to 38%. Of the lost 37%, 26% has gone to the Lib Dems and 11% to the Tories. And 13% ('a small minority') would support further terrorist attacks on the US. I'm assuming few of those will be Tories.
Let me see, 13% of 1.6 million - that makes 208,000 terrorism supporters living in the UK. Compared to, say, 400,000 Muslim Tory supporters. Thank heavens its only a small minority.
And those are just the ones willing to ADMIT it!
It explains also the urgency to have another suicide-bomber supporter on the Lib Dem front bench, so as to reflect adequately the "diverse" and "wide-ranging" opinions of the party faithful. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 17, 2004
JUST ONE YEAR AGO
Murdoc:
. . . Iraq was going to be like the Bay of Pigs. Then Iraq was going to be like Vietnam. Then it was going to be like Somalia.
All three are reasonably good analogies.
2003-04 Iraq is like the Bay of Pigs in an alternate dimension where we actually provide the air cover, supplies, and reinforcements we said we would.
2003-04 Iraq is like Vietnam in an alternate dimension where we use the trained and prepared soldiers to fight instead of letting so many raw conscripts do it, where we take civilian populations and cultures more into consideration, and where the rules of engagement allow our soldiers to do their job effectively.
2003-04 Iraq is also like Somalia in an alternate dimension where, after a successful mission that included some media-hyped US casualties, we don't signal our weak conviction and total lack of resolve to our enemies by cutting and running. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Murdoc:
. . . Iraq was going to be like the Bay of Pigs. Then Iraq was going to be like Vietnam. Then it was going to be like Somalia.
All three are reasonably good analogies.
2003-04 Iraq is like the Bay of Pigs in an alternate dimension where we actually provide the air cover, supplies, and reinforcements we said we would.
2003-04 Iraq is like Vietnam in an alternate dimension where we use the trained and prepared soldiers to fight instead of letting so many raw conscripts do it, where we take civilian populations and cultures more into consideration, and where the rules of engagement allow our soldiers to do their job effectively.
2003-04 Iraq is also like Somalia in an alternate dimension where, after a successful mission that included some media-hyped US casualties, we don't signal our weak conviction and total lack of resolve to our enemies by cutting and running. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 17, 2004
REMEMBER IT ALL. . .
The American Spectator notes (via Last Night's BBC News):
. . .In the two and a half years since 9/11, the voices of doubt, negativity, defeat, preening sophistication, and appeasement have grown stronger and stronger. In the runup to World War II, as lately retired Alistair Cooke reminded us, those voices were strong in Europe, too, and they were exactly the same voices. "Objectively pro-Nazi," George Orwell said of them. Our critics today are, as well, objectively pro-terrorist. . .
. . . The people of Europe are determined not to learn a thing. Spain was targeted by Al Qaeda long before the Madrid bombings, long before Iraq, indeed, long before 9/11. (See the many statements of Osama bin Laden.) The Islamic thugs still smart from the Ottoman expulsion from Grenada in 1492. Negotiation and appeasement will not change a thing, if Europe doesn't realize it's time to go kill those people. . .
But fighting back when someone is trying to kill you is so, so . . . "unsophisticated".
. . . we had better visit Europe soon, and imprint on our minds and eyes and hearts the images of those gorgeous cathedrals and museums and public works of art, so vulnerable in a civilization that will not defend itself. The whole fabulous mosaic of Western civilization has moved a step closer to the fate of the Bamiyan Buddhas. These 1500-year-old giant statues, carved into a mountain in Afghanistan, were dynamited by the Taliban -- in March, 2001. . .
The Taliban destroying the Buddhas actually got the UN and Europeans a tad upset, but not upset enough to actually consider doing anything other than huffing a bit. Astoundingly, the UN even worried about -- all together now! -- an "anti-Muslim backlash."
One wonders, indeed, if Islamists' blowing up European cathedrals would even make the slightest impact on this "Continent of Nuance"?
. . . After all, most Europeans rarely, if ever, set foot inside any church anyway. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 17, 2004
The American Spectator notes (via Last Night's BBC News):
. . .In the two and a half years since 9/11, the voices of doubt, negativity, defeat, preening sophistication, and appeasement have grown stronger and stronger. In the runup to World War II, as lately retired Alistair Cooke reminded us, those voices were strong in Europe, too, and they were exactly the same voices. "Objectively pro-Nazi," George Orwell said of them. Our critics today are, as well, objectively pro-terrorist. . .
. . . The people of Europe are determined not to learn a thing. Spain was targeted by Al Qaeda long before the Madrid bombings, long before Iraq, indeed, long before 9/11. (See the many statements of Osama bin Laden.) The Islamic thugs still smart from the Ottoman expulsion from Grenada in 1492. Negotiation and appeasement will not change a thing, if Europe doesn't realize it's time to go kill those people. . .
But fighting back when someone is trying to kill you is so, so . . . "unsophisticated".
. . . we had better visit Europe soon, and imprint on our minds and eyes and hearts the images of those gorgeous cathedrals and museums and public works of art, so vulnerable in a civilization that will not defend itself. The whole fabulous mosaic of Western civilization has moved a step closer to the fate of the Bamiyan Buddhas. These 1500-year-old giant statues, carved into a mountain in Afghanistan, were dynamited by the Taliban -- in March, 2001. . .
The Taliban destroying the Buddhas actually got the UN and Europeans a tad upset, but not upset enough to actually consider doing anything other than huffing a bit. Astoundingly, the UN even worried about -- all together now! -- an "anti-Muslim backlash."
One wonders, indeed, if Islamists' blowing up European cathedrals would even make the slightest impact on this "Continent of Nuance"?
. . . After all, most Europeans rarely, if ever, set foot inside any church anyway. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 17, 2004
THE POWER OF DIPLOMACY
Scrappleface, errr, "reports":
Spain's newly-elected socialist prime minister today declared the start of a "new era of protection from terror" as he cut the ribbon at the grand opening of the al Qaeda embassy in downtown Madrid.
The building, formerly known as the U.S. Embassy, will house the offices and "manufacturing facilities" of the global religious social services organization headed by renowned philosopher Usama bin Laden. . .
Sadly, that is dangerously close NOT to being satirical. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Scrappleface, errr, "reports":
Spain's newly-elected socialist prime minister today declared the start of a "new era of protection from terror" as he cut the ribbon at the grand opening of the al Qaeda embassy in downtown Madrid.
The building, formerly known as the U.S. Embassy, will house the offices and "manufacturing facilities" of the global religious social services organization headed by renowned philosopher Usama bin Laden. . .
Sadly, that is dangerously close NOT to being satirical. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 17, 2004
NOW, THIS IS JOURNALISM
This BBC headline is magnificent -- as of 2043 on Tuesday:
Kurds 'killed' in Syria clashes
They're awaiting "confirmation", one supposes.
If they aren't sure if anyone actually died, what is the point to the report in the first place? ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 17, 2004
This BBC headline is magnificent -- as of 2043 on Tuesday:
Kurds 'killed' in Syria clashes
They're awaiting "confirmation", one supposes.
If they aren't sure if anyone actually died, what is the point to the report in the first place? ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 17, 2004
A DANGER TO ALL DEMOCRACIES?
Jarvis:
French President Jacques Chirac, meeting with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, says that "all democracies are in danger of possible terrorist attack."
Welcome to the real world, Jacques.
True. But, sadly, not very "nuanced". . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Jarvis:
French President Jacques Chirac, meeting with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, says that "all democracies are in danger of possible terrorist attack."
Welcome to the real world, Jacques.
True. But, sadly, not very "nuanced". . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 17, 2004
AND THE ENEMY IS. . .
While Islamikazes are massacring Spanish commuters, suicidally crashing hijacked civilian aircraft into buildings, self-detonating on Israeli buses, exploding next to Muscovites in their subway, and while the London Underground is on high alert for [Islamist] terrorist bombs, we are told that the world is, of course . . . fearful of Americans. The BBC reports:
Discontent with the United States and its policies has intensified in the year following the war in Iraq, according to an annual poll of global attitudes towards the US. . .
and:
. . . A troubling figure from Turkey - a country set to join the European Union - showed that 31% of those polled thought that suicide attacks against Americans and westerners in Iraq were justified.
Frankly, if one-third of Turks are so freakin' twisted as to think that suicide bombings directed at non-Muslims is a good idea, allowing Turkey into the E.U. is simply insane.
Did anyone ask what Turks thought of suicide bombings in Istanbul?
And in Jordan, a relatively moderate Arab nation, 70% of those polled thought that suicide attacks against Americans and others in Iraq were justified. . .
That then is the definition of a "relatively moderate Arab nation" -- one that is only between about two-thirds to three-quarters, straight-jacket candidate nuts?
Jordan presumably also has an E.U. membership application pending?
. . .In the US, a full 84% of those polled thought Iraq would be better off with Saddam Hussein gone.
In Jordan, only a quarter of those who responded thought Iraqis are better off now, and in Pakistan, only 8% thought the lives of Iraqis would be improved. . .
Interestingly, Americans' views seem to be more in line with those of the Iraqis themselves:
. . .Seventy per cent of [Iraqis] said that things were going well or quite well in their lives, while only 29% felt things were bad.
And 56% said that things were better now than they were before the war. . .
Ah, but what do Americans and even Iraqis know, right?
Pakistanis and Jordanians must know better . . .
Millions in "the Muslim world" having views like the above are not surprising. What is amazing is that the population of Iraq seems to have a better hold on reality (and only 12 months or so after having the Saddamite yoke pulled from their necks) than many who've lived their entire lives on the "Continent of Nuance".
Now, over to the views of those from that continent. Unsurprisingly, that infamous "90 percent", which had been the base number everyone quoted about Spanish opposition to the war in Iraq, resurfaces in this form:
. . . And Europeans are increasingly sceptical of the US and its motives.
In Germany and France, the great majority (82% Germany, 78% France) say as a consequence of the war they have less confidence that the US is trustworthy.
Apparently, then, "Europe" consists solely of Germany and France now. I am sure millions of other people on the continent might have a different view. In any event:
Majorities in six of the nine countries surveyed do not believe that the US-led war on terrorism is a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism.
Does the BBC bother to tell us which 3 countries have majorities which believe that the U.S. is sincere? Of course not.
Instead, many believe that the US wants to control oil supplies or dominate the world.
Here's a shock: They are flippin' wrong!
After all, if Americans DID want to take over the world, we would have to take control of the oil to do so.
You can't do one, really, without the other!
Then again, in a world full of useless idiots like those, why would the U.S. even want to TRY to control them . . .
It helps explain why 90% of French and 70% of Germans surveyed thought it would be good if the EU grew into a powerful counterbalance to the United States.
Ah, "90 percent" again.
And, of course, it's the French, rather than the Spanish, this time.
Interestingly:
. . .In 2004, 57% of those polled in France and 49% of those asked in Germany thought the US was overreacting to terrorism. . .
Very "nuanced". Oh, and by the way, as Sky reports:
France has received a new terror threat by an Islamist group and is taking it "very seriously".
The French justice ministry said the threat came from a group called "Servants of Allah the Powerful and Wise".
The threats are linked to a controversial law that bans the wearing of headscarves in state schools, the newspaper that received the threatening letter said. . .
The BBC notes:
. . .The threats came five days after train bombs in Madrid killed 201 people. . .
That surfaces some three days after Spain has elected an appeasement government, which pledges to turn tail and run out of Iraq, led by a leader who believes this:
. . ."The war has been a disaster; the occupation continues to be a disaster," Zapatero told a radio interviewer. At a news conference later, he called the Iraq war "an error." He added, "It divided more than it united, there were no reasons for it, time has shown that the arguments for it lacked credibility, and the occupation has been poorly managed.". . .
That the Iraqis don't seem to feel that way is apparently lost on him.
And, in France, the Islamists are furious over . . . attire, not just the war in Iraq.
What's the basis for the next Islamist complaint? Europeans allowing women to have driving licenses? French having vineyards? Millions of Europeans adoring their "canine companions"?
But Americans are those they are worried about. . .
I need an aspirin.
UPDATE: Some good news is that "Being American in Toronto, Ontario" has a new site. Add it to your bookmarks! ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 17, 2004
While Islamikazes are massacring Spanish commuters, suicidally crashing hijacked civilian aircraft into buildings, self-detonating on Israeli buses, exploding next to Muscovites in their subway, and while the London Underground is on high alert for [Islamist] terrorist bombs, we are told that the world is, of course . . . fearful of Americans. The BBC reports:
Discontent with the United States and its policies has intensified in the year following the war in Iraq, according to an annual poll of global attitudes towards the US. . .
and:
. . . A troubling figure from Turkey - a country set to join the European Union - showed that 31% of those polled thought that suicide attacks against Americans and westerners in Iraq were justified.
Frankly, if one-third of Turks are so freakin' twisted as to think that suicide bombings directed at non-Muslims is a good idea, allowing Turkey into the E.U. is simply insane.
Did anyone ask what Turks thought of suicide bombings in Istanbul?
And in Jordan, a relatively moderate Arab nation, 70% of those polled thought that suicide attacks against Americans and others in Iraq were justified. . .
That then is the definition of a "relatively moderate Arab nation" -- one that is only between about two-thirds to three-quarters, straight-jacket candidate nuts?
Jordan presumably also has an E.U. membership application pending?
. . .In the US, a full 84% of those polled thought Iraq would be better off with Saddam Hussein gone.
In Jordan, only a quarter of those who responded thought Iraqis are better off now, and in Pakistan, only 8% thought the lives of Iraqis would be improved. . .
Interestingly, Americans' views seem to be more in line with those of the Iraqis themselves:
. . .Seventy per cent of [Iraqis] said that things were going well or quite well in their lives, while only 29% felt things were bad.
And 56% said that things were better now than they were before the war. . .
Ah, but what do Americans and even Iraqis know, right?
Pakistanis and Jordanians must know better . . .
Millions in "the Muslim world" having views like the above are not surprising. What is amazing is that the population of Iraq seems to have a better hold on reality (and only 12 months or so after having the Saddamite yoke pulled from their necks) than many who've lived their entire lives on the "Continent of Nuance".
Now, over to the views of those from that continent. Unsurprisingly, that infamous "90 percent", which had been the base number everyone quoted about Spanish opposition to the war in Iraq, resurfaces in this form:
. . . And Europeans are increasingly sceptical of the US and its motives.
In Germany and France, the great majority (82% Germany, 78% France) say as a consequence of the war they have less confidence that the US is trustworthy.
Apparently, then, "Europe" consists solely of Germany and France now. I am sure millions of other people on the continent might have a different view. In any event:
Majorities in six of the nine countries surveyed do not believe that the US-led war on terrorism is a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism.
Does the BBC bother to tell us which 3 countries have majorities which believe that the U.S. is sincere? Of course not.
Instead, many believe that the US wants to control oil supplies or dominate the world.
Here's a shock: They are flippin' wrong!
After all, if Americans DID want to take over the world, we would have to take control of the oil to do so.
You can't do one, really, without the other!
Then again, in a world full of useless idiots like those, why would the U.S. even want to TRY to control them . . .
It helps explain why 90% of French and 70% of Germans surveyed thought it would be good if the EU grew into a powerful counterbalance to the United States.
Ah, "90 percent" again.
And, of course, it's the French, rather than the Spanish, this time.
Interestingly:
. . .In 2004, 57% of those polled in France and 49% of those asked in Germany thought the US was overreacting to terrorism. . .
Very "nuanced". Oh, and by the way, as Sky reports:
France has received a new terror threat by an Islamist group and is taking it "very seriously".
The French justice ministry said the threat came from a group called "Servants of Allah the Powerful and Wise".
The threats are linked to a controversial law that bans the wearing of headscarves in state schools, the newspaper that received the threatening letter said. . .
The BBC notes:
. . .The threats came five days after train bombs in Madrid killed 201 people. . .
That surfaces some three days after Spain has elected an appeasement government, which pledges to turn tail and run out of Iraq, led by a leader who believes this:
. . ."The war has been a disaster; the occupation continues to be a disaster," Zapatero told a radio interviewer. At a news conference later, he called the Iraq war "an error." He added, "It divided more than it united, there were no reasons for it, time has shown that the arguments for it lacked credibility, and the occupation has been poorly managed.". . .
That the Iraqis don't seem to feel that way is apparently lost on him.
And, in France, the Islamists are furious over . . . attire, not just the war in Iraq.
What's the basis for the next Islamist complaint? Europeans allowing women to have driving licenses? French having vineyards? Millions of Europeans adoring their "canine companions"?
But Americans are those they are worried about. . .
I need an aspirin.
UPDATE: Some good news is that "Being American in Toronto, Ontario" has a new site. Add it to your bookmarks! ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
THE PROSTITUTES OF GUANTANAMO
Robert "In Notts Forest" explains more on the Guantanamo "prostitutes" the U.S. military deployed there to try -- of course! -- to degrade good, Muslim men. (I had also mentioned it here.):
I wrote a little (March 12 ) bit about the A-holes/Liars who spent some time at Gitmo. After thinking out it, they were "humiliated" by women; actually female Military Police soldiers . More about it here. Osama’s boys just can’t hack it when they are going up against trained professionals.
And BoTW notes:
. . . Over the weekend, the more respectable Guardian parroted the charge. . .
. . .It is a testament to the intellectually degraded state of the British left that its members repeat uncritically this absurd assertion from a Muslim moonbat. If al-Harith's claims have any basis in reality, the "prostitutes" of whom he speaks are most likely American servicewomen, and al Qaeda's useful idiots in Britain's left-wing press have been duped into endorsing the notion that equality of the sexes amounts to "torture."
The Mirror and the Guardian have to be two of the stupidest publications ever.
And yet they consider us Americans the morons . . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Robert "In Notts Forest" explains more on the Guantanamo "prostitutes" the U.S. military deployed there to try -- of course! -- to degrade good, Muslim men. (I had also mentioned it here.):
I wrote a little (March 12 ) bit about the A-holes/Liars who spent some time at Gitmo. After thinking out it, they were "humiliated" by women; actually female Military Police soldiers . More about it here. Osama’s boys just can’t hack it when they are going up against trained professionals.
And BoTW notes:
. . . Over the weekend, the more respectable Guardian parroted the charge. . .
. . .It is a testament to the intellectually degraded state of the British left that its members repeat uncritically this absurd assertion from a Muslim moonbat. If al-Harith's claims have any basis in reality, the "prostitutes" of whom he speaks are most likely American servicewomen, and al Qaeda's useful idiots in Britain's left-wing press have been duped into endorsing the notion that equality of the sexes amounts to "torture."
The Mirror and the Guardian have to be two of the stupidest publications ever.
And yet they consider us Americans the morons . . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 16, 2004
NOW, FOR THE REQUIRED BACKLASH REPORT
The BBC's Dominic Bailey "reports" (and I use that term loosely):
. . . Islamic leaders in Spain were quick to denounce the 11 March Madrid attacks, even though the finger of blame was initially pointed at Basque separatists Eta.
At least eight Muslims were among the 200 people killed and more than 40 among the hundreds of injured.
Right now, in most major European cities, if a bomb goes off on a crowded, rush hour commuter train, chances are it will hit a Muslim. So that assertion is pointless, really.
And these same sort of slugs attacked in Morocco -- where the likelihood of NOT hitting a Muslim is next to nil.
Now, to the "backlash":
But talk of al-Qaeda links has again muddied the perception of Islam and made ordinary Muslims feel insecure in the land they have happily made their home. . .
. . .The white stone and marble Cultural Islamic Centre and mosque stands out against the backdrop of high-rise flats along the M-30 motorway out of Madrid.
Inside it is a cool oasis of serenity that echoes with the imam's call to prayer. . .
That wouldn't be a sly, BBC editorial comment on the beauty that is Islam, would it?
But the number of prayer times has been reduced and entrance to regular visitors is restricted.
The centre's secretary, Mohamad Saleh, says the safety precautions are necessary.
"We are worried about the repercussions that there may be against Muslims," he said.
Before one gets too excited, some perspective is called for. In the U.S., according to the Council of Foreign Relations, Terrorism.org site:
. . . It’s unclear exactly how many other murders there were, but the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has listed nine killings as possible 9/11-related hate crimes.
In contrast, the number of non-Muslims killed by Islamists on September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington alone was -- clearly -- in the thousands.
Back to Dominic's "report":
After 11 September eggs were thrown at the mosque and some Muslims were sacked from their jobs simply because of their religion.
That does not appear in quotes. So it is unclear who is making the "eggs were thrown at the mosque" and sacked while Muslim charges -- the mosque, or the BBC. Two points:
1) One never condones any such behavior on anyone's part towards any place of worship. But the following too is a valid point: comparing possibly having eggs tossed at a place of worship with cold-blooded murder in the hundreds or thousands is just plain freakin' insulting.
2) The BBC just tosses out both as if stating as much is all that is required. Talk about unprofessional. No further supporting evidence backing the claims is provided.
There are already reports of abuse on the street, Arab businesses having windows broken and rumours of demonstrations outside the mosque being planned.
None of that is sourced either. Again, rumor is treated as fact.
This is a "news report"?
"We felt for the victims, the same as everyone, this sort of desperate terrorism affects all areas," said Mr Saleh.
"But people shouldn't punish a religion or country because of who commits a crime. If a Christian kills, are all Christians blamed? Are the Basques blamed if Eta attack?
"These people are terrorists and terrorists are criminals wherever they are from.
"They cannot have real faith or know God. For a Muslim to kill a person unjustly is to kill everyone. There is no justification to kill.". . .
Now, let's explain this again, for the 86,467th time. If a Christian kills, he does so in violation of Christian doctrine. Period. There is no discussion, there is no debate.
In contrast, when a Muslim kills, we get a debate on the "true Islam". However, I keep waiting for someone to tell me where I can go to look up "true Islam" -- because there is no Vatican, kirk or other council of really smart people running the darn thing, to pass along just what "true Islam" is to the Muslim faithful (and non-Muslims also).
Absent a hierarchy of some doctrinal authority, Islam must be essentially a "pick up faith" -- any imam can claim to understand "true Islam" and the Koran, and teach dimwitted followers that "good Muslims" should aim to blow up infidels. But if a Catholic priest urged Catholics to do much the same thing in his Sunday homily, the guy would find himself ex-communicated so fast it would make his collar spin.
And when was the last time Christians in the West really killed Muslims over doctrinal disagreements? Probably in Spain, around 1492 or so. (While religion played a large part, the war in Bosnia was not primarily a "religious war" over "doctrine" between Muslims and Christians. It was mostly a nationalist, land grab. Christian Serbs and Christian Croats killed each other in the thousands, too.) However, it does seem that "Muslims" continue to kill Christians and others over doctrine -- be Muslim or die! -- in 2004.
. . .There are about 500,000 Muslims in Madrid and on Fridays between 1,500 and 2,000 faithful pray at the mosque. . .
The BBC should get their damn facts straight. Even Islamic Population.com estimates there are only 500,000 Muslims in all of Spain, making them 1.2% of the total population. How then does Madrid alone have all "500,000"?
. . . But now, many immigrants who have made the country their second home don't feel safe. . .
And, if true, just what might possibly be reasons for that unfortunate state of affairs, eh?
Sorry, can't think of any . . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 16, 2004
The BBC's Dominic Bailey "reports" (and I use that term loosely):
. . . Islamic leaders in Spain were quick to denounce the 11 March Madrid attacks, even though the finger of blame was initially pointed at Basque separatists Eta.
At least eight Muslims were among the 200 people killed and more than 40 among the hundreds of injured.
Right now, in most major European cities, if a bomb goes off on a crowded, rush hour commuter train, chances are it will hit a Muslim. So that assertion is pointless, really.
And these same sort of slugs attacked in Morocco -- where the likelihood of NOT hitting a Muslim is next to nil.
Now, to the "backlash":
But talk of al-Qaeda links has again muddied the perception of Islam and made ordinary Muslims feel insecure in the land they have happily made their home. . .
. . .The white stone and marble Cultural Islamic Centre and mosque stands out against the backdrop of high-rise flats along the M-30 motorway out of Madrid.
Inside it is a cool oasis of serenity that echoes with the imam's call to prayer. . .
That wouldn't be a sly, BBC editorial comment on the beauty that is Islam, would it?
But the number of prayer times has been reduced and entrance to regular visitors is restricted.
The centre's secretary, Mohamad Saleh, says the safety precautions are necessary.
"We are worried about the repercussions that there may be against Muslims," he said.
Before one gets too excited, some perspective is called for. In the U.S., according to the Council of Foreign Relations, Terrorism.org site:
. . . It’s unclear exactly how many other murders there were, but the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has listed nine killings as possible 9/11-related hate crimes.
In contrast, the number of non-Muslims killed by Islamists on September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington alone was -- clearly -- in the thousands.
Back to Dominic's "report":
After 11 September eggs were thrown at the mosque and some Muslims were sacked from their jobs simply because of their religion.
That does not appear in quotes. So it is unclear who is making the "eggs were thrown at the mosque" and sacked while Muslim charges -- the mosque, or the BBC. Two points:
1) One never condones any such behavior on anyone's part towards any place of worship. But the following too is a valid point: comparing possibly having eggs tossed at a place of worship with cold-blooded murder in the hundreds or thousands is just plain freakin' insulting.
2) The BBC just tosses out both as if stating as much is all that is required. Talk about unprofessional. No further supporting evidence backing the claims is provided.
There are already reports of abuse on the street, Arab businesses having windows broken and rumours of demonstrations outside the mosque being planned.
None of that is sourced either. Again, rumor is treated as fact.
This is a "news report"?
"We felt for the victims, the same as everyone, this sort of desperate terrorism affects all areas," said Mr Saleh.
"But people shouldn't punish a religion or country because of who commits a crime. If a Christian kills, are all Christians blamed? Are the Basques blamed if Eta attack?
"These people are terrorists and terrorists are criminals wherever they are from.
"They cannot have real faith or know God. For a Muslim to kill a person unjustly is to kill everyone. There is no justification to kill.". . .
Now, let's explain this again, for the 86,467th time. If a Christian kills, he does so in violation of Christian doctrine. Period. There is no discussion, there is no debate.
In contrast, when a Muslim kills, we get a debate on the "true Islam". However, I keep waiting for someone to tell me where I can go to look up "true Islam" -- because there is no Vatican, kirk or other council of really smart people running the darn thing, to pass along just what "true Islam" is to the Muslim faithful (and non-Muslims also).
Absent a hierarchy of some doctrinal authority, Islam must be essentially a "pick up faith" -- any imam can claim to understand "true Islam" and the Koran, and teach dimwitted followers that "good Muslims" should aim to blow up infidels. But if a Catholic priest urged Catholics to do much the same thing in his Sunday homily, the guy would find himself ex-communicated so fast it would make his collar spin.
And when was the last time Christians in the West really killed Muslims over doctrinal disagreements? Probably in Spain, around 1492 or so. (While religion played a large part, the war in Bosnia was not primarily a "religious war" over "doctrine" between Muslims and Christians. It was mostly a nationalist, land grab. Christian Serbs and Christian Croats killed each other in the thousands, too.) However, it does seem that "Muslims" continue to kill Christians and others over doctrine -- be Muslim or die! -- in 2004.
. . .There are about 500,000 Muslims in Madrid and on Fridays between 1,500 and 2,000 faithful pray at the mosque. . .
The BBC should get their damn facts straight. Even Islamic Population.com estimates there are only 500,000 Muslims in all of Spain, making them 1.2% of the total population. How then does Madrid alone have all "500,000"?
. . . But now, many immigrants who have made the country their second home don't feel safe. . .
And, if true, just what might possibly be reasons for that unfortunate state of affairs, eh?
Sorry, can't think of any . . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 16, 2004
THE NEW POLITICAL LANDSCAPE EMERGES?
A new electoral landscape? Well, consider this comment, one of many like it in the last 48 hours. The BBC reports:
. . .a long-standing friend of the US, the German Christian Democrat Freidbert Pflueger, told BBC Radio that the new Spanish government was engaged in "appeasement" of terrorism.
Al-Qaeda appeared to have succeeded in changing the government of one European country through terror.
"That must never happen again," he said.
But it will. Because politics have changed dramatically since September 11, 2001. The electoral victory of Spain's self-described "progressives" over Aznar's center/right party, in the immediate wake of what are now generally believed to have been al Qaeda-inspired foot soldiers' bombings there, marks the unofficial birth of the new electoral landscape.
The previous one was one with which we were all familiar. It was rooted more or less in the French Revolution -- left v. right, and its many variations. Left v. right held on as more or less the dominant political "paradigm" through changes and evolution . . . until September 11, 2001.
It began to fray quickly after that date. Most of the old left (and some on the extreme right, too) fell perversely in love with views held by the September 11, 2001 Islamist attackers and their Islamist supporters, people whose distinctly anti-democratic and anti-Western views had never before carried much weight in liberal democracies mostly because there were so few of those Islamists living in those liberal democracies. That has changed, as we all know. Since 1945, Europe especially has seen a huge influx of not just decent Muslims, but of Islamists. As the demographics changed, the political landscape was bound eventually to reflect that change.
In opposition after September 11 were those who had been moderates in the old center/right and center/left. They responded by forming what would previously have been considered an odd coalition, with Bush/Blair/Aznar being an excellent example.
Now, there are no longer relatively straightforward left v. right ideological battles. Instead, we have an altering spectrum, in which old loyalties are changing. This new one is, again, first rooting in Europe, and is quickly spreading to America and elsewhere: It is the Progressives/Al Qaeda v. liberal democracy (meaning those determined to defend freedom of speech, religious pluralism, free markets and so on).
"Progressives" and al Qaeda supporters? An odd coalition? Not really. Consider the following major examples of "policy" and "outlook" similarities, and "common ground":
1) Progressives are always "troubled" by the power and the culture of the United States, and generally despise Americans; al Qaeda would like to blow up the United States and kill every American it can lay its hands on.
2) Progressives are always "troubled" by the state of Israel; al Qaeda would like to blow up the state of Israel.
3) Progressives are always "troubled" by "Jewish power"; al Qaeda would like to blow up Jews.
4) Progressives are always "troubled" by Christianity, and consider Christians ill-educated, bigots; al Qaeda would like to blow up Christians.
5) Progressives have no use for the free market; al Qaeda would like to blow up any free market stall they stumble across.
6) Progressives want to return the world to a more "pristine environment", in which humanity "lives in harmony with nature"; al Qaeda would like to blow up industry, and return us to living in caves -- although keeping a copy of the Koran close at hand would be required, of course.
And the pathetic list could go on.
Because they don't appear to agree on everything doesn't mean that the notion of a coalition can be dismissed. That "progressives' " Islamist-swoon overlooks those issues where there might be considered disconnects between the "progressive" agenda and that of al Qaeda, such as on women's rights, alcohol and music, is only because "progressives" have chosen to make a pact with the devil. They are willfully deluding themselves that women's rights, alcohol consumption and music are, of course, here to stay. Well, they are . . . probably -- until Al Qaeda/Islamists are strong enough to decree that such "vices" are to be dramatically curtained/banned.
Overall this is no a joke, and is not as farfetched as it seems. To think of it in more familiar terms, the Progressive/Al Qaeda "popular front" (and I use that term deliberately) are Sinn Fein/I.R.A., but on a global scale. Like Sinn Fein with the I.R.A., "progressives" are increasingly elected mouthpieces who hold, more or less, al Qaeda-like positions.
That Sinn Fein is the "political wing of the I.R.A." is something that we have been constantly reminded. Well, we have another one now: Progressives are increasingly the smiling, westernized, "acceptable" face for the Al Qaeda/Islamist agenda. They might even call themselves "PAQ". That will make for easy electoral advertising.
Chilling stuff.
UPDATE: The Evening Standard noted yesterday:
Tony Blair is today reeling from the collapse of the Spanish government in the wake of the Madrid bombings.
Ministers are coming to terms with the grotesque possibility that al Qaeda terrorists managed to engineer the downfall of Mr Blair's key ally in the Iraq war.
They are asking whether the terror network could mount a similar atrocity in Britain in an attempt to sway the British general election, expected in just over a year.
The dangers for Mr Blair were underlined by a new poll today which says Labour support among Muslims in Britain has plunged by half since the last election.
Only 38 per cent of Muslims back Mr Blair, compared with 75 per cent before the last election, says the ICM poll in the Guardian. . .
Any doubt that there is a PAQ coalition? Is Blair to be the next target? Aznar was a small fry, compared to Blair.
Interesting to consider this: A PAQ prime minister to succeed Blair might be whom? Clare Short? Robin Cook? Charles Kennedy? Omar Bakri Mohammad? ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 16, 2004
A new electoral landscape? Well, consider this comment, one of many like it in the last 48 hours. The BBC reports:
. . .a long-standing friend of the US, the German Christian Democrat Freidbert Pflueger, told BBC Radio that the new Spanish government was engaged in "appeasement" of terrorism.
Al-Qaeda appeared to have succeeded in changing the government of one European country through terror.
"That must never happen again," he said.
But it will. Because politics have changed dramatically since September 11, 2001. The electoral victory of Spain's self-described "progressives" over Aznar's center/right party, in the immediate wake of what are now generally believed to have been al Qaeda-inspired foot soldiers' bombings there, marks the unofficial birth of the new electoral landscape.
The previous one was one with which we were all familiar. It was rooted more or less in the French Revolution -- left v. right, and its many variations. Left v. right held on as more or less the dominant political "paradigm" through changes and evolution . . . until September 11, 2001.
It began to fray quickly after that date. Most of the old left (and some on the extreme right, too) fell perversely in love with views held by the September 11, 2001 Islamist attackers and their Islamist supporters, people whose distinctly anti-democratic and anti-Western views had never before carried much weight in liberal democracies mostly because there were so few of those Islamists living in those liberal democracies. That has changed, as we all know. Since 1945, Europe especially has seen a huge influx of not just decent Muslims, but of Islamists. As the demographics changed, the political landscape was bound eventually to reflect that change.
In opposition after September 11 were those who had been moderates in the old center/right and center/left. They responded by forming what would previously have been considered an odd coalition, with Bush/Blair/Aznar being an excellent example.
Now, there are no longer relatively straightforward left v. right ideological battles. Instead, we have an altering spectrum, in which old loyalties are changing. This new one is, again, first rooting in Europe, and is quickly spreading to America and elsewhere: It is the Progressives/Al Qaeda v. liberal democracy (meaning those determined to defend freedom of speech, religious pluralism, free markets and so on).
"Progressives" and al Qaeda supporters? An odd coalition? Not really. Consider the following major examples of "policy" and "outlook" similarities, and "common ground":
1) Progressives are always "troubled" by the power and the culture of the United States, and generally despise Americans; al Qaeda would like to blow up the United States and kill every American it can lay its hands on.
2) Progressives are always "troubled" by the state of Israel; al Qaeda would like to blow up the state of Israel.
3) Progressives are always "troubled" by "Jewish power"; al Qaeda would like to blow up Jews.
4) Progressives are always "troubled" by Christianity, and consider Christians ill-educated, bigots; al Qaeda would like to blow up Christians.
5) Progressives have no use for the free market; al Qaeda would like to blow up any free market stall they stumble across.
6) Progressives want to return the world to a more "pristine environment", in which humanity "lives in harmony with nature"; al Qaeda would like to blow up industry, and return us to living in caves -- although keeping a copy of the Koran close at hand would be required, of course.
And the pathetic list could go on.
Because they don't appear to agree on everything doesn't mean that the notion of a coalition can be dismissed. That "progressives' " Islamist-swoon overlooks those issues where there might be considered disconnects between the "progressive" agenda and that of al Qaeda, such as on women's rights, alcohol and music, is only because "progressives" have chosen to make a pact with the devil. They are willfully deluding themselves that women's rights, alcohol consumption and music are, of course, here to stay. Well, they are . . . probably -- until Al Qaeda/Islamists are strong enough to decree that such "vices" are to be dramatically curtained/banned.
Overall this is no a joke, and is not as farfetched as it seems. To think of it in more familiar terms, the Progressive/Al Qaeda "popular front" (and I use that term deliberately) are Sinn Fein/I.R.A., but on a global scale. Like Sinn Fein with the I.R.A., "progressives" are increasingly elected mouthpieces who hold, more or less, al Qaeda-like positions.
That Sinn Fein is the "political wing of the I.R.A." is something that we have been constantly reminded. Well, we have another one now: Progressives are increasingly the smiling, westernized, "acceptable" face for the Al Qaeda/Islamist agenda. They might even call themselves "PAQ". That will make for easy electoral advertising.
Chilling stuff.
UPDATE: The Evening Standard noted yesterday:
Tony Blair is today reeling from the collapse of the Spanish government in the wake of the Madrid bombings.
Ministers are coming to terms with the grotesque possibility that al Qaeda terrorists managed to engineer the downfall of Mr Blair's key ally in the Iraq war.
They are asking whether the terror network could mount a similar atrocity in Britain in an attempt to sway the British general election, expected in just over a year.
The dangers for Mr Blair were underlined by a new poll today which says Labour support among Muslims in Britain has plunged by half since the last election.
Only 38 per cent of Muslims back Mr Blair, compared with 75 per cent before the last election, says the ICM poll in the Guardian. . .
Any doubt that there is a PAQ coalition? Is Blair to be the next target? Aznar was a small fry, compared to Blair.
Interesting to consider this: A PAQ prime minister to succeed Blair might be whom? Clare Short? Robin Cook? Charles Kennedy? Omar Bakri Mohammad? ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 16, 2004
OF ANTI-TERROR PREPARATIONS AND USEFUL IDIOTS
The BBC reports:
Plain clothes anti-terrorist police are patrolling the public transport system in London for the first time.
British Transport Police have also said more people using the Tube will be randomly stopped and searched. . .
. . . Metropolitan Police Deputy Chief Constable Andy Trotter emphasised no specific threat to the London Underground or rail system had been received.
. . . With three million travelling every day, they can provide millions of eyes and ears across the whole system", he told BBC News, urging travellers to call police if they see "anything suspicious". . .
Also, we have this:
Four "suspicious" packages sent to diplomatic premises in London on Monday are being examined, say police.
Most, if not all, went to Arab embassies, said BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner.
A government source has confirmed none of them were British Government buildings.
The Saudi Arabian embassy has confirmed it received an envelope containing white powder on Monday, but tests revealed it was harmless. . .
And on the useful idiot scope, we see:
Of the 500 people arrested in Britain under the Terrorism Act since 9/11, so far only seven have been convicted. . .
And how many have been missed, one wonders? After all, how many Islamikazes did it take to destroy the WTC?
10.
Wait for . . . here it comes now:
. . . Critics say the sweeping powers granted by the law, which lower the normal standards of reasonable suspicion, have been used to target Muslims in particular. . .
Community groups describe this as "racial profiling", for example considering somebody suspicious because of their style of dress.
But even the BBC feels necessary to point out:
. . .the law has been applied more widely. The trial of three men charged under the act with possessing guns and bomb-making devices to further the aims of the paramilitary Ulster Defence Association and Ulster Freedom Fighters, is due to start soon.
However, it still makes "some" very "uncomfortable," of course:
Yet to some, the fact that so many have been arrested then released without charge is evidence of a "fishing expedition" by the police.
It's been reported that 230 of those initially held under the Act have been accused of other offences, such as credit card fraud and immigration irregularities. The Home Office could not confirm this figure.
"The ratio of seven to one is vastly disproportionate," says civil liberties lawyer Louise Christian. "In the US, post 11 September, the police used their extra powers to go rooting for wrong-doing. Now that's happening here."
In case you don't know, the ironically delightfully named lawyer Louise Christian is best known for her battle to get "British" Guantanamo detainees released -- slugs who, incidentally, would never normally tolerate her even being a lawyer (being a woman), nor tolerate her in their presence without a married man (her husband) being present.
Obviously, if we infidels are willing to allow inferiors to practice "law", it is just more proof of our decadence.
But, regardless of her atrocious blind spot, if Ms Christian has a point it appears to be this: We should let Islamists run riot. They should face no scrutiny, whatsoever. No attempts should be made to try to detect their war plans in advance.
It is far better for us to clean up hundreds/thousands of dead bodies -- just like in New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, and now Madrid, and numerous other places.
Because we don't want any hurt Islamist feelings, do we? ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 16, 2004
The BBC reports:
Plain clothes anti-terrorist police are patrolling the public transport system in London for the first time.
British Transport Police have also said more people using the Tube will be randomly stopped and searched. . .
. . . Metropolitan Police Deputy Chief Constable Andy Trotter emphasised no specific threat to the London Underground or rail system had been received.
. . . With three million travelling every day, they can provide millions of eyes and ears across the whole system", he told BBC News, urging travellers to call police if they see "anything suspicious". . .
Also, we have this:
Four "suspicious" packages sent to diplomatic premises in London on Monday are being examined, say police.
Most, if not all, went to Arab embassies, said BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner.
A government source has confirmed none of them were British Government buildings.
The Saudi Arabian embassy has confirmed it received an envelope containing white powder on Monday, but tests revealed it was harmless. . .
And on the useful idiot scope, we see:
Of the 500 people arrested in Britain under the Terrorism Act since 9/11, so far only seven have been convicted. . .
And how many have been missed, one wonders? After all, how many Islamikazes did it take to destroy the WTC?
10.
Wait for . . . here it comes now:
. . . Critics say the sweeping powers granted by the law, which lower the normal standards of reasonable suspicion, have been used to target Muslims in particular. . .
Community groups describe this as "racial profiling", for example considering somebody suspicious because of their style of dress.
But even the BBC feels necessary to point out:
. . .the law has been applied more widely. The trial of three men charged under the act with possessing guns and bomb-making devices to further the aims of the paramilitary Ulster Defence Association and Ulster Freedom Fighters, is due to start soon.
However, it still makes "some" very "uncomfortable," of course:
Yet to some, the fact that so many have been arrested then released without charge is evidence of a "fishing expedition" by the police.
It's been reported that 230 of those initially held under the Act have been accused of other offences, such as credit card fraud and immigration irregularities. The Home Office could not confirm this figure.
"The ratio of seven to one is vastly disproportionate," says civil liberties lawyer Louise Christian. "In the US, post 11 September, the police used their extra powers to go rooting for wrong-doing. Now that's happening here."
In case you don't know, the ironically delightfully named lawyer Louise Christian is best known for her battle to get "British" Guantanamo detainees released -- slugs who, incidentally, would never normally tolerate her even being a lawyer (being a woman), nor tolerate her in their presence without a married man (her husband) being present.
Obviously, if we infidels are willing to allow inferiors to practice "law", it is just more proof of our decadence.
But, regardless of her atrocious blind spot, if Ms Christian has a point it appears to be this: We should let Islamists run riot. They should face no scrutiny, whatsoever. No attempts should be made to try to detect their war plans in advance.
It is far better for us to clean up hundreds/thousands of dead bodies -- just like in New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, and now Madrid, and numerous other places.
Because we don't want any hurt Islamist feelings, do we? ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Monday, March 15, 2004
THE SHOP HAS CLOSED?
Tom Devine sounds tremendously annoyed regarding the Spaniards' electoral response to the bombings:
. . .Instead of focusing their ire on the perpetrators they fixed their anger on the US and Aznar. Yeah, that's right, don't blame the criminals, let's blame everyone else but the criminals.
Aznar had been holding Spain to a higher standard than I thought they deserved based on my visit to Spain two years ago. What I saw in Spain was complacency and a Minàta attitude. They're not a country used to confronting the hard realities of today's world - when the going gets tough they close the shop, head home for food, wine, and a nap.
The shop closed yesterday. I thank Prime Minister Aznar for his support in this world war, he and his government are heroes in my mind.
The Spanish people will get the government they deserve. . .
Well, they appear to have gotten just that. Leaving aside for a moment that al Qaeda sympathizers attacking Spain over Iraq was actually an admission that the war in Iraq is indeed ABOUT terror -- for why would Islamikazes care about Iraq if that were not the case? -- Aznar's eight years got Spanish unemployment down to 11%, which was considered quite an achievement.
Within a year, the Socialists ought to have it back to a solid, socialist 20% plus.
And presumably, Spaniards will be thrilled about that. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 15, 2004
Tom Devine sounds tremendously annoyed regarding the Spaniards' electoral response to the bombings:
. . .Instead of focusing their ire on the perpetrators they fixed their anger on the US and Aznar. Yeah, that's right, don't blame the criminals, let's blame everyone else but the criminals.
Aznar had been holding Spain to a higher standard than I thought they deserved based on my visit to Spain two years ago. What I saw in Spain was complacency and a Minàta attitude. They're not a country used to confronting the hard realities of today's world - when the going gets tough they close the shop, head home for food, wine, and a nap.
The shop closed yesterday. I thank Prime Minister Aznar for his support in this world war, he and his government are heroes in my mind.
The Spanish people will get the government they deserve. . .
Well, they appear to have gotten just that. Leaving aside for a moment that al Qaeda sympathizers attacking Spain over Iraq was actually an admission that the war in Iraq is indeed ABOUT terror -- for why would Islamikazes care about Iraq if that were not the case? -- Aznar's eight years got Spanish unemployment down to 11%, which was considered quite an achievement.
Within a year, the Socialists ought to have it back to a solid, socialist 20% plus.
And presumably, Spaniards will be thrilled about that. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 15, 2004
THEY'VE CHOSEN FOR YOU
Steyn (Need I say more?) on Madrid, placard wavers who claim to have never liked a certain Texan and his supposedly neocon Zionist sidekicks, those who only want "peace," and those who would do just about anything to try to avoid "offending" Islamikazes:
. . . Even if you'd avoided Iraq or Andalusia or British banks or Pilger or any other affront to Islamist sensibilities, you'd still be a target. As the PR guy for the Islamic Army of Aden said after blowing up that French tanker: "We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels." Commissioner Keelty is confusing old-school terrorism – blowing the legs off grannies as a means to an end – with the new: blowing the legs off grannies is the end. Old-school terrorists have relatively viable goals: They want a Basque state or Northern Ireland removed from the UK. You might not agree with these goals, you might not think them negotiable, but at least they're not stark staring insane. . .
. . .If Islamic terrorism were as rational as Irish or Basque terrorism, it would be easier. But Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, summed it up very pithily: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." You can be pro-America (Spain, Australia) or anti-America (France, Canada), but if you broke into the head cave in the Hindu Kush and checked out the hit list you'd be on it either way.
So the choice for pluralist democracies is simple: You can join Bush in taking the war to the terrorists, to their redoubts and sponsoring regimes. Despite the sneers that terrorism is a phenomenon and you can't wage war against a phenomenon, in fact you can – as the Royal Navy did very successfully against the malign phenomena of an earlier age, piracy and slavery.
Or you can stick your head in the sand and paint a burqa on your butt. But they'll blow it up anyway. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 15, 2004
Steyn (Need I say more?) on Madrid, placard wavers who claim to have never liked a certain Texan and his supposedly neocon Zionist sidekicks, those who only want "peace," and those who would do just about anything to try to avoid "offending" Islamikazes:
. . . Even if you'd avoided Iraq or Andalusia or British banks or Pilger or any other affront to Islamist sensibilities, you'd still be a target. As the PR guy for the Islamic Army of Aden said after blowing up that French tanker: "We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels." Commissioner Keelty is confusing old-school terrorism – blowing the legs off grannies as a means to an end – with the new: blowing the legs off grannies is the end. Old-school terrorists have relatively viable goals: They want a Basque state or Northern Ireland removed from the UK. You might not agree with these goals, you might not think them negotiable, but at least they're not stark staring insane. . .
. . .If Islamic terrorism were as rational as Irish or Basque terrorism, it would be easier. But Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, summed it up very pithily: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." You can be pro-America (Spain, Australia) or anti-America (France, Canada), but if you broke into the head cave in the Hindu Kush and checked out the hit list you'd be on it either way.
So the choice for pluralist democracies is simple: You can join Bush in taking the war to the terrorists, to their redoubts and sponsoring regimes. Despite the sneers that terrorism is a phenomenon and you can't wage war against a phenomenon, in fact you can – as the Royal Navy did very successfully against the malign phenomena of an earlier age, piracy and slavery.
Or you can stick your head in the sand and paint a burqa on your butt. But they'll blow it up anyway. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 15, 2004
KERRY THE COWARD?
Methinks here's one guy John Kerry won't be having at "Kerry for Pres" rallies. The Telegraph reports:
John Kerry, the Democratic challenger for the White House, is embroiled in fresh controversy over his much-vaunted Vietnam war record, after one of his crew members accused him of cowardice and making strategic mistakes in battle.
The testimony of Steven Gardner, a gunner's mate on the first patrol boat commanded by Mr Kerry in the Mekong delta, contradicts accounts of the senator's military career that depict him as a brave and aggressive lieutenant who won three Purple Hearts and which are a key element of his campaign against George Bush.
"He absolutely did not want to engage the enemy when I was with him," Mr Gardner said in an interview with the Boston Globe, which contacted him about the presidential candidate. "He wouldn't go in there and search. That is why I have a negative viewpoint of John Kerry.
"His initial patterns of behaviour when I met him and served under him were of somebody who ran from the enemy, rather than engaged it.". . .
Maybe the common bond they share of fearing an enemy helps better explain Spain's new prime minister's affinity for Kerry, no? ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 15, 2004
Methinks here's one guy John Kerry won't be having at "Kerry for Pres" rallies. The Telegraph reports:
John Kerry, the Democratic challenger for the White House, is embroiled in fresh controversy over his much-vaunted Vietnam war record, after one of his crew members accused him of cowardice and making strategic mistakes in battle.
The testimony of Steven Gardner, a gunner's mate on the first patrol boat commanded by Mr Kerry in the Mekong delta, contradicts accounts of the senator's military career that depict him as a brave and aggressive lieutenant who won three Purple Hearts and which are a key element of his campaign against George Bush.
"He absolutely did not want to engage the enemy when I was with him," Mr Gardner said in an interview with the Boston Globe, which contacted him about the presidential candidate. "He wouldn't go in there and search. That is why I have a negative viewpoint of John Kerry.
"His initial patterns of behaviour when I met him and served under him were of somebody who ran from the enemy, rather than engaged it.". . .
Maybe the common bond they share of fearing an enemy helps better explain Spain's new prime minister's affinity for Kerry, no? ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 15, 2004
THREE MINUTES OF QUIET
Sky reports:
People in Britain and throughout Europe have observed a three-minute silence in memory of the Madrid bombing victims.
Cities fell silent at 11am in a Europe-wide mark of respect first suggested by Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern.
The tribute was recognised in Government departments, businesses and public places across the continent. . .
Very moving, but ultimately empty. Why?
Because the new John Kerry-inspired Spanish government paid further tribute to those killed and maimed by announcing it plans to "run away! run away!", and therefore grant Islamikazes a victory.
'Cause appeasement will show 'em!
After all, it, urrr, has worked before . . .
It hurts to write this, but Spanish "progressives" for decades moaned and shouted (and with good reason) about how the democracies (primarily Britain and France, but also the U.S.) were so worried about offending Hitler, that they offered little help to Republican Spain in its battle against Franco's German and Italian backed fascists:
. . . 20th July 1936
Prime Minister Giral appealed to the French Socialist Government (whose Prime Minister was Leon Blum) for arms supplies. . .
. . . 8th August 1936
The French Government changed its attitude towards Republican Spain and stopped further sales of arms and ammunition. . .
Well, on Sunday, Spaniards announced that today's democratic and free Spain is willing to abandon Iraq, because Spain apparently doesn't think much of Iraqi hopes for freedom, and Spain is afraid of this generation's Nazis.
Fortunately, with American, British, Italian, Polish support, and the support of other free peoples, Iraq may not suffer the same fate as Republican Spain.
However, it would seem likely that one day a democratic Iraq will remember Spain's Socialists' sorry position on Iraqi freedom as Spain today remembers the negligible help Britain and France lent Spain's Republican/Socialist government during the Spanish Civil War.
Indeed, I don't ever again wish to hear another Spanish "intellectual" groan/bitch about British, France and U.S. inaction in their civil war from 1936-1939. That "guilt debt" is now paid. For when Spanish socialists were given the chance -- in Iraq -- to show how things really should have been done back between 1936-1939, those socialists have instead chosen to blow that chance off, big time.
How sad -- for Spain.
UPDATE: Allah Is In The House puts it this way:
. . . Allah sees that some people are blaming the election results not on Spanish cowardice toward Allah but on Spanish anger toward Aznar for supposedly trying to mislead the country about who caused the attack. Please do not do this. In the first place, it tarnishes Allah's victory. In the second place, it is factually wrong. As this report from the day of the attack makes clear, Spain's Interior Minister wasted no time in calling a press conference to incriminate Al Qaeda once the van with the detonators and Koran was found. No doubt there are more than a few Spaniards sitting at home right now trying to forget that fact and convince themselves that it was Aznar's "deception," not their own terror at the prospect of more surprise visits from Allah, that led them to vote socialist today. Keep telling yourself that, amigo; maybe it'll take. But you and Allah know the truth, don't we? And the truth is, you are Allah's bitch now. Go make Allah a sandwich, bitch. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 15, 2004
Sky reports:
People in Britain and throughout Europe have observed a three-minute silence in memory of the Madrid bombing victims.
Cities fell silent at 11am in a Europe-wide mark of respect first suggested by Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern.
The tribute was recognised in Government departments, businesses and public places across the continent. . .
Very moving, but ultimately empty. Why?
Because the new John Kerry-inspired Spanish government paid further tribute to those killed and maimed by announcing it plans to "run away! run away!", and therefore grant Islamikazes a victory.
'Cause appeasement will show 'em!
After all, it, urrr, has worked before . . .
It hurts to write this, but Spanish "progressives" for decades moaned and shouted (and with good reason) about how the democracies (primarily Britain and France, but also the U.S.) were so worried about offending Hitler, that they offered little help to Republican Spain in its battle against Franco's German and Italian backed fascists:
. . . 20th July 1936
Prime Minister Giral appealed to the French Socialist Government (whose Prime Minister was Leon Blum) for arms supplies. . .
. . . 8th August 1936
The French Government changed its attitude towards Republican Spain and stopped further sales of arms and ammunition. . .
Well, on Sunday, Spaniards announced that today's democratic and free Spain is willing to abandon Iraq, because Spain apparently doesn't think much of Iraqi hopes for freedom, and Spain is afraid of this generation's Nazis.
Fortunately, with American, British, Italian, Polish support, and the support of other free peoples, Iraq may not suffer the same fate as Republican Spain.
However, it would seem likely that one day a democratic Iraq will remember Spain's Socialists' sorry position on Iraqi freedom as Spain today remembers the negligible help Britain and France lent Spain's Republican/Socialist government during the Spanish Civil War.
Indeed, I don't ever again wish to hear another Spanish "intellectual" groan/bitch about British, France and U.S. inaction in their civil war from 1936-1939. That "guilt debt" is now paid. For when Spanish socialists were given the chance -- in Iraq -- to show how things really should have been done back between 1936-1939, those socialists have instead chosen to blow that chance off, big time.
How sad -- for Spain.
UPDATE: Allah Is In The House puts it this way:
. . . Allah sees that some people are blaming the election results not on Spanish cowardice toward Allah but on Spanish anger toward Aznar for supposedly trying to mislead the country about who caused the attack. Please do not do this. In the first place, it tarnishes Allah's victory. In the second place, it is factually wrong. As this report from the day of the attack makes clear, Spain's Interior Minister wasted no time in calling a press conference to incriminate Al Qaeda once the van with the detonators and Koran was found. No doubt there are more than a few Spaniards sitting at home right now trying to forget that fact and convince themselves that it was Aznar's "deception," not their own terror at the prospect of more surprise visits from Allah, that led them to vote socialist today. Keep telling yourself that, amigo; maybe it'll take. But you and Allah know the truth, don't we? And the truth is, you are Allah's bitch now. Go make Allah a sandwich, bitch. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 15, 2004
NOT VERY DIPLOMATIC OF THEM
CNN reports:
Police in the southern Pakistani city of Karachi say they have defused a large bomb found in a stolen minivan parked outside the U.S. Consulate. . .
. . .Two men left the vehicle parked next to the consulate perimeter wall Monday morning, and when questioned by police said it had broken down, promising to return to fix it.
Police then found a water tank in the van filled with liquid explosives, which was hooked up to a timer and detonator. . .
Sounds like a bunch with whom we should be compromising.
Or, it might have just been parked there and forgotten innocently, and purely by accident, by some good "boys" as they were heading off to a wedding/to computer class/to find themselves. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 15, 2004
CNN reports:
Police in the southern Pakistani city of Karachi say they have defused a large bomb found in a stolen minivan parked outside the U.S. Consulate. . .
. . .Two men left the vehicle parked next to the consulate perimeter wall Monday morning, and when questioned by police said it had broken down, promising to return to fix it.
Police then found a water tank in the van filled with liquid explosives, which was hooked up to a timer and detonator. . .
Sounds like a bunch with whom we should be compromising.
Or, it might have just been parked there and forgotten innocently, and purely by accident, by some good "boys" as they were heading off to a wedding/to computer class/to find themselves. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 15, 2004
BLITZED BRITAIN
Stephen Pollard tells us:
Did you have a good time on Saturday night? The chances are that, if you’re under the age of about thirty, you’ll answer ‘yes’ if you woke up yesterday morning – more likely still, yesterday afternoon – with a hangover. . .
. . .Awful, yes; but hardly shocking. We know we’re drinking too much, and we like it. As a nation, we go out specifically to get drunk. That’s what it is today to be British. It’s the culture, stupid. . .
And it seems to be getting worse . . .
But the Islamists will deal with it, when they take over. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 15, 2004
Stephen Pollard tells us:
Did you have a good time on Saturday night? The chances are that, if you’re under the age of about thirty, you’ll answer ‘yes’ if you woke up yesterday morning – more likely still, yesterday afternoon – with a hangover. . .
. . .Awful, yes; but hardly shocking. We know we’re drinking too much, and we like it. As a nation, we go out specifically to get drunk. That’s what it is today to be British. It’s the culture, stupid. . .
And it seems to be getting worse . . .
But the Islamists will deal with it, when they take over. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 15, 2004
"90 PERCENT"
The BBC, of course, found a Spanish voter who told the Beeb exactly what the Beeb wanted us hear:
In 1991, we all know that President George H.W. Bush went over "90 percent" approval at the time of the ejection of Saddam Hussein's thug army from Kuwait. Again, anyone who didn't live in a fantasy world knew at the time that level of support wasn't going to last.
I always have felt that when a poll comes out in which we are told "90 percent" of any democratic population is in favor of/against anything that is controversial, there might be something wrong with that poll.
We have seen that again.
We have heard for a year now that "90 percent" of Spaniards were opposed to the "war in Iraq." However, the Popular Party, which was led we all know by outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar (who was not himself running for re-election on Sunday -- it was as if he were Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton in 1988 and 2000 respectively; another man would have been prime minister, had the party won) got around 38% of the vote in yesterday's election, while the vehemently anti-Iraq liberation Socialists garnered 42%.
What does that tell us? On the surface, two things jump out immediately:
1) The war in Iraq was NOT as determining an electoral issue for Spaniards as was implied by those polls (and that BBC quoted law student) telling us "90 percent" of them opposed the war. After all, if the war were as massively unpopular as us foreigners were led to believe, why would so many who "opposed the war" still support the party that backed the war? That party should have been utterly creamed. Yes, they lost. But they weren't humiliated.
Parliamentary democracies are often wildly unpredictable. There were probably numerous other reasons for the government's defeat -- such as some people who would have voted for them, turned on them after the bombings on Thursday. Such does happen.
2) The polls that told us "90 percent" of Spaniards were opposed to Iraq's liberation were just messed up, and/or unreflective of reality, or just plain wrong.
It just goes to show one more time that the only poll that REALLY matters is the one held on election day.
Sky reports that Prime Minister-elect Zapatero stated that he would:
All told, it appears that a decidedly "nuanced", and Kerry-influenced Spanish government is about to take office. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 15, 2004
The BBC, of course, found a Spanish voter who told the Beeb exactly what the Beeb wanted us hear:
. . .Many people admitted they had not planned to vote until the bombings.Now, President George W. Bush had over a "90 percent" approval rating in polls taken in the days and weeks after September 11, 2001. Anyone with half a brain knew that was hardly his "natural" approval rating. It was more a national attitude of "circle the wagons" and back the guy in power. Bill Clinton, if he were in office, or Al Gore, had he won, would have seen similar approval.
"It's the first time I voted. I feel very happy because the government had to change... because of the Iraq war," a Spanish law student told the BBC. . .
In 1991, we all know that President George H.W. Bush went over "90 percent" approval at the time of the ejection of Saddam Hussein's thug army from Kuwait. Again, anyone who didn't live in a fantasy world knew at the time that level of support wasn't going to last.
I always have felt that when a poll comes out in which we are told "90 percent" of any democratic population is in favor of/against anything that is controversial, there might be something wrong with that poll.
We have seen that again.
We have heard for a year now that "90 percent" of Spaniards were opposed to the "war in Iraq." However, the Popular Party, which was led we all know by outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar (who was not himself running for re-election on Sunday -- it was as if he were Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton in 1988 and 2000 respectively; another man would have been prime minister, had the party won) got around 38% of the vote in yesterday's election, while the vehemently anti-Iraq liberation Socialists garnered 42%.
What does that tell us? On the surface, two things jump out immediately:
1) The war in Iraq was NOT as determining an electoral issue for Spaniards as was implied by those polls (and that BBC quoted law student) telling us "90 percent" of them opposed the war. After all, if the war were as massively unpopular as us foreigners were led to believe, why would so many who "opposed the war" still support the party that backed the war? That party should have been utterly creamed. Yes, they lost. But they weren't humiliated.
Parliamentary democracies are often wildly unpredictable. There were probably numerous other reasons for the government's defeat -- such as some people who would have voted for them, turned on them after the bombings on Thursday. Such does happen.
2) The polls that told us "90 percent" of Spaniards were opposed to Iraq's liberation were just messed up, and/or unreflective of reality, or just plain wrong.
It just goes to show one more time that the only poll that REALLY matters is the one held on election day.
Sky reports that Prime Minister-elect Zapatero stated that he would:
. . . fulfil his election pledge to bring home the Spanish peacekeepers serving in Iraq.He is obviously treading lightly here. Leaving Iraq by June 30, when there should be a sovereign Iraqi government, is hardly radical, and should keep Socialist voters who were opposed to Iraq's liberation relatively happy. And:
Jose Zapatero said they would leave Iraq by June 30, the date the US has promised to transfer sovereignty to a provisional government. . .
. . .Mr Zapatero has promised to form a new government focused on fighting terrorism.Which will probably be enough to keep Spain within the anti-terror coalition, at least in name.
All told, it appears that a decidedly "nuanced", and Kerry-influenced Spanish government is about to take office. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 15, 2004
WELL, WE'VE FOUND ONE
Remember how we've heard about those "foreign leaders" who would love to see John Kerry become president? Well, we have apparently found one. BoTW had this on Friday -- which was obviously before his party won the Spanish election on Sunday:
. . . we did find one foreign leader of sorts who is publicly endorsing Kerry. The Majorca Daily Bulletin (second item) quotes Jose Luiz Zapatero, the Socialist candidate for prime minister of Spain: "The first thing I will do when I am elected is to go to the United States and support John Kerry."
Oh, good grief.
Socialists the world over usually make a big deal out of foreigners' they don't like "meddling" in their country's domestic affairs.
Of course, Jose wouldn't be "meddling" in U.S. domestic politics, by stomping for Kerry. . .
Further in that same article is this interesting bit:
. . .Mr. Anthony Blair . . . has not uttered a single word of encouragement for his Spanish counterpart, in fact he wined and dined Rajoy [Aznar's would-be successor, defeated on Sunday] at Number 10, just recently. You can understand why there is no love lost between the Zapatero camp and Blair. Surely a socialist government in Spain would be better for Blair? Obviously not.
Hmmm.
Just, hmmm.
What will the impact be on the issue of Gibraltar? Under Aznar, things seemed to be "moving forward" (or not, depending on one's perspective). The Gibraltar Chronicle notes:
People and dialogue are the first priority in the PSOE’s approach to the Gibraltar question. That is the position as confirmed by PSOE senator Jose Carracao last night following the news of an election victory for the socialists. . .
He said he would be making an effort to bring about a renewal of dialogue with the Rock. . .
Regardless, there seems now much less chance that a Blair government is going to offer to share sovereignty with a Zapatero Spain, and even less chance that Britain will cede the colony over entirely. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 15, 2004
Remember how we've heard about those "foreign leaders" who would love to see John Kerry become president? Well, we have apparently found one. BoTW had this on Friday -- which was obviously before his party won the Spanish election on Sunday:
. . . we did find one foreign leader of sorts who is publicly endorsing Kerry. The Majorca Daily Bulletin (second item) quotes Jose Luiz Zapatero, the Socialist candidate for prime minister of Spain: "The first thing I will do when I am elected is to go to the United States and support John Kerry."
Oh, good grief.
Socialists the world over usually make a big deal out of foreigners' they don't like "meddling" in their country's domestic affairs.
Of course, Jose wouldn't be "meddling" in U.S. domestic politics, by stomping for Kerry. . .
Further in that same article is this interesting bit:
. . .Mr. Anthony Blair . . . has not uttered a single word of encouragement for his Spanish counterpart, in fact he wined and dined Rajoy [Aznar's would-be successor, defeated on Sunday] at Number 10, just recently. You can understand why there is no love lost between the Zapatero camp and Blair. Surely a socialist government in Spain would be better for Blair? Obviously not.
Hmmm.
Just, hmmm.
What will the impact be on the issue of Gibraltar? Under Aznar, things seemed to be "moving forward" (or not, depending on one's perspective). The Gibraltar Chronicle notes:
People and dialogue are the first priority in the PSOE’s approach to the Gibraltar question. That is the position as confirmed by PSOE senator Jose Carracao last night following the news of an election victory for the socialists. . .
He said he would be making an effort to bring about a renewal of dialogue with the Rock. . .
Regardless, there seems now much less chance that a Blair government is going to offer to share sovereignty with a Zapatero Spain, and even less chance that Britain will cede the colony over entirely. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 15, 2004
A SPECIAL DAY
Fortunately, someone has the beauty, grace, charm and wit in the family. . .
Happy Birthday, to my wife! ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 15, 2004
Fortunately, someone has the beauty, grace, charm and wit in the family. . .
Happy Birthday, to my wife! ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 15, 2004
Sunday, March 14, 2004
THE AFTERMATH CONTINUES (SUNDAY)
UPDATE VI: If you are interested in following the Spanish vote, The Command Post is a good place to, urrr, base yourself.
Yeh, yeh, I know that was bad. It's Sunday night, and I have probably spent way too much time sitting in front of the PC these last few days. Time to call it a night. Until tomorrow. . .
UPDATE V: On the Spanish vote, Debbye points out:
. . .whatever the outcome, the fact that they are taking place at all constitutes one victory against terrorism. . .
I guess one might say they have tossed out Churchill's government -- but with the war still unwon.
And why do I suspect that Socialist leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero ain't exactly another Clement Attlee?
UPDATE IV: Spain votes. At about 2130 tonight, the BBC reported:
Spain's opposition Socialist party has claimed an unexpected victory in the country's general election with almost all the votes counted.
The Socialists have won 43% of the vote while the centre-right Popular Party has garnered 38%, reports say. . .
. . .Outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and his wife were booed and jostled as they arrived to cast their votes.
As he tried to address supporters, he was drowned out by cries of "manipulators", "liars" and "peace". . .
ITV here in Britain reports:
. . .Protesters shouted "Liar" and "Get our troops out of Iraq" at PP candidate Mariano Rajoy when he voted. . .
So, that would seem to indicate, then, that the Spanish have decided to change sides, and join al Qaeda, perhaps? After all, "peace" with al Qaeda and Islamist terrorists can be assured only if you JOIN their side, and abandon, as Scott Burgess notes below, those basic freedoms democratic peoples now take for granted.
Iberian Notes is extremely pessimistic:
. . .It's clear: the people of Spain are not willing to risk standing up to domestic or international terrorism and would prefer to appease the terrorists in hopes that they will be left alone in the future. Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero will be the next Prime Minister, and one of the first things he will do is pull Spain out of the Coalition. Spain will join the Paris-Berlin axis. I assume Spanish troops will soon be leaving Iraq.
The especially bad news is that Zap doesn't have an absolute majority and will have to form a coalition with the Communists and just maybe Esquerra Republicana, just like here in Barcelona and Catalonia. Prepare yourselves for four years of that. Carod-Rovira as Interior Minister. Good God. . .
. . .A victory for appeasement. A victory for cowardice. The Spanish people demonstrated today that they have no courage.
Well, we are told that "90 percent" of Spaniards opposed Aznar's stance on Iraq, and presumably almost as many opposed then -- to be logical -- the war on Islamist terror in Afghanistan, after the WTC was destroyed in New York.
Maybe Spain had already gone over to the Islamists, and the Aznar government was an unrepresentative illusion all these years?
So, we'll see. Mouthing off in opposition is one thing. Governing, as we all know, is entirely something else . . .
If Spain has decided to join the Islamist camp, a counterattacking al Qaeda has managed its first victory, after losing in both Afghanistan and in Iraq.
The war continues. . .
One thing, though. Even if the likes of freedom of speech, and the right to be Christian mean nothing to the Spanish, women having to wear a burqua on a Spanish beach, not to mention the forthcoming ban on both alcohol and music, are probably going to hurt the tourist industry a little bit.
But Spain will have "peace", one supposes. . .
UPDATE III: "A zero-compromise, exclusively confrontational approach to terrorism" clearly isn't the way to go, according to a Times letter writer. So Scott Burgess offers a helpful series of suggestions as to which "nuanced" compromises the enemy apparently wishes we make -- in return for his ceasing to blow himself up whenever the mood strikes him, and maybe cut down on the number of suicidal, airplane hijackings. Sounds like a basis for beginning an, urrrr, useful dialogue:
. . . It seems like you're angry at us because our culture is decadent and corrupting, and that you'd be a lot happier with us if we were more like your Taliban friends. So, in the spirit of compromise, we're willing to take the following steps:
Homosexuality and adultery will be punishable by stoning
Women will be unable to leave the house unless accompanied by a male relative
Teaching Christianity will be punishable by death
Music will be outlawed
Education for females will be banned. . .
Because that is the sort of "compromise" this enemy requires.
Come to think of it, a much more accurate term would be . . . surrender.
UPDATE II: On the arrests, Iberian Notes cautions:
. . . I should point out that the people detained in Madrid are linked to having sold the mobile phone and fake phone card used as a timer in the backpack bomb that didn't go off, so this isn't precisely ironclad proof of an Al Qaeda job. . .
But we have to bear in mind, too, that conspiracies sometimes unravel over the dumbest things -- like arrogantly returning to attempt to reclaim one's rental deposit, claiming the vehicle had been stolen, AFTER the truck had already been used for a bombing.
INITIAL POST
At church this morning, I suspect that we will, yet again, be reminded how Christianity REALLY is a religion of peace. . .
Meanwhile, the BBC reports that members of the religion of "To Kill First and Be Killed" (KFBK) really, really want "the credit":
Al-Qaeda has allegedly said it carried out the deadly Madrid train bombings that killed 200 people, Spain's interior minister has said.
Angel Acebes said police had recovered a videotape in which a man identifying himself as al-Qaeda's military spokesman in Europe makes the claim.
The minister says the authenticity of the videotape has not been verified. . .
. . . In the video, a man speaking Arabic with a Moroccan accent says the attacks were revenge for Spain's "collaboration with the criminals Bush and his allies", the government said. . .
Sky reports:
. . .It includes threats such as "we love death" and warns that more "blood will flow", taunts Spain for its support of the war on terror.
"We declare our responsibility for what happened in Madrid exactly two-and-a-half years after the attacks on New York and Washington," the man said, according to a government translation of the tape. . .
Ooooooh, I bet his Bush sounds likes "Boooooooooosh." Notice how they can't even pronounce his name well. It's always "Boooooooooosh".
They are actually incredibly lucky our response to their barbarity has never been, Boooooooooooooooom!!!
After all, considering their attitude, how long would there be a Vatican, or a New York, if they possessed nuclear weapons?
But we are supposedly the "imperialists"?
They are damn lucky we are so restrained . . .
Not Christian, I know.
Which is why I have to go to church this morning. . .
UPDATE: 1015, British time. I knew it! We did again today, the sort of diabolical things we do every Sunday!:
1) At one interval, the congregation all sang "Make Me A Channel of Your Peace."
2) Before Communion, we were "Peace be with you"-ing, while shaking hands with our neighboring parishioners.
3) The priest wished the congregation "Peace be with you", moments before concluding the service.
And, curiously enough, the priest made not a mention of blowing ourselves up in the name of our faith. . .
Go figure. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, March 14, 2004
UPDATE VI: If you are interested in following the Spanish vote, The Command Post is a good place to, urrr, base yourself.
Yeh, yeh, I know that was bad. It's Sunday night, and I have probably spent way too much time sitting in front of the PC these last few days. Time to call it a night. Until tomorrow. . .
UPDATE V: On the Spanish vote, Debbye points out:
. . .whatever the outcome, the fact that they are taking place at all constitutes one victory against terrorism. . .
I guess one might say they have tossed out Churchill's government -- but with the war still unwon.
And why do I suspect that Socialist leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero ain't exactly another Clement Attlee?
UPDATE IV: Spain votes. At about 2130 tonight, the BBC reported:
Spain's opposition Socialist party has claimed an unexpected victory in the country's general election with almost all the votes counted.
The Socialists have won 43% of the vote while the centre-right Popular Party has garnered 38%, reports say. . .
. . .Outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and his wife were booed and jostled as they arrived to cast their votes.
As he tried to address supporters, he was drowned out by cries of "manipulators", "liars" and "peace". . .
ITV here in Britain reports:
. . .Protesters shouted "Liar" and "Get our troops out of Iraq" at PP candidate Mariano Rajoy when he voted. . .
So, that would seem to indicate, then, that the Spanish have decided to change sides, and join al Qaeda, perhaps? After all, "peace" with al Qaeda and Islamist terrorists can be assured only if you JOIN their side, and abandon, as Scott Burgess notes below, those basic freedoms democratic peoples now take for granted.
Iberian Notes is extremely pessimistic:
. . .It's clear: the people of Spain are not willing to risk standing up to domestic or international terrorism and would prefer to appease the terrorists in hopes that they will be left alone in the future. Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero will be the next Prime Minister, and one of the first things he will do is pull Spain out of the Coalition. Spain will join the Paris-Berlin axis. I assume Spanish troops will soon be leaving Iraq.
The especially bad news is that Zap doesn't have an absolute majority and will have to form a coalition with the Communists and just maybe Esquerra Republicana, just like here in Barcelona and Catalonia. Prepare yourselves for four years of that. Carod-Rovira as Interior Minister. Good God. . .
. . .A victory for appeasement. A victory for cowardice. The Spanish people demonstrated today that they have no courage.
Well, we are told that "90 percent" of Spaniards opposed Aznar's stance on Iraq, and presumably almost as many opposed then -- to be logical -- the war on Islamist terror in Afghanistan, after the WTC was destroyed in New York.
Maybe Spain had already gone over to the Islamists, and the Aznar government was an unrepresentative illusion all these years?
So, we'll see. Mouthing off in opposition is one thing. Governing, as we all know, is entirely something else . . .
If Spain has decided to join the Islamist camp, a counterattacking al Qaeda has managed its first victory, after losing in both Afghanistan and in Iraq.
The war continues. . .
One thing, though. Even if the likes of freedom of speech, and the right to be Christian mean nothing to the Spanish, women having to wear a burqua on a Spanish beach, not to mention the forthcoming ban on both alcohol and music, are probably going to hurt the tourist industry a little bit.
But Spain will have "peace", one supposes. . .
UPDATE III: "A zero-compromise, exclusively confrontational approach to terrorism" clearly isn't the way to go, according to a Times letter writer. So Scott Burgess offers a helpful series of suggestions as to which "nuanced" compromises the enemy apparently wishes we make -- in return for his ceasing to blow himself up whenever the mood strikes him, and maybe cut down on the number of suicidal, airplane hijackings. Sounds like a basis for beginning an, urrrr, useful dialogue:
. . . It seems like you're angry at us because our culture is decadent and corrupting, and that you'd be a lot happier with us if we were more like your Taliban friends. So, in the spirit of compromise, we're willing to take the following steps:
Homosexuality and adultery will be punishable by stoning
Women will be unable to leave the house unless accompanied by a male relative
Teaching Christianity will be punishable by death
Music will be outlawed
Education for females will be banned. . .
Because that is the sort of "compromise" this enemy requires.
Come to think of it, a much more accurate term would be . . . surrender.
UPDATE II: On the arrests, Iberian Notes cautions:
. . . I should point out that the people detained in Madrid are linked to having sold the mobile phone and fake phone card used as a timer in the backpack bomb that didn't go off, so this isn't precisely ironclad proof of an Al Qaeda job. . .
But we have to bear in mind, too, that conspiracies sometimes unravel over the dumbest things -- like arrogantly returning to attempt to reclaim one's rental deposit, claiming the vehicle had been stolen, AFTER the truck had already been used for a bombing.
INITIAL POST
At church this morning, I suspect that we will, yet again, be reminded how Christianity REALLY is a religion of peace. . .
Meanwhile, the BBC reports that members of the religion of "To Kill First and Be Killed" (KFBK) really, really want "the credit":
Al-Qaeda has allegedly said it carried out the deadly Madrid train bombings that killed 200 people, Spain's interior minister has said.
Angel Acebes said police had recovered a videotape in which a man identifying himself as al-Qaeda's military spokesman in Europe makes the claim.
The minister says the authenticity of the videotape has not been verified. . .
. . . In the video, a man speaking Arabic with a Moroccan accent says the attacks were revenge for Spain's "collaboration with the criminals Bush and his allies", the government said. . .
Sky reports:
. . .It includes threats such as "we love death" and warns that more "blood will flow", taunts Spain for its support of the war on terror.
"We declare our responsibility for what happened in Madrid exactly two-and-a-half years after the attacks on New York and Washington," the man said, according to a government translation of the tape. . .
Ooooooh, I bet his Bush sounds likes "Boooooooooosh." Notice how they can't even pronounce his name well. It's always "Boooooooooosh".
They are actually incredibly lucky our response to their barbarity has never been, Boooooooooooooooom!!!
After all, considering their attitude, how long would there be a Vatican, or a New York, if they possessed nuclear weapons?
But we are supposedly the "imperialists"?
They are damn lucky we are so restrained . . .
Not Christian, I know.
Which is why I have to go to church this morning. . .
UPDATE: 1015, British time. I knew it! We did again today, the sort of diabolical things we do every Sunday!:
1) At one interval, the congregation all sang "Make Me A Channel of Your Peace."
2) Before Communion, we were "Peace be with you"-ing, while shaking hands with our neighboring parishioners.
3) The priest wished the congregation "Peace be with you", moments before concluding the service.
And, curiously enough, the priest made not a mention of blowing ourselves up in the name of our faith. . .
Go figure. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, March 14, 2004
Saturday, March 13, 2004
THE AFTERMATH CONTINUES. . .
UPDATE VIII: Le Monde tells us that according to a "spiritual head" of a "radical Muslim group" in London, Italy is next:
. . . La revendication des attentats de Madrid par Al-Qaida est "authentique" et l'Italie pourrait être la prochaine cible, a affirmé vendredi 12 mars à Londres le cheikh Omar Bakri, chef spirituel du groupe radical musulman Al-Mouhadjiroun et soupçonné d'être lié à Abou Qatada, chef présumé d'Al-Qaida en Europe. . .
The Google translation is here. How much truth is buried within that? Who knows.
Back in February, the BBC quoted a cuddly, lovable "spiritual leader" of the same name preaching this to a group of huggable "young Muslims" in London:
. . . People like to call it suicide bombing," he says. "We call it self sacrifice. You must fight for the way of Allah - to kill first and be killed.". . .
So that's what it is: The "Religion to kill first and be killed."
Sounds like Omar's got what it takes to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury.
Why is he walking around loose?
Check that. He is probably yet another innocent, just getting ready to leave for a wedding/to take a computer course/to find himself. . .
UPDATE VII: CNN reminds us that elsewhere the battle for freedom continues . . .
Two U.S. soldiers were killed and five wounded in Iraq Saturday when their armored Humvee was hit by a roadside bomb in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, the U.S. military said.
The soldiers from the 1st Infantry Division were on patrol, the military said, when the Humvee was attacked around 5 a.m. (9 p.m. Friday ET).
Also Saturday, a store owner was killed and two passers-by, including a little girl, were wounded when an explosion rocked a Muslim clothing store on a busy Baghdad street, Iraqi authorities and eyewitnesses said. . .
UPDATE VI: Gee, I thought the new togetherness would have lasted AT LEAST until next week. Deutsche Welle ("The Voice of Germany") has this headline:
U.S. military announces new operation aimed at destroying 'terrorist organisations'
Is that a direct quote of some American official using the phrase "terrorist organizations," and therefore an attempt to be accurate?
That expression doesn't appear in the entire text:
The U.S. military has announced a sweeping new operation across southern and eastern Afghanistan aimed at destroying al-Qaida and Taliban infrastructure. The announcement comes as the U. S. intensifies its hunt for Osama bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, who are believed to be hiding in the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. U.S. military officials have said the operation will involve the entire U.S.-led coalition and is in effect a continuation of tactics already being used, such as patrols, searches and small scale air assaults.
Is Deutsche Welle unsure if bin Laden and co are terrorists, or if they lead organizations, or both?
Or is DW unsure that the U.S. is aiming at those things that DW is unsure that bin Laden and co might or might not actually be?
Maybe DW believes the U.S. is using the bin Laden excuse as a way to cover up planned U.S. attacks on "baby milk" factories?
UPDATE V: Sullivan (Need I say more?):
This is a war, Senator Kerry, not a law enforcement operation.
Thank you, Andrew. Thank you.
UPDATE IV: Jarvis:
Don't give the bastards an inch.
UPDATE III: 2200, British time. ITV here in Britain is saying:
Three Moroccans and two Indians have been arrested in Madrid as part of the investigation into train bombings that killed 200 people.
Spain's Interior Minister Angel Acebes said: "Sixty hours after the brutal attack we now have five detentions."
He added that the detentions were made "for presumed implication in the sale and falsification of the mobile phone and cards found in the bag that did not explode."
Acebes added: "It's the beginning of the investigation, but it opens an important path to advance down ... I give you this information with a lot of caution and prudence."
He said some of those arrested may have links to Moroccan militants, but it was too early to say for sure. . .
I like the "may have links to Moroccan militants". We have lots of people out there who "may have links" to so and so, etc., and so on. We have become so measured in our commentary. . .
Imagine it's 1944-1945, and Allied officials are stating that captured SS "may have links" to the Nazi regime. . .
UPDATE II: 2150, British time. Got five bastards. Sky reports:
Five people have been arrested in Spain in connection with the Madrid train bombings which killed 200 people and injured 1,500.
Three are Moroccans and two are of "Hindu" origin, Interior Minister Angel Acebes revealed. . .
Well, well. "They don't look like Presbyterians to me."
UPDATE: 1850, British time. That will teach me!
Sensing my marriage was in danger if I spent as much time in front of a PC today as I had on Thursday and Friday, we went out to Hampton Court, which is best known as a residence of Henry VIII. It is a great place to visit, walk around the gardens, and clear one's head.
Naturally, on the car radio as we were driving home, I heard that there is a report that Spanish intelligence is "99 percent" sure that the bombings were the work of Islamikazes. The BBC reports:
. . . Spanish Interior Minister Angel Acebes says that Basque separatists remain the most likely perpetrators, but Islamic militants have not been ruled out.
However, at a noisy rally in Madrid, protesters accused the government of manipulating facts about the attackers.
Hundreds of demonstrators chanted "Liars! Liars!" and "Tell us the truth!"
They told reporters the government had been trying to promote the theory that Eta was responsible for its own political advantage ahead of Sunday's general elections. . .
. . . a radio station claimed to have been told that investigators are "99% certain" of involvement by Islamic militants by an unnamed intelligence source, but this has not been confirmed.
This is "going ugly." Why? Because there are two definite streams of thought here:
1) If it is ETA, it is Spain's problem. A big one, decidedly. But one with which many Spanish appear to be, believe it or not, "comfortable". ETA is a constant enemy, and Spaniards may hate that enemy. This might just have been the worst attack that enemy has ever made. But there appear at least to be familiar "rules of engagement" between Spain and that enemy.
2) On the other hand, if it is Islamikazes, Spain has just been dragged into the 21st century, global mainstream. It is perceived now as being part of the Western alliance. Some Spaniards clearly don't like that idea. They seem to think that Spain's standing strongly with the U.S., Britain, Australia, Poland and other democracies in defending freedom is something Spain should not be doing. At best, they believe that Spain should be "neutral", and appear to resent the Aznar government's stance.
Americans discovered to their collective horror on September 11, 2001 that freedom cannot coexist with "Islamikaze-dom". It would have made not one wit of difference if one were the biggest booster of the "Palestinian cause", if one were the loudest supporter of destroying the "Great Satan," if one backed making sure a woman did not step out a front door without a male relative keeping a close eye on her at all times, if one converted and shouted the loudest prayers imaginable, if one did nothing but face eastwards all day, if one spent one's life trying to live as the Koran demanded . . . if one also happened to be a passenger, uninvolved in the plot, on one of four U.S. passenger jets on the morning of September 11, 2001. One would have been murdered just the same.
So, if Spaniards honestly believe they can continue to live in freedom while Islamikazes roam this earth, Spaniards are terribly mistaken. Americans learned the same the hard way on September 11, 2001. Spaniards should not blame Jose Maria Aznar. It's not his fault. The fault lies with the Islamikazes. Spaniards should remember that.
INITIAL POST
ETA or Islamists? Everyone, it seems, has an opinion. Mine?
I don't have one yet, actually. I read one person and think to myself, "Yeh, good point -- definitely ETA." Then I click over to the next and see arguments about how it was Islamikazes and think, "Absolutely. Must be those freakin' barbarians!"
All that really shows is that I don't yet feel I know enough to make a good guess, let alone a judgment, as to which particular set of barbaric bastards' were responsible.
However, one thing I do think I know ("do think I know?") is that we witnessed something on Thursday morning in Madrid that is another on the lengthening list of civilized, daily society's (as well as urban planners') worst nightmares.
Modern society requires a "social contract." In urban areas especially, we live close together. And we are forever lectured to by the powers that be about how driving and doing things "individually" is not "environmentally friendly" or is "anti-social", etc., blah, blah, blah.
So, we are told we MUST get on trains and buses with people we don't know, hoping at least for there to be a certain level (and it doesn't have to be too high) of civility and rational behavior on their part. To put it politely, we also all know that there is a percentage of those "fellow travellers" we would NEVER consider inviting into our home. All we ask is for them to ride the stupid bus or train, leave us alone, and in a few minutes we will forever go our separate ways at the next stop. . .
But we have seen aircraft become battlefields, because barbarians decided to slit the throats of pilots and women flight attendants, take those planes and crash them into NYC skyscrapers. And that's just one example. In Israel, we have seen so many routine buses blown up by "fellow travellers". In Moscow, just six weeks ago, a subway train was blown up.
Now, we have seen barbarians (whichever bunch of slugs these are) explode a dozen or so devices on trains in Spain. No one wants daily freedom diminished, of course. However, we had better come to grips with the barbarians in our midst . . . and NOW.
Because if we can't trust that person next to us, on the bus or the train, NOT to blow us and/or himself/herself up . . . ¶ by Robert, Saturday, March 13, 2004
UPDATE VIII: Le Monde tells us that according to a "spiritual head" of a "radical Muslim group" in London, Italy is next:
. . . La revendication des attentats de Madrid par Al-Qaida est "authentique" et l'Italie pourrait être la prochaine cible, a affirmé vendredi 12 mars à Londres le cheikh Omar Bakri, chef spirituel du groupe radical musulman Al-Mouhadjiroun et soupçonné d'être lié à Abou Qatada, chef présumé d'Al-Qaida en Europe. . .
The Google translation is here. How much truth is buried within that? Who knows.
Back in February, the BBC quoted a cuddly, lovable "spiritual leader" of the same name preaching this to a group of huggable "young Muslims" in London:
. . . People like to call it suicide bombing," he says. "We call it self sacrifice. You must fight for the way of Allah - to kill first and be killed.". . .
So that's what it is: The "Religion to kill first and be killed."
Sounds like Omar's got what it takes to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury.
Why is he walking around loose?
Check that. He is probably yet another innocent, just getting ready to leave for a wedding/to take a computer course/to find himself. . .
UPDATE VII: CNN reminds us that elsewhere the battle for freedom continues . . .
Two U.S. soldiers were killed and five wounded in Iraq Saturday when their armored Humvee was hit by a roadside bomb in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, the U.S. military said.
The soldiers from the 1st Infantry Division were on patrol, the military said, when the Humvee was attacked around 5 a.m. (9 p.m. Friday ET).
Also Saturday, a store owner was killed and two passers-by, including a little girl, were wounded when an explosion rocked a Muslim clothing store on a busy Baghdad street, Iraqi authorities and eyewitnesses said. . .
UPDATE VI: Gee, I thought the new togetherness would have lasted AT LEAST until next week. Deutsche Welle ("The Voice of Germany") has this headline:
U.S. military announces new operation aimed at destroying 'terrorist organisations'
Is that a direct quote of some American official using the phrase "terrorist organizations," and therefore an attempt to be accurate?
That expression doesn't appear in the entire text:
The U.S. military has announced a sweeping new operation across southern and eastern Afghanistan aimed at destroying al-Qaida and Taliban infrastructure. The announcement comes as the U. S. intensifies its hunt for Osama bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, who are believed to be hiding in the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. U.S. military officials have said the operation will involve the entire U.S.-led coalition and is in effect a continuation of tactics already being used, such as patrols, searches and small scale air assaults.
Is Deutsche Welle unsure if bin Laden and co are terrorists, or if they lead organizations, or both?
Or is DW unsure that the U.S. is aiming at those things that DW is unsure that bin Laden and co might or might not actually be?
Maybe DW believes the U.S. is using the bin Laden excuse as a way to cover up planned U.S. attacks on "baby milk" factories?
UPDATE V: Sullivan (Need I say more?):
This is a war, Senator Kerry, not a law enforcement operation.
Thank you, Andrew. Thank you.
UPDATE IV: Jarvis:
Don't give the bastards an inch.
UPDATE III: 2200, British time. ITV here in Britain is saying:
Three Moroccans and two Indians have been arrested in Madrid as part of the investigation into train bombings that killed 200 people.
Spain's Interior Minister Angel Acebes said: "Sixty hours after the brutal attack we now have five detentions."
He added that the detentions were made "for presumed implication in the sale and falsification of the mobile phone and cards found in the bag that did not explode."
Acebes added: "It's the beginning of the investigation, but it opens an important path to advance down ... I give you this information with a lot of caution and prudence."
He said some of those arrested may have links to Moroccan militants, but it was too early to say for sure. . .
I like the "may have links to Moroccan militants". We have lots of people out there who "may have links" to so and so, etc., and so on. We have become so measured in our commentary. . .
Imagine it's 1944-1945, and Allied officials are stating that captured SS "may have links" to the Nazi regime. . .
UPDATE II: 2150, British time. Got five bastards. Sky reports:
Five people have been arrested in Spain in connection with the Madrid train bombings which killed 200 people and injured 1,500.
Three are Moroccans and two are of "Hindu" origin, Interior Minister Angel Acebes revealed. . .
Well, well. "They don't look like Presbyterians to me."
UPDATE: 1850, British time. That will teach me!
Sensing my marriage was in danger if I spent as much time in front of a PC today as I had on Thursday and Friday, we went out to Hampton Court, which is best known as a residence of Henry VIII. It is a great place to visit, walk around the gardens, and clear one's head.
Naturally, on the car radio as we were driving home, I heard that there is a report that Spanish intelligence is "99 percent" sure that the bombings were the work of Islamikazes. The BBC reports:
. . . Spanish Interior Minister Angel Acebes says that Basque separatists remain the most likely perpetrators, but Islamic militants have not been ruled out.
However, at a noisy rally in Madrid, protesters accused the government of manipulating facts about the attackers.
Hundreds of demonstrators chanted "Liars! Liars!" and "Tell us the truth!"
They told reporters the government had been trying to promote the theory that Eta was responsible for its own political advantage ahead of Sunday's general elections. . .
. . . a radio station claimed to have been told that investigators are "99% certain" of involvement by Islamic militants by an unnamed intelligence source, but this has not been confirmed.
This is "going ugly." Why? Because there are two definite streams of thought here:
1) If it is ETA, it is Spain's problem. A big one, decidedly. But one with which many Spanish appear to be, believe it or not, "comfortable". ETA is a constant enemy, and Spaniards may hate that enemy. This might just have been the worst attack that enemy has ever made. But there appear at least to be familiar "rules of engagement" between Spain and that enemy.
2) On the other hand, if it is Islamikazes, Spain has just been dragged into the 21st century, global mainstream. It is perceived now as being part of the Western alliance. Some Spaniards clearly don't like that idea. They seem to think that Spain's standing strongly with the U.S., Britain, Australia, Poland and other democracies in defending freedom is something Spain should not be doing. At best, they believe that Spain should be "neutral", and appear to resent the Aznar government's stance.
Americans discovered to their collective horror on September 11, 2001 that freedom cannot coexist with "Islamikaze-dom". It would have made not one wit of difference if one were the biggest booster of the "Palestinian cause", if one were the loudest supporter of destroying the "Great Satan," if one backed making sure a woman did not step out a front door without a male relative keeping a close eye on her at all times, if one converted and shouted the loudest prayers imaginable, if one did nothing but face eastwards all day, if one spent one's life trying to live as the Koran demanded . . . if one also happened to be a passenger, uninvolved in the plot, on one of four U.S. passenger jets on the morning of September 11, 2001. One would have been murdered just the same.
So, if Spaniards honestly believe they can continue to live in freedom while Islamikazes roam this earth, Spaniards are terribly mistaken. Americans learned the same the hard way on September 11, 2001. Spaniards should not blame Jose Maria Aznar. It's not his fault. The fault lies with the Islamikazes. Spaniards should remember that.
INITIAL POST
ETA or Islamists? Everyone, it seems, has an opinion. Mine?
I don't have one yet, actually. I read one person and think to myself, "Yeh, good point -- definitely ETA." Then I click over to the next and see arguments about how it was Islamikazes and think, "Absolutely. Must be those freakin' barbarians!"
All that really shows is that I don't yet feel I know enough to make a good guess, let alone a judgment, as to which particular set of barbaric bastards' were responsible.
However, one thing I do think I know ("do think I know?") is that we witnessed something on Thursday morning in Madrid that is another on the lengthening list of civilized, daily society's (as well as urban planners') worst nightmares.
Modern society requires a "social contract." In urban areas especially, we live close together. And we are forever lectured to by the powers that be about how driving and doing things "individually" is not "environmentally friendly" or is "anti-social", etc., blah, blah, blah.
So, we are told we MUST get on trains and buses with people we don't know, hoping at least for there to be a certain level (and it doesn't have to be too high) of civility and rational behavior on their part. To put it politely, we also all know that there is a percentage of those "fellow travellers" we would NEVER consider inviting into our home. All we ask is for them to ride the stupid bus or train, leave us alone, and in a few minutes we will forever go our separate ways at the next stop. . .
But we have seen aircraft become battlefields, because barbarians decided to slit the throats of pilots and women flight attendants, take those planes and crash them into NYC skyscrapers. And that's just one example. In Israel, we have seen so many routine buses blown up by "fellow travellers". In Moscow, just six weeks ago, a subway train was blown up.
Now, we have seen barbarians (whichever bunch of slugs these are) explode a dozen or so devices on trains in Spain. No one wants daily freedom diminished, of course. However, we had better come to grips with the barbarians in our midst . . . and NOW.
Because if we can't trust that person next to us, on the bus or the train, NOT to blow us and/or himself/herself up . . . ¶ by Robert, Saturday, March 13, 2004
Friday, March 12, 2004
THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH
NOTE: As with yesterday's updates, the newest are higher up.
UPDATE XVIII: I have to call it a night, again tonight, as 11 PM comes and goes. And, once again, if you want to follow events in Spain further as this evening progresses, you might head over to Being American in T.O., as well as to the always dependable Winds of Change and The Command Post.
UPDATE XVI: The BBC reported at about 2115 tonight:
Britons must be "eternally vigilant" in the face of terror following the Madrid attacks, Tony Blair said on Friday.
Speaking as Spain began three official days of mourning, the prime minister said the UK must not be afraid to be at the forefront of the war on terror. . .
This much, we do know. . .
. . . A Spanish mass was held at Westminster Cathedral on Friday evening.
Just a minor point: Westminster Cathedral in London is not to be confused with the likes of St. Paul's or Westminster Abbey, which are Anglican. Westminster Cathedral is Roman Catholic.
Earlier, about 200 people attended a vigil at the Spanish Embassy, marking the deaths in Madrid with five minutes' silence. . .
. . .Speaking ahead of the Labour party conference in Manchester Mr Blair said the struggle against terrorism was a concern for "all of the free world".
"In Spain tonight millions of people will take to the streets and we will be with them in spirit and solidarity," he said.
He said the new war on terror was a fight against "dangerous fanatics" and that Britain must never be in the background. . .
Presumably, the BBC put "dangerous fanatics" in quotes because Blair said those exact two words, and not because the Beeb was suddenly hit with a case of one person's "dangerous fanatics" is another person's, urrr, "separatist leaders". . .
Just in case there are some "separatist leaders" roaming around in Britain, the BBC compares British air and rail security to that elsewhere in Europe. On the trains:
. . . some experts argue that experience gained from fighting the IRA threat in the 1970s and 80s has made Britain's transport network at least better placed to guard against such attacks.
Over 20 years, the IRA mounted more than a dozen attacks on the Underground and rail networks. As recently as 1997, it was blamed for throwing the railways into chaos after a series of coded bomb threats.
Parts of London's Tube network have been redesigned to minimise chances of a bomb left undetected. Platform seats are fixed to the wall, allowing a clear space underneath; litter bins have been taken out; vending machines have sloping tops to prevent anything being left on top. . .
Which is why there are almost no garbage cans in train or Tube stations!
UPDATE XV: Robert "In Notts Forest", who is in Britain and with the U.S. Forces, elaborates further about the story from the "abused Briton", freed from Guantanamo, and interviewed by the Rag -- sorry, the Mirror -- today. As I pointed out this morning, on today, of all days, that ridiculous, so-called "newspaper" ranked that ABOVE the massacre in Madrid:
. . . Today I was asked to pick up a copy of the “newspaper” Daily Mirror. Every other paper on the rack front page was devoted to the massacre in Madrid; on the cover of it has some crap about one of Osama’s boys from Britain complaining about the horror of Guantanamo Bay. The US Army was making prostitutes walk in front of them for humiliation. I wonder if the Army flew in working girls from the states or hired some local talent? I hope readers realize that this A-hole/liar was probability paid for this interview. One more "paper" to ignore, even the Sun had an editorial that called this moron a liar. When the Sun criticizes you, are on the bottom of the food chain?
'Nuff said.
UPDATE XIV: "Rumsfeld's War", Appendix, p. 225, has this:
4th Generation Warfare . . . will be highly irregular, unconventional and decentralized in approach. . .
. . .The operations of 4th generation warriors will be masked by deception and related techniques of intelligence tradecraft. They will infiltrate into the populations of the states they seek to attack.
. . .There will be no fronts and the distinctions between civilian and military targets will become irrelevant.
. . .4th generation warriors, frequently in the name of religion, will be remorseless enemies. Their operations will be marked by unlimited violence, unencumbered by compassion. . .
We have clearly seen this enemy time and again, especially since September 11, 2001.
We have no choice but to defeat this enemy . . .
Can we?
Well, we had better . . .
UPDATE XIII: Oh, and who wouldn't believe this bunch? (In this case, I mean ETA, not the A.P.) Shortly after 2015 here in Britain, the A.P. reported:
. . . A caller claiming to represent ETA telephoned the pro-Basque daily newspaper Gara and said the separatist group "has no responsibility whatsoever" for the attacks, the paper told The Associated Press. ETA often issues statements through the Basque-language paper. . .
Oh, well, then, everything's just fine. Sorry for accusing you, with no good reason. It's not like you ever bombed anyone before . . .
Usually, you have bake sales . . .
Oh, and even if you really didn't do this, you are still freakin' sunk.
Morons.
UPDATE XII: This from the BBC, just before 1700 here:
More photos at the same link.
UPDATE XI: ITV News in Britain reported just after 18:20 British time:
Millions of people have taken to the streets of Spain in protest at yesterday's devastating bomb attacks in Madrid which killed 199 people and injured over 1,400. . .
. . .Incredible television pictures show a sea of umbrellas as rain pours down on the hundreds of thousands of people marching towards Atocha station, where the majority of the victims perished, in protest at the country's worst terrorist attack.
Several carried banners condemning the "murderers" who carried out the attacks and many others waved Spanish flags and other placards. . .
And that says it all. . .
UPDATE X: Being American In T.O. refuses to be, urrr, "nuanced" about all this:
. . .No. We won't learn to shrug and be worldly, sophisticated or nuanced about arocities. We will be horrified, grieved and furious each and every time. The Spanish people were stunned yesterday; today they will mourn and defy the terrorists; Sunday they will vote. Because that is what we do. We stare down the terrorists by re-affirming who and what we are. We stand up and shout "NO!". . .
The BBC noted at a little after 1600, British time:
. . . Danny Wood in Madrid says the deathtoll is set to rise, as hospital staff are trying to save the lives of more than 100 people with serious injuries. . .
And Sky reported a little while ago:
. . .Hospital officials have confirmed that a 7-month-old baby girl has become the latest victim of the attacks to die. . .
Damn straight, we don't do "nuance."
UPDATE IX: Jarvis. (Again, do I need to say more?)
These days, when even accidents happen we are tuned to wonder whether it was The Terrorists -- which, in this country, of course, means Islamofascist terrorists. A jet blows apart over Queens... the East Coast is thrown in to a blackout... we wonder every time whether it was them again.
In Spain, they are forced today into a sick and sad guessing game: Pick your terrorists... who are the bastards?. . .
UPDATE VIII: Lileks. (Do I need to say more?)
. . .I’m somewhat annoyed by the assertion that this act was “sophisticated,” and hence the work of those brilliant stratgerists of Al Qaeda. My definition of sophistication is somewhat different: it’s an unmanned drone flying over Pakistan, piloted by a guy in Florida, dropping a laser-guided bomb into the passenger cab of a truck full of Taliban. That’s sophistication. Synchronizing watches on detenators is not exactly all that tough. I’ll tell you what’s difficult: a dozen nervous sweating Swedes pulling off 13 simultaneous detonations in Saudi Arabia, where they might stick out. Spain of course is most Spanish; hence the name. But I assume there are enough immigrants living in Madrid, or native-born people of Arab origin, so that a guy walking through a train station with a backpack is about as unusual as a tourist in a loud shirt peering at a map.
Assuming that it was al-Qaeda, of course. The UN seems to have decided otherwise, passing a resolution condemning the ETA. If it was the ETA, well, I have the estimated time of arrival for the success of their cause: three hours after never. I can’t say “sure doesn’t sound like the ETA,” because as I keep reminding myself: what the hell do I know? I read a lot today, and learned what characterized their earlier attacks; given that info, yes, it seems unlikely it was them. Then we have the claim of credit. Then there’s the van with the incrimating items. Then there’s the Ha’aretz newsflash I just read – someone said there was a suicide bomber on one of the trains. . .
UPDATE VII: Europe's newspapers have their views. CNN/Reuters notes:
. . ."The most devastating terror attack since September 11, 2001 will change the consciousness of the people, and not only in Spain," said Financial Times Deutschland.
Fear of mass attacks was no longer the preserve of the Americans, said Italian daily La Repubblica in an editorial.
"Whoever thought the American "devils" were the only ones in the sights of Islamic terrorism was wrong. We are all in the same boat," it said. . .
We heard much the same things in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001.
It will be particularly helpful in dealing with such terrorism if by next Thursday they still remember having made such statements today. . .
UPDATE VI: You don't need to be able to read Italian to understand this:
SOLIDARIETA' ALLA SPAGNA
or this.
UPDATE V: Wait a second, I may need oxygen. The A.P. notes:
. . .The attack occurred exactly 2 1/2 years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States. . .
They actually referred to Sept. 11 straightforwardly as a terrorist attack -- no qualifying, oh, we aren't sure, let's cover ourselves, appear "objective", dumb quotation marks.
And I saw it!
They can do it, after all. . .
UPDATE IV: On a visit to Buenos Aires at the time of the attacks in Madrid yesterday, the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was unwilling to speculate on the attackers' identity. And that's how it should be:
. . . In a press conference following a meeting with Argentine Vice President Daniel Osvaldo Scioli, Myers said it is too early to say exactly who launched the attacks. Soon after the blasts, Spanish officials had said they were the work of ETA, a Basque separatist group. But later in the day, news agencies were reporting that an al Qaeda-affiliated group had claimed responsibility.
Myers reminded the Argentines that the goal of terrorists is to create fear. "Fear can undermine rational, logical behavior," he said. "This is important for the international community to address. And it's not just a military problem, it's a problem for all instruments of national power to create the conditions where this just isn't possible in the future.". . .
UPDATE III: Iberian Notes remains convinced the attacks were the work of ETA:
. . .Here's the paranoid conspiracy theory that is cropping up in my mind. ETA plants the bombs, and this was clearly an ETA-style job, but tries to make it look like Al Qaeda, or at least bring up the suspicion as best they can--and note that the first person to link the alleged "Arab resistance" group and the massacre in Madrid was none other than ETA mouthpiece Arnaldo Otegui. Their strategy: Piss off the people against Aznar and the PP, their sworn enemies, for getting us in the sights of Al Qaeda. That's a terribly narrow and selfish attitude to have--"Aznar and Bush got these people killed" for daring to use force to stop terrorism. Enough people might have that very attitude, though, that there's a backlash at the polls on Sunday against the PP and they lose the election. That's something ETA would very much like to see.
I remain convinced that ETA carried out these bombings.
UPDATE II: ITV here in Britain is reporting:
. . .the Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar said no line of investigation would be ruled out.
The Spanish government has said it believes Basque guerrilla group ETA, which wants independence for the northern region, was most likely to blame for the simultaneous bombings of four trains at Madrid stations.
But a letter purporting to come from a group linked to al Qaeda has claimed responsibility.
Mr Aznar said the government was making public all the information it had about the bombings as Spain began three days of national mourning. . .
UPDATE: The BBC reports:
A vigil is being held outside the Spanish Embassy in London to mark the Madrid terror attacks on Thursday which killed 198 people.
The minute's silence at 1300 GMT is expected to be the focus for the grief of London's large Spanish population.
Britain will also be represented at a mass rally against terrorism being held in Madrid on Friday by Europe minister Denis MacShane.
A mass will be held at St Matthew's Church in London on Friday evening. . .
However, I woke up this morning not just sad, but also so angry I could hardly see straight. I haven't felt this way in any appreciable sense since another 11th day of another month we all remember.
And we should be angry. It is good, being angry now and then. If we don't get angry about something like this, well . . .
On the slugs who did it, sharp as always, Tim Blair notes:
Mark Steyn is inclined to blame al-Qaeda. So is Ali in Iraq. As you'd expect, several at Democratic Underground think the US may be responsible.
As if one needed any more evidence that something called the "Democratic Underground" is composed of kooks. . .
INITIAL POST
CNN is reporting this morning:
. . .Spanish Interior Minister Angel Acebes said authorities were investigating a van found in the town of Alcala de Henares, outside Madrid, with at least seven detonators and an Arabic tape with Koranic teachings. . .
. . .Khalid al-Shami, political editor of Al Quds Al Arabi newspaper in London, told CNN the letter was from Abu Hafs al-Masri, which he said was affiliated with al Qaeda.
He said the group has issued credible claims in the past and claimed responsibility for Monday's attacks in Istanbul on a Masonic lodge.
But intelligence sources have consistently told CNN that Abu Hafs al-Masri does not speak for al Qaeda, and there is a question about whether it exists at all beyond one person with a computer and a fax machine. . .
So, trying to ascertain if this was the handiwork of ETA or Islamists continues. . .
It is worth considering this: If Spain had no ETA, would anyone think for a moment this could have been done by anyone other than Islamikazes? ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 12, 2004
NOTE: As with yesterday's updates, the newest are higher up.
UPDATE XVIII: I have to call it a night, again tonight, as 11 PM comes and goes. And, once again, if you want to follow events in Spain further as this evening progresses, you might head over to Being American in T.O., as well as to the always dependable Winds of Change and The Command Post.
UPDATE XVI: The BBC reported at about 2115 tonight:
Britons must be "eternally vigilant" in the face of terror following the Madrid attacks, Tony Blair said on Friday.
Speaking as Spain began three official days of mourning, the prime minister said the UK must not be afraid to be at the forefront of the war on terror. . .
This much, we do know. . .
. . . A Spanish mass was held at Westminster Cathedral on Friday evening.
Just a minor point: Westminster Cathedral in London is not to be confused with the likes of St. Paul's or Westminster Abbey, which are Anglican. Westminster Cathedral is Roman Catholic.
Earlier, about 200 people attended a vigil at the Spanish Embassy, marking the deaths in Madrid with five minutes' silence. . .
. . .Speaking ahead of the Labour party conference in Manchester Mr Blair said the struggle against terrorism was a concern for "all of the free world".
"In Spain tonight millions of people will take to the streets and we will be with them in spirit and solidarity," he said.
He said the new war on terror was a fight against "dangerous fanatics" and that Britain must never be in the background. . .
Presumably, the BBC put "dangerous fanatics" in quotes because Blair said those exact two words, and not because the Beeb was suddenly hit with a case of one person's "dangerous fanatics" is another person's, urrr, "separatist leaders". . .
Just in case there are some "separatist leaders" roaming around in Britain, the BBC compares British air and rail security to that elsewhere in Europe. On the trains:
. . . some experts argue that experience gained from fighting the IRA threat in the 1970s and 80s has made Britain's transport network at least better placed to guard against such attacks.
Over 20 years, the IRA mounted more than a dozen attacks on the Underground and rail networks. As recently as 1997, it was blamed for throwing the railways into chaos after a series of coded bomb threats.
Parts of London's Tube network have been redesigned to minimise chances of a bomb left undetected. Platform seats are fixed to the wall, allowing a clear space underneath; litter bins have been taken out; vending machines have sloping tops to prevent anything being left on top. . .
Which is why there are almost no garbage cans in train or Tube stations!
UPDATE XV: Robert "In Notts Forest", who is in Britain and with the U.S. Forces, elaborates further about the story from the "abused Briton", freed from Guantanamo, and interviewed by the Rag -- sorry, the Mirror -- today. As I pointed out this morning, on today, of all days, that ridiculous, so-called "newspaper" ranked that ABOVE the massacre in Madrid:
. . . Today I was asked to pick up a copy of the “newspaper” Daily Mirror. Every other paper on the rack front page was devoted to the massacre in Madrid; on the cover of it has some crap about one of Osama’s boys from Britain complaining about the horror of Guantanamo Bay. The US Army was making prostitutes walk in front of them for humiliation. I wonder if the Army flew in working girls from the states or hired some local talent? I hope readers realize that this A-hole/liar was probability paid for this interview. One more "paper" to ignore, even the Sun had an editorial that called this moron a liar. When the Sun criticizes you, are on the bottom of the food chain?
'Nuff said.
UPDATE XIV: "Rumsfeld's War", Appendix, p. 225, has this:
4th Generation Warfare . . . will be highly irregular, unconventional and decentralized in approach. . .
. . .The operations of 4th generation warriors will be masked by deception and related techniques of intelligence tradecraft. They will infiltrate into the populations of the states they seek to attack.
. . .There will be no fronts and the distinctions between civilian and military targets will become irrelevant.
. . .4th generation warriors, frequently in the name of religion, will be remorseless enemies. Their operations will be marked by unlimited violence, unencumbered by compassion. . .
We have clearly seen this enemy time and again, especially since September 11, 2001.
We have no choice but to defeat this enemy . . .
Can we?
Well, we had better . . .
UPDATE XIII: Oh, and who wouldn't believe this bunch? (In this case, I mean ETA, not the A.P.) Shortly after 2015 here in Britain, the A.P. reported:
. . . A caller claiming to represent ETA telephoned the pro-Basque daily newspaper Gara and said the separatist group "has no responsibility whatsoever" for the attacks, the paper told The Associated Press. ETA often issues statements through the Basque-language paper. . .
Oh, well, then, everything's just fine. Sorry for accusing you, with no good reason. It's not like you ever bombed anyone before . . .
Usually, you have bake sales . . .
Oh, and even if you really didn't do this, you are still freakin' sunk.
Morons.
UPDATE XII: This from the BBC, just before 1700 here:
More photos at the same link.
UPDATE XI: ITV News in Britain reported just after 18:20 British time:
Millions of people have taken to the streets of Spain in protest at yesterday's devastating bomb attacks in Madrid which killed 199 people and injured over 1,400. . .
. . .Incredible television pictures show a sea of umbrellas as rain pours down on the hundreds of thousands of people marching towards Atocha station, where the majority of the victims perished, in protest at the country's worst terrorist attack.
Several carried banners condemning the "murderers" who carried out the attacks and many others waved Spanish flags and other placards. . .
And that says it all. . .
UPDATE X: Being American In T.O. refuses to be, urrr, "nuanced" about all this:
. . .No. We won't learn to shrug and be worldly, sophisticated or nuanced about arocities. We will be horrified, grieved and furious each and every time. The Spanish people were stunned yesterday; today they will mourn and defy the terrorists; Sunday they will vote. Because that is what we do. We stare down the terrorists by re-affirming who and what we are. We stand up and shout "NO!". . .
The BBC noted at a little after 1600, British time:
. . . Danny Wood in Madrid says the deathtoll is set to rise, as hospital staff are trying to save the lives of more than 100 people with serious injuries. . .
And Sky reported a little while ago:
. . .Hospital officials have confirmed that a 7-month-old baby girl has become the latest victim of the attacks to die. . .
Damn straight, we don't do "nuance."
UPDATE IX: Jarvis. (Again, do I need to say more?)
These days, when even accidents happen we are tuned to wonder whether it was The Terrorists -- which, in this country, of course, means Islamofascist terrorists. A jet blows apart over Queens... the East Coast is thrown in to a blackout... we wonder every time whether it was them again.
In Spain, they are forced today into a sick and sad guessing game: Pick your terrorists... who are the bastards?. . .
UPDATE VIII: Lileks. (Do I need to say more?)
. . .I’m somewhat annoyed by the assertion that this act was “sophisticated,” and hence the work of those brilliant stratgerists of Al Qaeda. My definition of sophistication is somewhat different: it’s an unmanned drone flying over Pakistan, piloted by a guy in Florida, dropping a laser-guided bomb into the passenger cab of a truck full of Taliban. That’s sophistication. Synchronizing watches on detenators is not exactly all that tough. I’ll tell you what’s difficult: a dozen nervous sweating Swedes pulling off 13 simultaneous detonations in Saudi Arabia, where they might stick out. Spain of course is most Spanish; hence the name. But I assume there are enough immigrants living in Madrid, or native-born people of Arab origin, so that a guy walking through a train station with a backpack is about as unusual as a tourist in a loud shirt peering at a map.
Assuming that it was al-Qaeda, of course. The UN seems to have decided otherwise, passing a resolution condemning the ETA. If it was the ETA, well, I have the estimated time of arrival for the success of their cause: three hours after never. I can’t say “sure doesn’t sound like the ETA,” because as I keep reminding myself: what the hell do I know? I read a lot today, and learned what characterized their earlier attacks; given that info, yes, it seems unlikely it was them. Then we have the claim of credit. Then there’s the van with the incrimating items. Then there’s the Ha’aretz newsflash I just read – someone said there was a suicide bomber on one of the trains. . .
UPDATE VII: Europe's newspapers have their views. CNN/Reuters notes:
. . ."The most devastating terror attack since September 11, 2001 will change the consciousness of the people, and not only in Spain," said Financial Times Deutschland.
Fear of mass attacks was no longer the preserve of the Americans, said Italian daily La Repubblica in an editorial.
"Whoever thought the American "devils" were the only ones in the sights of Islamic terrorism was wrong. We are all in the same boat," it said. . .
We heard much the same things in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001.
It will be particularly helpful in dealing with such terrorism if by next Thursday they still remember having made such statements today. . .
UPDATE VI: You don't need to be able to read Italian to understand this:
SOLIDARIETA' ALLA SPAGNA
or this.
UPDATE V: Wait a second, I may need oxygen. The A.P. notes:
. . .The attack occurred exactly 2 1/2 years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States. . .
They actually referred to Sept. 11 straightforwardly as a terrorist attack -- no qualifying, oh, we aren't sure, let's cover ourselves, appear "objective", dumb quotation marks.
And I saw it!
They can do it, after all. . .
UPDATE IV: On a visit to Buenos Aires at the time of the attacks in Madrid yesterday, the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was unwilling to speculate on the attackers' identity. And that's how it should be:
. . . In a press conference following a meeting with Argentine Vice President Daniel Osvaldo Scioli, Myers said it is too early to say exactly who launched the attacks. Soon after the blasts, Spanish officials had said they were the work of ETA, a Basque separatist group. But later in the day, news agencies were reporting that an al Qaeda-affiliated group had claimed responsibility.
Myers reminded the Argentines that the goal of terrorists is to create fear. "Fear can undermine rational, logical behavior," he said. "This is important for the international community to address. And it's not just a military problem, it's a problem for all instruments of national power to create the conditions where this just isn't possible in the future.". . .
UPDATE III: Iberian Notes remains convinced the attacks were the work of ETA:
. . .Here's the paranoid conspiracy theory that is cropping up in my mind. ETA plants the bombs, and this was clearly an ETA-style job, but tries to make it look like Al Qaeda, or at least bring up the suspicion as best they can--and note that the first person to link the alleged "Arab resistance" group and the massacre in Madrid was none other than ETA mouthpiece Arnaldo Otegui. Their strategy: Piss off the people against Aznar and the PP, their sworn enemies, for getting us in the sights of Al Qaeda. That's a terribly narrow and selfish attitude to have--"Aznar and Bush got these people killed" for daring to use force to stop terrorism. Enough people might have that very attitude, though, that there's a backlash at the polls on Sunday against the PP and they lose the election. That's something ETA would very much like to see.
I remain convinced that ETA carried out these bombings.
UPDATE II: ITV here in Britain is reporting:
. . .the Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar said no line of investigation would be ruled out.
The Spanish government has said it believes Basque guerrilla group ETA, which wants independence for the northern region, was most likely to blame for the simultaneous bombings of four trains at Madrid stations.
But a letter purporting to come from a group linked to al Qaeda has claimed responsibility.
Mr Aznar said the government was making public all the information it had about the bombings as Spain began three days of national mourning. . .
UPDATE: The BBC reports:
A vigil is being held outside the Spanish Embassy in London to mark the Madrid terror attacks on Thursday which killed 198 people.
The minute's silence at 1300 GMT is expected to be the focus for the grief of London's large Spanish population.
Britain will also be represented at a mass rally against terrorism being held in Madrid on Friday by Europe minister Denis MacShane.
A mass will be held at St Matthew's Church in London on Friday evening. . .
However, I woke up this morning not just sad, but also so angry I could hardly see straight. I haven't felt this way in any appreciable sense since another 11th day of another month we all remember.
And we should be angry. It is good, being angry now and then. If we don't get angry about something like this, well . . .
On the slugs who did it, sharp as always, Tim Blair notes:
Mark Steyn is inclined to blame al-Qaeda. So is Ali in Iraq. As you'd expect, several at Democratic Underground think the US may be responsible.
As if one needed any more evidence that something called the "Democratic Underground" is composed of kooks. . .
INITIAL POST
CNN is reporting this morning:
. . .Spanish Interior Minister Angel Acebes said authorities were investigating a van found in the town of Alcala de Henares, outside Madrid, with at least seven detonators and an Arabic tape with Koranic teachings. . .
. . .Khalid al-Shami, political editor of Al Quds Al Arabi newspaper in London, told CNN the letter was from Abu Hafs al-Masri, which he said was affiliated with al Qaeda.
He said the group has issued credible claims in the past and claimed responsibility for Monday's attacks in Istanbul on a Masonic lodge.
But intelligence sources have consistently told CNN that Abu Hafs al-Masri does not speak for al Qaeda, and there is a question about whether it exists at all beyond one person with a computer and a fax machine. . .
So, trying to ascertain if this was the handiwork of ETA or Islamists continues. . .
It is worth considering this: If Spain had no ETA, would anyone think for a moment this could have been done by anyone other than Islamikazes? ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 12, 2004
DUMBEST NEWSPAPER OF THE YEAR
While Spain's heart breaks, Britain's Daily Rag -- I mean, Daily Mirror -- for some reason that is known only to its idiot editors, has as its top headline this morning, this nonsense:
A BRITISH captive freed from Guantanamo Bay today tells the world of its full horror - and reveals how prostitutes were taken into the camp to degrade Muslim inmates.
And the Mirror considers Americans gullible idiots?
The attacks in Madrid are somehow squeezed in just below. I guess we should be amazed the Mirror found space to mention them at all.
Buried among this junk, is what we are to believe is the reason this "British" man was sent to Guantanamo by the imperialist, nasty Americans:
. . .The website designer, a convert to Islam, had gone to Pakistan in October 2001, a few weeks after September 11, to study Muslim culture.
He accidentally strayed into Afghanistan - believing he was being driven to Turkey - and was arrested as a spy, perhaps because of his British passport. He was held in Kandahar, Afghanistan, and fell into US hands. . .
Now, this is funny. Really funny. I once had a very similar experience. Why, I had decided to go to South Africa in 1994 for a wedding/computer course/to find myself/to study cheetah/ and wouldn't you know it, gosh darn, I decided to try to travel overland to Egypt in the midst of the genocide in Rwanda, and ended up in the middle of a war zone!
Some of us out here are just so darn unlucky, and so unfairly victimized.
Oh, and some people just lack all common, fu*kin' sense, and think that everyone else is a sucker, born flippin' yesterday! ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 12, 2004
While Spain's heart breaks, Britain's Daily Rag -- I mean, Daily Mirror -- for some reason that is known only to its idiot editors, has as its top headline this morning, this nonsense:
A BRITISH captive freed from Guantanamo Bay today tells the world of its full horror - and reveals how prostitutes were taken into the camp to degrade Muslim inmates.
And the Mirror considers Americans gullible idiots?
The attacks in Madrid are somehow squeezed in just below. I guess we should be amazed the Mirror found space to mention them at all.
Buried among this junk, is what we are to believe is the reason this "British" man was sent to Guantanamo by the imperialist, nasty Americans:
. . .The website designer, a convert to Islam, had gone to Pakistan in October 2001, a few weeks after September 11, to study Muslim culture.
He accidentally strayed into Afghanistan - believing he was being driven to Turkey - and was arrested as a spy, perhaps because of his British passport. He was held in Kandahar, Afghanistan, and fell into US hands. . .
Now, this is funny. Really funny. I once had a very similar experience. Why, I had decided to go to South Africa in 1994 for a wedding/computer course/to find myself/to study cheetah/ and wouldn't you know it, gosh darn, I decided to try to travel overland to Egypt in the midst of the genocide in Rwanda, and ended up in the middle of a war zone!
Some of us out here are just so darn unlucky, and so unfairly victimized.
Oh, and some people just lack all common, fu*kin' sense, and think that everyone else is a sucker, born flippin' yesterday! ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 12, 2004
Thursday, March 11, 2004
THE RESISTANCE IN SPAIN, THEN?. . .
NOTE: With so many updates, I have reversed my postings here -- with the most recent being highest up.
UPDATE XXI: As it gets near 11 PM here in Britain, and much as I would like to stay around, I can't. Morning comes too quickly. To stay with this as night moves westward, I suggest Debbye at Being American in T.O. and The Command Post. Also be sure to stop by Eric at Viking Pundit.
UPDATE XX: Leave it to Reuters. You just knew it had to end up with an attack on the Great Satan, didn't you? Sometime around 22:00 British time, they note:
A letter purporting to come from Osama bin Laden's militant Islamist al Qaeda network said a big attack on the United States was in the final stages of preparation, a London-based Arabic newspaper said on Thursday.
"We bring the good news to Muslims of the world that the expected 'Winds of Black Death' strike against America is now in its final stage...90 percent (ready) and God willing near," the letter said.
The letter, signed by the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades which said it is part of al Qaeda, was sent to the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper. A copy of the letter was faxed to Reuters in Dubai.
It was not possible to independently authenticate the letter. . .
My question: Where are those "good boys" the U.S. turned over to the U.K., and were released, and who are now supposedly "home", reunited with their loving families here in Britain?
Just asking. . .
UPDATE XIX: It's 22:33 in Britain (5:33 PM ET, U.S.) and AFP hasn't apparently updated since 2:14 PM, ET, U.S.
Huh?
Sorry, I forgot -- it's French.
UPDATE XVIII: Fox News reports, further on the A.P. report cited previously:
. . .The five-page e-mail claim, signed by the shadowy Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri, was received at the paper's London offices. It said the brigade's "death squad" had penetrated "one of the pillars of the crusade alliance, Spain."
"This is part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader, and America's ally in its war against Islam," the claim said.
Referring to Spain's Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, the statement asked: "Aznar, where is America? Who will protect you, Britain, Japan, Italy and others from us?"
The newspaper faxed the claim to The Associated Press office in Cairo.
The paper's editor, Bari Atwan, told Fox News the alleged letter from Al Qaeda "looks authentic" and consistent with letters the paper has received from the terrorist organization in the past. . .
Clearly, these are just people whom we have terribly misunderstood.
By the way -- if you believe that, you will believe just about anything . . .
Clearly, this is a situation that calls for rigorous law enforcement.
We may need indictments!
UPDATE XVII: The A.P. is reporting at around 2130 here in Britain:
. . .The Arabic newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi said it had received a claim of responsibility issued in the name of al-Qaida.
The e-mail claim of responsibility, signed by the shadowy Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri, was received at the newspaper's London offices and said the brigade's "death squad" had penetrated "one of the pillars of the crusade alliance, Spain."
"This is part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader, and America's ally in its war against Islam," the claim said.
Asked about the claim of responsibility, White House spokesman Sean McCormack said "we've seen the news reports and we're going to determine what the facts are.". . .
Frankly, does it matter? We know who the enemy are . . .
UPDATE XVI: I stand corrected -- by 6 minutes. At 2144, the BBC site updated, to include this:
. . .Mr Aznar made it clear he believed the armed Basque separatist group Eta was behind the co-ordinated blasts.
But Interior Minister Angel Acebes later revealed that an Islamic tape had been found with detonators in a stolen van recovered near Madrid.
The van was found in the town of Alcala de Henares - where three of the four bombed trains originated. The other train passed through the town.
Mr Acebes said the tape - one of seven discovered in the van - contained verses of the Koran, in Arabic, relating to education.
"Because of this, I have just given instructions to the security forces not to rule out any line of investigation," he said. . .
Where's Orla Guerin when we need her!
UPDATE XV: It's 2150, and the BBC still hasn't apparently mentioned the Arabic language tapes/letters which Sky and ITV here have reported at least an hour ago. . .
Clearly, the Beeb is making sure it gets its facts straight . . .
. . . as it never fails to do.
Can we stop laughing yet?
UPDATE XIV: ITV here in Britain reported just before 2100:
. . .Spain has so far attributed the attack to Basque separatists ETA but a suspect van has been found near Milan containing seven detonators and an Arabic tape.
A letter purporting to come from al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the bombings, calling them strikes against "crusaders". . .
"Crusaders!" Don't you love it! Print it! Clearly, those who wrote that letter reflect, urrr, a modern interpretation of that faith. . .
Is it still A.D. 1095, or haven't just a few things changed since then?
For such nuts, things obviously haven't.
Oh, by the way: Is one even permitted to write A.D. anymore?
UPDATE XIII: At 2100, the Beeb still has nothing to say similar to the Sky report of around 2030.
UPDATE XII: Sky here in Britain is reporting at 2030:
An Arabic language tape with Koranic versus has been found in a van carrying bomb detonators near Madrid, Spain's interior minister has revealed.
The discovery may throw into doubt the Spanish government's claim that the Basque separatist group Eta - rather than al Qaeda - was behind today's devastating bomb attacks, which killed 190 people and injured 1,200 people.
"Because of this, I have just given instructions to the security forces not to rule out any line of investigation," Angel Acebes said. . .
This could be a hoax.
On the other hand, I have a simple suggestion: Simply go after both ETA and Islamist terrorists.
And, as was said in a different context, "Let God sort them out."
Problem solved.
UPDATE XI: The BBC analyzes the situation -- it might be ETA; but what if it's Islamists?. . .
Way to go, guys! The wife and I were going back and forth on that question over dinner a little while ago -- and we don't draw salaries off a license tax!
UPDATE X: As of 2000 (8 PM) British time, the A.P. is reporting at least one of the reasons why Spanish authorities think it is ETA and not Islamists:
. . .The bombers used titadine, a kind of compressed dynamite also found in a bomb-laden van intercepted last month as it headed for Madrid, a source at Aznar's office said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Officials blamed ETA then, too.
But a U.S. intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, "It's too early to tell. We're not ruling anything out.". . .
So, they continue . . .
UPDATE IX: Ali at Iraq The Model believes these bombings were likely the work of Islamists, and explains why:
The horrible terrorist attacks that took place in Spain and which lead to the death and injury of hundreds of innocents today came as a shock to the world. These attacks should make us pose again to re-assess our look to how safe the world really is.
This time I have to disagree with our allies, and although it’s premature to say this, but I think that it wasn’t ETA who carried these attacks and I find myself compelled to agree with ETA’s spokesman and say that this was done by Islamic extremists. . .
. . .ETA may have a role in this, but certainly it’s not the major one. It seems that only extremist Muslims are capable of such meaningless horrible crimes, it’s their territory and their specialization and I would really be surprised if the future investigations proved otherwise. . .
Read that whole link.
UPDATE VIII: Now, at 1730, the BBC is reporting "at least" 182 killed.
UPDATE VII: The Command Post has lots of links and other updates. One posting notes:
There are whispers of an al-Qaeda connection to today’s bombings in Madrid. Some say the way the attacks were organized is a hallmark of al-Qaeda bombings.
However, authorities say that the type of explosives used are consistent with the type of materials used by ETA.
ETA has denied responsibility, which is not their usual way of operating.
Again, we will see. It doesn't matter at this point who did this. What matters is finding out for sure, and then getting them but good.
UPDATE VI: Being American In T.O. points out what is on most of our minds, regardless of what Spanish authorities say:
. . .Spain is a coalition partner in Iraq and has had numerous arrests and prosecution of of al Qaeda suspects there.
Today's March 11.
I can't justify the feeling I have but I think there is something here that requires more open-minded investigation. . .
UPDATE V: I see that Iberian Notes importantly points out that ETA is officially labelled, both by the U.S. and by the E.U., a "terrorist" group. So I have changed my own wording, where I had called them "separatists", mostly out of ignorance and due to my repeating CNN's reporting cited below.
ETA are indeed terrorists -- if the term has any meaning at all -- and should be called as much. My mistake. But I am not an international news service. What is CNN's excuse? I guess they'd probably say that one person's terrorist is, urrrr, another person's separatist.
UPDATE IV: Instapundit is leaning towards the murdering imbeciles being Islamikazes. If it is. . .
Instapundit directs us to Iberian Notes. That blog tells us:
. . .If this had happened in 1979, say, there might have been at the very least a declaration of martial law. Aznar emphasized that he is in control here, as Al Haig once wisely said. Aznar, in his speech, made a reference to Franklin Roosevelt's Pearl Harbor speech, saying that March 11 was a day of infamy. Aznar explicitly referred to the "international struggle against terrorism", and made all of our feelings very clear when he said, "We will defeat them". . .
Fox News quotes former U.S. Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross on the Islamikaze possibility:
"I think there could be an Al Qaeda connection simply because of the coordination because the style theirs," said former Ambassador Dennis Ross, a Fox News foreign affairs analyst. "But a lot of these groups like to work together now. Al Qaeda seems to be franchising."
"If it's Al Qaeda, that's a reminder that what Al Qaeda stands for is death and destruction … nothing that benefits humanity," Ross said.
So, we will see. . .
UPDATE III: CNN reports that President Bush phoned the Spanish PM earlier today:
. ..U.S. President George W. Bush called Aznar Thursday morning to express "solidarity with the people of Spain at this difficult moment," a National Security Council spokesman said. . .
Absolutamente.
UPDATE II: Aznar is blaming ETA. Sky reports:
Jose Maria Aznar held crisis cabinet talks and then addressed the nation.
"We will not back down in the face of terrorist killings," he said. "The perpetrators will be tried and convicted. We are targetting the total, complete and unconditional defeat of terrorism."
Of course, this is so bad that the Basque thugs are looking to shift blame to another group of thugs:
. . .Earlier, the leader of Eta's banned political wing Batasuna blamed "Arab resistance". Arnaldo Otegi said he "refused to believe" Eta was responsible, and a party spokesman condemned the attacks. . .
The AP notes he said also:
. . ."The modus operandi, the high number of victims and the way it was carried out make me think, and I have a hypothesis in mind, that yes it may have been an operative cell from the Arab resistance," Otegi said, noting that Spain's government backed the Iraq war. . .
It is not impossible to believe that it might be Islamikazes. But given the recent arrests in Madrid, it seems more reasonable to believe that this "achievement" is home-grown.
If so, this is sooooo bad, it might be unifying for Spain, and in the end turn out to be for ETA and Basque terrorists what the idiotic 1998 Omagh bombing was for the "Real IRA" -- a serious, long-term, strategic blunder of the worst kind.
If it is the "Arab resistance", or if it is ETA, is irrelevant. Spain has just unfortunately had its own 11th. . .
Regardless, those responsible must be defeated.
That simple.
UPDATE: CNN reports that European leaders are universally condemning the attacks. Well, at least they can agree on something.
It goes without saying (but nevertheless should be said aloud) that outgoing Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar -- a strong suppporter of the War on Islamist terror -- and his government should be given all possible support by the government and people of the United States.
INITIAL POSTING
CNN reports:
At least 173 people were killed and nearly 600 injured in a series of explosions on Madrid's railway network at the height of morning rush hour, interior ministry officials told CNN's Spanish language sister station CNN+.
Spanish officials are blaming the Basque separatist group ETA for the coordinated attack, which comes ahead of Sunday's general election.
Three separate trains were hit by near-simultaneous explosions before 8 a.m. (2 a.m. ET) along the southern part of Madrid's train network at Santa Eugenia, El Pozo and Atocha stations, officials said. . .
The Spanish evidently saw something coming. Remember this, from a couple of weeks ago?:
Spanish police Sunday seized more than 1,000 pounds of explosives and arrested two suspected members of the Basque separatist group ETA who were planning to carry out an imminent attack in Madrid, an official said.
Just how long the "unique" Basque "cultural identity" would survive under an Islamist dictatorship in a caliphate Spain is unclear. . .
. . . But what is clear is that some nuts never can stop being nuts.
And not all terror warnings are false alarms. . .
And not all intelligence is wrong. . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 11, 2004
NOTE: With so many updates, I have reversed my postings here -- with the most recent being highest up.
UPDATE XXI: As it gets near 11 PM here in Britain, and much as I would like to stay around, I can't. Morning comes too quickly. To stay with this as night moves westward, I suggest Debbye at Being American in T.O. and The Command Post. Also be sure to stop by Eric at Viking Pundit.
UPDATE XX: Leave it to Reuters. You just knew it had to end up with an attack on the Great Satan, didn't you? Sometime around 22:00 British time, they note:
A letter purporting to come from Osama bin Laden's militant Islamist al Qaeda network said a big attack on the United States was in the final stages of preparation, a London-based Arabic newspaper said on Thursday.
"We bring the good news to Muslims of the world that the expected 'Winds of Black Death' strike against America is now in its final stage...90 percent (ready) and God willing near," the letter said.
The letter, signed by the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades which said it is part of al Qaeda, was sent to the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper. A copy of the letter was faxed to Reuters in Dubai.
It was not possible to independently authenticate the letter. . .
My question: Where are those "good boys" the U.S. turned over to the U.K., and were released, and who are now supposedly "home", reunited with their loving families here in Britain?
Just asking. . .
UPDATE XIX: It's 22:33 in Britain (5:33 PM ET, U.S.) and AFP hasn't apparently updated since 2:14 PM, ET, U.S.
Huh?
Sorry, I forgot -- it's French.
UPDATE XVIII: Fox News reports, further on the A.P. report cited previously:
. . .The five-page e-mail claim, signed by the shadowy Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri, was received at the paper's London offices. It said the brigade's "death squad" had penetrated "one of the pillars of the crusade alliance, Spain."
"This is part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader, and America's ally in its war against Islam," the claim said.
Referring to Spain's Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, the statement asked: "Aznar, where is America? Who will protect you, Britain, Japan, Italy and others from us?"
The newspaper faxed the claim to The Associated Press office in Cairo.
The paper's editor, Bari Atwan, told Fox News the alleged letter from Al Qaeda "looks authentic" and consistent with letters the paper has received from the terrorist organization in the past. . .
Clearly, these are just people whom we have terribly misunderstood.
By the way -- if you believe that, you will believe just about anything . . .
Clearly, this is a situation that calls for rigorous law enforcement.
We may need indictments!
UPDATE XVII: The A.P. is reporting at around 2130 here in Britain:
. . .The Arabic newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi said it had received a claim of responsibility issued in the name of al-Qaida.
The e-mail claim of responsibility, signed by the shadowy Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri, was received at the newspaper's London offices and said the brigade's "death squad" had penetrated "one of the pillars of the crusade alliance, Spain."
"This is part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader, and America's ally in its war against Islam," the claim said.
Asked about the claim of responsibility, White House spokesman Sean McCormack said "we've seen the news reports and we're going to determine what the facts are.". . .
Frankly, does it matter? We know who the enemy are . . .
UPDATE XVI: I stand corrected -- by 6 minutes. At 2144, the BBC site updated, to include this:
. . .Mr Aznar made it clear he believed the armed Basque separatist group Eta was behind the co-ordinated blasts.
But Interior Minister Angel Acebes later revealed that an Islamic tape had been found with detonators in a stolen van recovered near Madrid.
The van was found in the town of Alcala de Henares - where three of the four bombed trains originated. The other train passed through the town.
Mr Acebes said the tape - one of seven discovered in the van - contained verses of the Koran, in Arabic, relating to education.
"Because of this, I have just given instructions to the security forces not to rule out any line of investigation," he said. . .
Where's Orla Guerin when we need her!
UPDATE XV: It's 2150, and the BBC still hasn't apparently mentioned the Arabic language tapes/letters which Sky and ITV here have reported at least an hour ago. . .
Clearly, the Beeb is making sure it gets its facts straight . . .
. . . as it never fails to do.
Can we stop laughing yet?
UPDATE XIV: ITV here in Britain reported just before 2100:
. . .Spain has so far attributed the attack to Basque separatists ETA but a suspect van has been found near Milan containing seven detonators and an Arabic tape.
A letter purporting to come from al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the bombings, calling them strikes against "crusaders". . .
"Crusaders!" Don't you love it! Print it! Clearly, those who wrote that letter reflect, urrr, a modern interpretation of that faith. . .
Is it still A.D. 1095, or haven't just a few things changed since then?
For such nuts, things obviously haven't.
Oh, by the way: Is one even permitted to write A.D. anymore?
UPDATE XIII: At 2100, the Beeb still has nothing to say similar to the Sky report of around 2030.
UPDATE XII: Sky here in Britain is reporting at 2030:
An Arabic language tape with Koranic versus has been found in a van carrying bomb detonators near Madrid, Spain's interior minister has revealed.
The discovery may throw into doubt the Spanish government's claim that the Basque separatist group Eta - rather than al Qaeda - was behind today's devastating bomb attacks, which killed 190 people and injured 1,200 people.
"Because of this, I have just given instructions to the security forces not to rule out any line of investigation," Angel Acebes said. . .
This could be a hoax.
On the other hand, I have a simple suggestion: Simply go after both ETA and Islamist terrorists.
And, as was said in a different context, "Let God sort them out."
Problem solved.
UPDATE XI: The BBC analyzes the situation -- it might be ETA; but what if it's Islamists?. . .
Way to go, guys! The wife and I were going back and forth on that question over dinner a little while ago -- and we don't draw salaries off a license tax!
UPDATE X: As of 2000 (8 PM) British time, the A.P. is reporting at least one of the reasons why Spanish authorities think it is ETA and not Islamists:
. . .The bombers used titadine, a kind of compressed dynamite also found in a bomb-laden van intercepted last month as it headed for Madrid, a source at Aznar's office said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Officials blamed ETA then, too.
But a U.S. intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, "It's too early to tell. We're not ruling anything out.". . .
So, they continue . . .
UPDATE IX: Ali at Iraq The Model believes these bombings were likely the work of Islamists, and explains why:
The horrible terrorist attacks that took place in Spain and which lead to the death and injury of hundreds of innocents today came as a shock to the world. These attacks should make us pose again to re-assess our look to how safe the world really is.
This time I have to disagree with our allies, and although it’s premature to say this, but I think that it wasn’t ETA who carried these attacks and I find myself compelled to agree with ETA’s spokesman and say that this was done by Islamic extremists. . .
. . .ETA may have a role in this, but certainly it’s not the major one. It seems that only extremist Muslims are capable of such meaningless horrible crimes, it’s their territory and their specialization and I would really be surprised if the future investigations proved otherwise. . .
Read that whole link.
UPDATE VIII: Now, at 1730, the BBC is reporting "at least" 182 killed.
UPDATE VII: The Command Post has lots of links and other updates. One posting notes:
There are whispers of an al-Qaeda connection to today’s bombings in Madrid. Some say the way the attacks were organized is a hallmark of al-Qaeda bombings.
However, authorities say that the type of explosives used are consistent with the type of materials used by ETA.
ETA has denied responsibility, which is not their usual way of operating.
Again, we will see. It doesn't matter at this point who did this. What matters is finding out for sure, and then getting them but good.
UPDATE VI: Being American In T.O. points out what is on most of our minds, regardless of what Spanish authorities say:
. . .Spain is a coalition partner in Iraq and has had numerous arrests and prosecution of of al Qaeda suspects there.
Today's March 11.
I can't justify the feeling I have but I think there is something here that requires more open-minded investigation. . .
UPDATE V: I see that Iberian Notes importantly points out that ETA is officially labelled, both by the U.S. and by the E.U., a "terrorist" group. So I have changed my own wording, where I had called them "separatists", mostly out of ignorance and due to my repeating CNN's reporting cited below.
ETA are indeed terrorists -- if the term has any meaning at all -- and should be called as much. My mistake. But I am not an international news service. What is CNN's excuse? I guess they'd probably say that one person's terrorist is, urrrr, another person's separatist.
UPDATE IV: Instapundit is leaning towards the murdering imbeciles being Islamikazes. If it is. . .
Instapundit directs us to Iberian Notes. That blog tells us:
. . .If this had happened in 1979, say, there might have been at the very least a declaration of martial law. Aznar emphasized that he is in control here, as Al Haig once wisely said. Aznar, in his speech, made a reference to Franklin Roosevelt's Pearl Harbor speech, saying that March 11 was a day of infamy. Aznar explicitly referred to the "international struggle against terrorism", and made all of our feelings very clear when he said, "We will defeat them". . .
Fox News quotes former U.S. Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross on the Islamikaze possibility:
"I think there could be an Al Qaeda connection simply because of the coordination because the style theirs," said former Ambassador Dennis Ross, a Fox News foreign affairs analyst. "But a lot of these groups like to work together now. Al Qaeda seems to be franchising."
"If it's Al Qaeda, that's a reminder that what Al Qaeda stands for is death and destruction … nothing that benefits humanity," Ross said.
So, we will see. . .
UPDATE III: CNN reports that President Bush phoned the Spanish PM earlier today:
. ..U.S. President George W. Bush called Aznar Thursday morning to express "solidarity with the people of Spain at this difficult moment," a National Security Council spokesman said. . .
Absolutamente.
UPDATE II: Aznar is blaming ETA. Sky reports:
Jose Maria Aznar held crisis cabinet talks and then addressed the nation.
"We will not back down in the face of terrorist killings," he said. "The perpetrators will be tried and convicted. We are targetting the total, complete and unconditional defeat of terrorism."
Of course, this is so bad that the Basque thugs are looking to shift blame to another group of thugs:
. . .Earlier, the leader of Eta's banned political wing Batasuna blamed "Arab resistance". Arnaldo Otegi said he "refused to believe" Eta was responsible, and a party spokesman condemned the attacks. . .
The AP notes he said also:
. . ."The modus operandi, the high number of victims and the way it was carried out make me think, and I have a hypothesis in mind, that yes it may have been an operative cell from the Arab resistance," Otegi said, noting that Spain's government backed the Iraq war. . .
It is not impossible to believe that it might be Islamikazes. But given the recent arrests in Madrid, it seems more reasonable to believe that this "achievement" is home-grown.
If so, this is sooooo bad, it might be unifying for Spain, and in the end turn out to be for ETA and Basque terrorists what the idiotic 1998 Omagh bombing was for the "Real IRA" -- a serious, long-term, strategic blunder of the worst kind.
If it is the "Arab resistance", or if it is ETA, is irrelevant. Spain has just unfortunately had its own 11th. . .
Regardless, those responsible must be defeated.
That simple.
UPDATE: CNN reports that European leaders are universally condemning the attacks. Well, at least they can agree on something.
It goes without saying (but nevertheless should be said aloud) that outgoing Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar -- a strong suppporter of the War on Islamist terror -- and his government should be given all possible support by the government and people of the United States.
INITIAL POSTING
CNN reports:
At least 173 people were killed and nearly 600 injured in a series of explosions on Madrid's railway network at the height of morning rush hour, interior ministry officials told CNN's Spanish language sister station CNN+.
Spanish officials are blaming the Basque separatist group ETA for the coordinated attack, which comes ahead of Sunday's general election.
Three separate trains were hit by near-simultaneous explosions before 8 a.m. (2 a.m. ET) along the southern part of Madrid's train network at Santa Eugenia, El Pozo and Atocha stations, officials said. . .
The Spanish evidently saw something coming. Remember this, from a couple of weeks ago?:
Spanish police Sunday seized more than 1,000 pounds of explosives and arrested two suspected members of the Basque separatist group ETA who were planning to carry out an imminent attack in Madrid, an official said.
Just how long the "unique" Basque "cultural identity" would survive under an Islamist dictatorship in a caliphate Spain is unclear. . .
. . . But what is clear is that some nuts never can stop being nuts.
And not all terror warnings are false alarms. . .
And not all intelligence is wrong. . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 11, 2004
NEWS ALERT: DUMB CANADIAN FOREIGN EDITOR SUPPORTS KERRY
Being American in T.O. links to Let It Bleed's excellent slicing and dicing of The Toronto Sun's Eric Margolis's love affair with, urrrr, J.F.K. Great bit:
Of course, if you disagree with Eric's assessment, and think that perhaps Mr. Kerry is up for some criticism, that must be because you are a resident of
"parts of the midwest, mountain states, and south, where Bush is often venerated with the kind of mindless adulation North Koreans shower on their "Beloved Leader," Kim Jong-il."
Ah, yes. I recall with such fondness when we filled the stadiums and genuflected before the 90-foot high statues of Bush. Why, just the other day, as I was walking down the street, listening to the omnipresent loudspeakers screeching out "Love Bush! Love Bush!", I picked up one of the newspapers: it, like all the others, commanded me to "Love Bush". I passed by an electronics store, and the window was filled with television sets bearing only one image: the beloved Bush. . .
Superb. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 11, 2004
Being American in T.O. links to Let It Bleed's excellent slicing and dicing of The Toronto Sun's Eric Margolis's love affair with, urrrr, J.F.K. Great bit:
Of course, if you disagree with Eric's assessment, and think that perhaps Mr. Kerry is up for some criticism, that must be because you are a resident of
"parts of the midwest, mountain states, and south, where Bush is often venerated with the kind of mindless adulation North Koreans shower on their "Beloved Leader," Kim Jong-il."
Ah, yes. I recall with such fondness when we filled the stadiums and genuflected before the 90-foot high statues of Bush. Why, just the other day, as I was walking down the street, listening to the omnipresent loudspeakers screeching out "Love Bush! Love Bush!", I picked up one of the newspapers: it, like all the others, commanded me to "Love Bush". I passed by an electronics store, and the window was filled with television sets bearing only one image: the beloved Bush. . .
Superb. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 11, 2004
"LEGITIMATE TARGETS"
Tim Blair on an asinine pair -- John Pilger and Margo Kingston -- and "legitimate targets" in Iraq. Silly us -- failing to realize that a 33 year old civilian, American woman (who could be many Americans' little sister), working for women's rights, is a legitimate target:
Gunmen shot to death two Americans and their Iraqi translator south of Baghdad, and the Polish military said Wednesday that the attackers were disguised as police and stopped the car at a roadblock.
The American victims were the first U.S. civilians from the occupation authority to be killed in Iraq.
CBS News Anchor Dan Rather reports one of the Americans killed in the ambush was Fern Holland, 33, program manager for women's initiatives in Iraq.
Holland was working with Iraqi women on the newly developed Iraqi constitution and was leading women's rights efforts in the part of the country where she was killed.
However, enemy men, picked up in Afghanistan, are NOT legitimate targets.
Gotcha.
Gosh, I wonder from whom her family will be able to seek "compensation"?
As Ann Coulter noted:
. . .The villains of Tom Clancy's book "The Sum of All Fears" were recently transformed from Muslim terrorists to neo-Nazis for the movie version. You wouldn't want to upset the little darlings. They might do something rash like slaughter 3,000 innocent American civilians in a single day. . .
Nothing like fighting a war in which we are not permitted even to "insult" or "offend" an enemy, while that enemy is simultaneously trying to kill us. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 11, 2004
Tim Blair on an asinine pair -- John Pilger and Margo Kingston -- and "legitimate targets" in Iraq. Silly us -- failing to realize that a 33 year old civilian, American woman (who could be many Americans' little sister), working for women's rights, is a legitimate target:
Gunmen shot to death two Americans and their Iraqi translator south of Baghdad, and the Polish military said Wednesday that the attackers were disguised as police and stopped the car at a roadblock.
The American victims were the first U.S. civilians from the occupation authority to be killed in Iraq.
CBS News Anchor Dan Rather reports one of the Americans killed in the ambush was Fern Holland, 33, program manager for women's initiatives in Iraq.
Holland was working with Iraqi women on the newly developed Iraqi constitution and was leading women's rights efforts in the part of the country where she was killed.
However, enemy men, picked up in Afghanistan, are NOT legitimate targets.
Gotcha.
Gosh, I wonder from whom her family will be able to seek "compensation"?
As Ann Coulter noted:
. . .The villains of Tom Clancy's book "The Sum of All Fears" were recently transformed from Muslim terrorists to neo-Nazis for the movie version. You wouldn't want to upset the little darlings. They might do something rash like slaughter 3,000 innocent American civilians in a single day. . .
Nothing like fighting a war in which we are not permitted even to "insult" or "offend" an enemy, while that enemy is simultaneously trying to kill us. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 11, 2004
NOW, SEEK REDRESS IN THE INFIDEL JUDICIARY
The U.K. passport holding (and therefore, exceedingly fortunate) Islamists are now free and "back home" in Britain, and the sanctimonious mouthing off has begun in earnest. It seems they want "compensation."
Of course. This episode provides a chilling glimpse into what the war on Islamist terror will descend even deeper into if there should be a Kerry administration. After all, the infidel's legal system is certainly superior to that of sharia, when it comes to pitching for compensation money.
But is this to be "the war", too? The enemy attack us, we fight back, kill many, capture some, release those captives eventually, who then will sue us, we will pay them, they will use our money to recruit and better train more Islamist thugs, and the circle will begin anew -- until the Islamists have us at their mercy? Let's hope not.
Remember in "Gone With The Wind" Rhett Butler's leaving Scarlett O'Hara to join the Confederate army? He joked that if a bullet got him (and I'm paraphrasing), he would die feeling like an idiot. Well, if we allow Islamists to chase us in civilian courts -- would we ever have considered even allowing released SS to do so? -- it is we who may eventually be killed, feeling like idiots. The BBC reports:
. . . Steven Watt, a British lawyer who represented Mr Rasul and Mr Iqbal in the US, said their release was not surprising and thought they would claim compensation.
"It is what we expected to happen. I think what happened in terms of them arriving at a military base in the UK and taken into custody was just window dressing for the benefit of the US Government.
"They have spent two-and-a-half years languishing in that prison [Guantanamo] - it is a complete travesty of justice.
"I think they are owed something by the US Government, but whether they will ever be able to get it is another thing."
Damn right. Oh, and by way of response, I feel I must abandon my normal, detached sarcasm and state the following in no uncertain terms. I have just raised a certain finger . . . and now two fingers (the latter, for the benefit of British readers), and offer the following editorial comment, in a considerate, thoughtful, elevated manner: Fu*k you.
Jamal Udeen's solicitor Robert Lizar, said the 37-year-old wanted US authorities to answer "for the injustice he had suffered", and believed the UK had been "complicit" in letting his detention continue. . .
As for what Her Most Britannic Majesty's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, America's ally in the war on Islamist terror, will permit these "boys" to pursue in British courts is entirely Britain's affair. If Britain wants to "compensate" released SS-in-training, that's Britain's business.
However, I will back -- if possible, even with a campaign contribution -- any U.S. legislator's (be he/she Democrat or Republican) move to impeach and then convict for treason any U.S. judge, in any U.S. court, who is willing to give these bastards even $ 1 of my hard-earned tax dollars.
"Compensation"? This is war. The U.S. military, normally very good shots, in these cases missed. These boys' "compensation" is that they are still alive. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 11, 2004
The U.K. passport holding (and therefore, exceedingly fortunate) Islamists are now free and "back home" in Britain, and the sanctimonious mouthing off has begun in earnest. It seems they want "compensation."
Of course. This episode provides a chilling glimpse into what the war on Islamist terror will descend even deeper into if there should be a Kerry administration. After all, the infidel's legal system is certainly superior to that of sharia, when it comes to pitching for compensation money.
But is this to be "the war", too? The enemy attack us, we fight back, kill many, capture some, release those captives eventually, who then will sue us, we will pay them, they will use our money to recruit and better train more Islamist thugs, and the circle will begin anew -- until the Islamists have us at their mercy? Let's hope not.
Remember in "Gone With The Wind" Rhett Butler's leaving Scarlett O'Hara to join the Confederate army? He joked that if a bullet got him (and I'm paraphrasing), he would die feeling like an idiot. Well, if we allow Islamists to chase us in civilian courts -- would we ever have considered even allowing released SS to do so? -- it is we who may eventually be killed, feeling like idiots. The BBC reports:
. . . Steven Watt, a British lawyer who represented Mr Rasul and Mr Iqbal in the US, said their release was not surprising and thought they would claim compensation.
"It is what we expected to happen. I think what happened in terms of them arriving at a military base in the UK and taken into custody was just window dressing for the benefit of the US Government.
"They have spent two-and-a-half years languishing in that prison [Guantanamo] - it is a complete travesty of justice.
"I think they are owed something by the US Government, but whether they will ever be able to get it is another thing."
Damn right. Oh, and by way of response, I feel I must abandon my normal, detached sarcasm and state the following in no uncertain terms. I have just raised a certain finger . . . and now two fingers (the latter, for the benefit of British readers), and offer the following editorial comment, in a considerate, thoughtful, elevated manner: Fu*k you.
Jamal Udeen's solicitor Robert Lizar, said the 37-year-old wanted US authorities to answer "for the injustice he had suffered", and believed the UK had been "complicit" in letting his detention continue. . .
As for what Her Most Britannic Majesty's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, America's ally in the war on Islamist terror, will permit these "boys" to pursue in British courts is entirely Britain's affair. If Britain wants to "compensate" released SS-in-training, that's Britain's business.
However, I will back -- if possible, even with a campaign contribution -- any U.S. legislator's (be he/she Democrat or Republican) move to impeach and then convict for treason any U.S. judge, in any U.S. court, who is willing to give these bastards even $ 1 of my hard-earned tax dollars.
"Compensation"? This is war. The U.S. military, normally very good shots, in these cases missed. These boys' "compensation" is that they are still alive. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 11, 2004
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
IS HE CLOSER TO DECIDING?
He may be closer to choosing between Bush or Kerry. Here, Andrew Sullivan reflects about having Kerry in the White House:
. . .My stomach lurches at the thought of another terror attack while Kerry is president. What would be his first response: reach for a dog-eared copy of the early Sartre? Look, Eliot is a spectacular poet. I've read him year after year after year. I dramatized the "Four Quartets" at Harvard. But that's not a qualification for the presidency. Then there's this classic line of pretentiousness and self-regard: "I remember flying once; I was looking out at the desert and I wrote a poem about the barren desolation of the desert. I wrote a poem once about a great encounter I had with a deer early in the morning that was very moving." Oh God. Four years of this?
But we can live with pretentiousness and "self-regard" -- as long as the person possessing them is also willing to take on and destroy an enemy that comes at us. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 10, 2004
He may be closer to choosing between Bush or Kerry. Here, Andrew Sullivan reflects about having Kerry in the White House:
. . .My stomach lurches at the thought of another terror attack while Kerry is president. What would be his first response: reach for a dog-eared copy of the early Sartre? Look, Eliot is a spectacular poet. I've read him year after year after year. I dramatized the "Four Quartets" at Harvard. But that's not a qualification for the presidency. Then there's this classic line of pretentiousness and self-regard: "I remember flying once; I was looking out at the desert and I wrote a poem about the barren desolation of the desert. I wrote a poem once about a great encounter I had with a deer early in the morning that was very moving." Oh God. Four years of this?
But we can live with pretentiousness and "self-regard" -- as long as the person possessing them is also willing to take on and destroy an enemy that comes at us. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 10, 2004
ON "SECURITY MOMS"
Until September 11, 2001, they were termed "Soccer Moms". Well, they ain't "Soccer Moms" anymore. Anne Morse, in a piece on the Independent Women's Forum site explains:
. . .The primary frenzy has driven Security Moms off the journalistic radar screen. But we’re still here. And we’re still worried. . .
. . .Ferocious is the term presidential candidates should fix in their minds when they hear the term “Security Moms.” Because inside the most gentle, peace-loving, apple-pie baking mommy is a snarling Rottweiler who will kill to keep her babies safe.
Pre-September 11, this willingness to kill for our kids was an instinct the average American mom understood only in abstraction; today’s mother feels it in her gut. Every time she sees the televised faces of those deck-of-cards terrorists, she wants to play 52-card pickup with their corpses.
I can recall the exact moment my own killer instinct emerged from the sleepy backwater of my mind and morphed into a gut-wrenching, stomach-churning, heart-pounding rage. It was the day I saw on the news a videotape recovered from an al-Qaeda hideout. It showed terrorists rehearsing an attack on an American elementary school. Some of them were posing as children and teachers, screaming in fear as gun-toting men burst into their “school” and herded them into a classroom. Presumably, they planned to murder as many children as possible.
By the end of the program, I was beyond rage. In a curiously unemotional way, I simply wanted these bastards dead, even if I had to wipe the Play Doh from my hands and hunt them down myself. . .
Gulp.
. . .Security Moms don’t much care if we never locate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we’re horrified when we read about flights being cancelled, as they were over Christmas, because of concerns about terror attacks. When we put our kids on the plane to visit Grandma, we want to know those planes are safe.
Similarly, we’re not that concerned when TV talking heads complain about how badly the rebuilding of Iraq is going. We know perfectly well that it will take years, just as it did in Japan and Germany. But Security Moms lose it -- lose it -- when we read that Muslim networks are operating near our homes. Networks accused -- as one in Virginia recently was -- of sending millions of dollars overseas to known terrorist groups. . .
. . .Security Moms listen to the squabbling over whether America should have fought in Iraq, especially now, when al-Qaeda fighters are slithering into Baghdad from around the world, targeting our soldiers and our Iraqi allies. We shake our heads in wonder. Don’t the pundits get it? These people mean to kill us. Given a choice between having them attack our well-trained, well-armed soldiers in Iraq (who are quite good at shooting back), or mount an assault on the kindergarten down the street, we’ll take attacks in Iraq, thank you. . .
Sounds like a woman of "nuance" to me.
. . .“Has President Bush convinced you that he can handle terrorism?” a Time/CNN poll asked last summer. “Yes,” replied 67 percent of America’s moms. . .
. . .The first thing many of us did on Sept. 11, when we heard about those jets crashing into buildings, was to jump in the car and pick up our kids. It was goodbye to the Soccer Mom, who had time to worry about animal rights and air pollution, and hello to the Security Mom, who’s obsessed with keeping her children safe -- not just from school yard bullies and child molesters, but also from those who think they’ll receive 70 black-eyed virgins if they murder American kids. . .
Presumably, the Kerry campaign is listening?
Read the whole thing. The above highlights don't do this piece full justice.
If her sort had Osama bin Laden in a room to herself, giving him "a time out" is about the last thing she would consider doing. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Until September 11, 2001, they were termed "Soccer Moms". Well, they ain't "Soccer Moms" anymore. Anne Morse, in a piece on the Independent Women's Forum site explains:
. . .The primary frenzy has driven Security Moms off the journalistic radar screen. But we’re still here. And we’re still worried. . .
. . .Ferocious is the term presidential candidates should fix in their minds when they hear the term “Security Moms.” Because inside the most gentle, peace-loving, apple-pie baking mommy is a snarling Rottweiler who will kill to keep her babies safe.
Pre-September 11, this willingness to kill for our kids was an instinct the average American mom understood only in abstraction; today’s mother feels it in her gut. Every time she sees the televised faces of those deck-of-cards terrorists, she wants to play 52-card pickup with their corpses.
I can recall the exact moment my own killer instinct emerged from the sleepy backwater of my mind and morphed into a gut-wrenching, stomach-churning, heart-pounding rage. It was the day I saw on the news a videotape recovered from an al-Qaeda hideout. It showed terrorists rehearsing an attack on an American elementary school. Some of them were posing as children and teachers, screaming in fear as gun-toting men burst into their “school” and herded them into a classroom. Presumably, they planned to murder as many children as possible.
By the end of the program, I was beyond rage. In a curiously unemotional way, I simply wanted these bastards dead, even if I had to wipe the Play Doh from my hands and hunt them down myself. . .
Gulp.
. . .Security Moms don’t much care if we never locate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we’re horrified when we read about flights being cancelled, as they were over Christmas, because of concerns about terror attacks. When we put our kids on the plane to visit Grandma, we want to know those planes are safe.
Similarly, we’re not that concerned when TV talking heads complain about how badly the rebuilding of Iraq is going. We know perfectly well that it will take years, just as it did in Japan and Germany. But Security Moms lose it -- lose it -- when we read that Muslim networks are operating near our homes. Networks accused -- as one in Virginia recently was -- of sending millions of dollars overseas to known terrorist groups. . .
. . .Security Moms listen to the squabbling over whether America should have fought in Iraq, especially now, when al-Qaeda fighters are slithering into Baghdad from around the world, targeting our soldiers and our Iraqi allies. We shake our heads in wonder. Don’t the pundits get it? These people mean to kill us. Given a choice between having them attack our well-trained, well-armed soldiers in Iraq (who are quite good at shooting back), or mount an assault on the kindergarten down the street, we’ll take attacks in Iraq, thank you. . .
Sounds like a woman of "nuance" to me.
. . .“Has President Bush convinced you that he can handle terrorism?” a Time/CNN poll asked last summer. “Yes,” replied 67 percent of America’s moms. . .
. . .The first thing many of us did on Sept. 11, when we heard about those jets crashing into buildings, was to jump in the car and pick up our kids. It was goodbye to the Soccer Mom, who had time to worry about animal rights and air pollution, and hello to the Security Mom, who’s obsessed with keeping her children safe -- not just from school yard bullies and child molesters, but also from those who think they’ll receive 70 black-eyed virgins if they murder American kids. . .
Presumably, the Kerry campaign is listening?
Read the whole thing. The above highlights don't do this piece full justice.
If her sort had Osama bin Laden in a room to herself, giving him "a time out" is about the last thing she would consider doing. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 10, 2004
THE MORE LIBERAL THE CHURCH, THE FEWER THE CHURCHGOERS?
On March 5, the Christian News service had this interesting piece:
. . .One sign of the weakness of Christianity in Europe is church attendance. According to a major survey in the 1990s, the percentage of people attending church on an average Sunday in some European countries is a mere fraction of the total population: England (27%), West Germany (14%), Denmark (5%), Norway (5%), Sweden, (4%) and Finland (4%).
More than even secularism, however, Gene Edward Veith, culture critic for World magazine, says the problem is found in many of the churches themselves: "This decline is directly attributable to the theological liberalism of the once-powerful state churches."
Veith says that, where the more conservative Catholic Church holds sway, church attendance is far higher: Ireland (84%), Poland (55%), Portugal (47%), and Italy (45%).
"These are Catholic countries where the church has remained conservative," Veith says. "Catholic churches that have gone liberal -- in the United States, France, the Netherlands -- have the same low attendance rates as liberal Protestants.". . .
Hmmmm.
Just, hmmmm. That's all. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 10, 2004
On March 5, the Christian News service had this interesting piece:
. . .One sign of the weakness of Christianity in Europe is church attendance. According to a major survey in the 1990s, the percentage of people attending church on an average Sunday in some European countries is a mere fraction of the total population: England (27%), West Germany (14%), Denmark (5%), Norway (5%), Sweden, (4%) and Finland (4%).
More than even secularism, however, Gene Edward Veith, culture critic for World magazine, says the problem is found in many of the churches themselves: "This decline is directly attributable to the theological liberalism of the once-powerful state churches."
Veith says that, where the more conservative Catholic Church holds sway, church attendance is far higher: Ireland (84%), Poland (55%), Portugal (47%), and Italy (45%).
"These are Catholic countries where the church has remained conservative," Veith says. "Catholic churches that have gone liberal -- in the United States, France, the Netherlands -- have the same low attendance rates as liberal Protestants.". . .
Hmmmm.
Just, hmmmm. That's all. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 10, 2004
GET WELL SOON, JOHN
Michelle Malkin points out:
Those oh-so-compassionate liberals could hardly contain their glee upon hearing the news that Attorney General John Ashcroft is suffering from a severe case of gallstone pancreatitis. . .
. . .It is not the incivility of the Ashcroft-haters that galls me. It is the unmitigated insipidity and apathy they display toward what this man and his department have done to protect their right to be free, safe and stupid. . .
Every single time Ashcroft has brought charges against jihadists in America, he has been mocked and vilified. Every single time he has tightened the screws on Islamic terror recruitment and financing, he has been lambasted as a racist. Every single time they have been arrested, the defendants have proclaimed their absolute innocence. And each time Ashcroft has won convictions against them -- neutralizing terror cells in Lackawanna, N.Y., Portland, Detroit, and now northern Virginia -- he has been met with more condemnation and derision.
John Ashcroft has nobly taken on the grueling job of protecting a nation of ingrates who take joy in his illness while terrorists continue to plot to kill us all. . .
On one thing, though, Michelle is mistaken. There are not nearly as many ingrates out here as she believes there to be. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Michelle Malkin points out:
Those oh-so-compassionate liberals could hardly contain their glee upon hearing the news that Attorney General John Ashcroft is suffering from a severe case of gallstone pancreatitis. . .
. . .It is not the incivility of the Ashcroft-haters that galls me. It is the unmitigated insipidity and apathy they display toward what this man and his department have done to protect their right to be free, safe and stupid. . .
Every single time Ashcroft has brought charges against jihadists in America, he has been mocked and vilified. Every single time he has tightened the screws on Islamic terror recruitment and financing, he has been lambasted as a racist. Every single time they have been arrested, the defendants have proclaimed their absolute innocence. And each time Ashcroft has won convictions against them -- neutralizing terror cells in Lackawanna, N.Y., Portland, Detroit, and now northern Virginia -- he has been met with more condemnation and derision.
John Ashcroft has nobly taken on the grueling job of protecting a nation of ingrates who take joy in his illness while terrorists continue to plot to kill us all. . .
On one thing, though, Michelle is mistaken. There are not nearly as many ingrates out here as she believes there to be. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 10, 2004
IF BUSH LOSES
Victor Hanson explains it in real terms:
. . .if President Bush loses, the war against terror will return, as promised, to the status of a police matter — subpoenas and court trials the more appropriate response to the mass murder of 3,000 at the "crime scene" of the crater in New York. Europe will be assured that our troops will stay while we apologize for the usual litany of purported unilateral sins. North Korea will get more blackmail cash, while pampered South Korean leftists resume their "sunshine" mirage. Iraq will be turned over to the U.N. as we abruptly leave, and could dissolve into something like the Balkans between 1991 and 1998. Iran and Syria will let out a big sigh of relief — as American diplomats once more sit out on the tarmac in vain hopes of an "audience" with despots. The Saudis will smile that smile. Arafat will be assured that he is now once again a legitimate interlocutor. And strangest of all, the American Left will feel that the United States has just barely begun to return to its "moral" bearings — even as its laxity and relativism encourage some pretty immoral things to come. . .
It is up to us, as American voters, to make sure it doesn't come to that.
For if he loses, we will have only ourselves to blame -- when, some few years from now, we are trying to figure out what happened to Chicago . . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Victor Hanson explains it in real terms:
. . .if President Bush loses, the war against terror will return, as promised, to the status of a police matter — subpoenas and court trials the more appropriate response to the mass murder of 3,000 at the "crime scene" of the crater in New York. Europe will be assured that our troops will stay while we apologize for the usual litany of purported unilateral sins. North Korea will get more blackmail cash, while pampered South Korean leftists resume their "sunshine" mirage. Iraq will be turned over to the U.N. as we abruptly leave, and could dissolve into something like the Balkans between 1991 and 1998. Iran and Syria will let out a big sigh of relief — as American diplomats once more sit out on the tarmac in vain hopes of an "audience" with despots. The Saudis will smile that smile. Arafat will be assured that he is now once again a legitimate interlocutor. And strangest of all, the American Left will feel that the United States has just barely begun to return to its "moral" bearings — even as its laxity and relativism encourage some pretty immoral things to come. . .
It is up to us, as American voters, to make sure it doesn't come to that.
For if he loses, we will have only ourselves to blame -- when, some few years from now, we are trying to figure out what happened to Chicago . . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 10, 2004
VISA WAIVERS
Fox News reports:
Some American allies are expressing anger at the uneven treatment that their citizens are getting when they visit the United States, while Europeans from nations with longer, but now more strained ties to America get no additional scrutiny at the border. . .
. . .During a visit to Washington in January, Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski called on Washington to drop its visa requirements for Polish citizens. But President Bush responded noncommittally.
"We've got visa rules set by the Congress, that are on the books, and we look forward to working with the president on this issue," Bush said.
Poland is not alone in its dissatisfaction with the U.S. visa regimen. When Czech Republic Deputy Prime Minister Stanislav Gross traveled to Washington in January, he asked Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to "very seriously reconsider" the visa requirement for citizens of his country, which has deployed a 120-man special forces unit to Afghanistan.
Bulgaria, which has 500 troops in Iraq, and Romania, which has troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, are also considering raising the issue with Washington.
Citizens of these nations note that anti-American terrorism has not come from their countries, while Al Qaeda cells have been discovered among the large Muslim populations in Britain, France and Germany. . .
I was wondering when this issue would eventually surface overtly. It is an important one and should be clarified. Our new allies should be treated with respect, and rewarded for their steadfast support. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Fox News reports:
Some American allies are expressing anger at the uneven treatment that their citizens are getting when they visit the United States, while Europeans from nations with longer, but now more strained ties to America get no additional scrutiny at the border. . .
. . .During a visit to Washington in January, Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski called on Washington to drop its visa requirements for Polish citizens. But President Bush responded noncommittally.
"We've got visa rules set by the Congress, that are on the books, and we look forward to working with the president on this issue," Bush said.
Poland is not alone in its dissatisfaction with the U.S. visa regimen. When Czech Republic Deputy Prime Minister Stanislav Gross traveled to Washington in January, he asked Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to "very seriously reconsider" the visa requirement for citizens of his country, which has deployed a 120-man special forces unit to Afghanistan.
Bulgaria, which has 500 troops in Iraq, and Romania, which has troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, are also considering raising the issue with Washington.
Citizens of these nations note that anti-American terrorism has not come from their countries, while Al Qaeda cells have been discovered among the large Muslim populations in Britain, France and Germany. . .
I was wondering when this issue would eventually surface overtly. It is an important one and should be clarified. Our new allies should be treated with respect, and rewarded for their steadfast support. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 10, 2004
BUT IRAQ HAD NO TIES TO TERRORISTS!
We have been lectured to again and again by self-described "progressives" about how Hussein's Iraq had had nothing to do with terrorism. Well, Sky News reports:
Abu Abbas, the Palestinian leader who masterminded the hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro, has died in US custody.
He is believed to have spent 17 years living in exile in Baghdad before being captured by US Marines last year.
The Pentagon said initial reports indicate Abbas died of natural causes, possibly a heart attack.
The Syrian-born militant headed the Palestinian Liberation Front which seized the Achille Lauro in 1985.
During the hijacking, American tourist Leon Klinghoffer was murdered when he was pushed overboard in his wheelchair.
Abbas was sentenced in absentia in Italy to five life terms for his role. . .
You just know various nuts are going to try to make a big deal out of where he died. It doesn't matter. Anyone who would defend Abbas in any manner has a major screw loose -- or is the enemy.
This morning, the world is that little bit brighter. And finally, Leon Klinghoffer can rest in peace. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 10, 2004
We have been lectured to again and again by self-described "progressives" about how Hussein's Iraq had had nothing to do with terrorism. Well, Sky News reports:
Abu Abbas, the Palestinian leader who masterminded the hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro, has died in US custody.
He is believed to have spent 17 years living in exile in Baghdad before being captured by US Marines last year.
The Pentagon said initial reports indicate Abbas died of natural causes, possibly a heart attack.
The Syrian-born militant headed the Palestinian Liberation Front which seized the Achille Lauro in 1985.
During the hijacking, American tourist Leon Klinghoffer was murdered when he was pushed overboard in his wheelchair.
Abbas was sentenced in absentia in Italy to five life terms for his role. . .
You just know various nuts are going to try to make a big deal out of where he died. It doesn't matter. Anyone who would defend Abbas in any manner has a major screw loose -- or is the enemy.
This morning, the world is that little bit brighter. And finally, Leon Klinghoffer can rest in peace. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 10, 2004
THE BOYS ARE BACK IN TOWN
They are "home"! "Home"! At last! When's the "homecoming" parade!!!?
The BBC notes (accompanied by, of course, photos showing them as likeable guys from next door):
1) Former Beirut hostage Terry Waite has condemned the US for breaching human rights in holding the men in Cuba without trial.
2) Fair Trials Abroad said Mr Blunkett's speech signalled the end to British opposition to the "kangaroo courts" proposed by the US.
3) Solicitor Greg Powell, who is representing Ruhal Ahmed, confirmed his client, who he has never met, would be taken to Paddington Green police station in London for questioning.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding afoot here in Britain. These men (and the others at Guantanamo) were not picked up for loitering, littering or even grand theft auto. The British media is mistakenly portraying this as a legal dilemma. It is not. These men are not the second coming of O.J. Simpson, or even Martha Stewart.
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cut through the nonsense -- as he usually does. CNN reports:
. . ."Our government has made a considered judgment that it was appropriate to transfer these individuals to the government of the United Kingdom," U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters Tuesday in Washington.
Asked why it had taken two years to conclude that the men posed no security threat, Rumsfeld said: "At some point, you say, 'we think we've got what we need out of this crowd -- five people -- let's move them along.'"
But that intelligence is not foolproof, he added.
"I've been told by senior people in this department that, of the people that have been released, we know of at least one who's gone back to being a terrorist. So, life isn't perfect. You can make mistakes in evaluating these people. Let's hope that none of these do.". . .
Something regarding this lunacy over the release of these dimwits also led me to recall the following. During the American thumping by the British on Long Island in the summer of 1776, George Washington's subordinate, General John Sullivan, had been captured. Within weeks, however, Sullivan was paroled, to pass along a message to the American Congress regarding British conditions for peace.
Listening to the inept Sullivan drone on, future vice president John Adams quietly thought to himself that the best thing that might have happened for the cause would have been if, back on Long Island, Sullivan had instead gotten a British bullet in the head.
As with where Sullivan's personal survival had been concerned, the best thing that could have happened for "this crowd" was to get themselves captured. For capture meant they had survived; they would return home eventually.
After all, had they not been grabbed by U.S. forces the alternatives were decidedly bleak, given where they were. It seems entirely likely that they would have either:
A) gotten away unscathed, and now be unable to get home at all, leaving their families to suffer in silence, with no clue as to their whereabouts,
B) been wounded and managed to avoid capture, and remain today with the remnants of Taliban forces, and again with their families having no idea what was happening to them or,
C) been killed outright and their bodies would today be little more than decomposing and forgotten, their final fates unknown to those "back home".
Ah, well, we can't have everything, can we. . .
And I suspect that John Adams might have had a particular opinion. . .
UPDATE: March 18. The Telegraph tells us:
Four of the British Guantanamo Bay detainees released last week were armed and trained by Islamic militants in Afghanistan, US officials told reporters last night.
Officials at the American Embassy in London sent a letter containing detailed allegations about the four men, from East London and the West Midlands town of Tipton, to The Sun newspaper. . .
. . .British officials privately expressed agreement that the four were not innocents abroad, though they played down any idea of a close connection with al-Qa'eda. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 10, 2004
They are "home"! "Home"! At last! When's the "homecoming" parade!!!?
The BBC notes (accompanied by, of course, photos showing them as likeable guys from next door):
1) Former Beirut hostage Terry Waite has condemned the US for breaching human rights in holding the men in Cuba without trial.
2) Fair Trials Abroad said Mr Blunkett's speech signalled the end to British opposition to the "kangaroo courts" proposed by the US.
3) Solicitor Greg Powell, who is representing Ruhal Ahmed, confirmed his client, who he has never met, would be taken to Paddington Green police station in London for questioning.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding afoot here in Britain. These men (and the others at Guantanamo) were not picked up for loitering, littering or even grand theft auto. The British media is mistakenly portraying this as a legal dilemma. It is not. These men are not the second coming of O.J. Simpson, or even Martha Stewart.
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cut through the nonsense -- as he usually does. CNN reports:
. . ."Our government has made a considered judgment that it was appropriate to transfer these individuals to the government of the United Kingdom," U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters Tuesday in Washington.
Asked why it had taken two years to conclude that the men posed no security threat, Rumsfeld said: "At some point, you say, 'we think we've got what we need out of this crowd -- five people -- let's move them along.'"
But that intelligence is not foolproof, he added.
"I've been told by senior people in this department that, of the people that have been released, we know of at least one who's gone back to being a terrorist. So, life isn't perfect. You can make mistakes in evaluating these people. Let's hope that none of these do.". . .
Something regarding this lunacy over the release of these dimwits also led me to recall the following. During the American thumping by the British on Long Island in the summer of 1776, George Washington's subordinate, General John Sullivan, had been captured. Within weeks, however, Sullivan was paroled, to pass along a message to the American Congress regarding British conditions for peace.
Listening to the inept Sullivan drone on, future vice president John Adams quietly thought to himself that the best thing that might have happened for the cause would have been if, back on Long Island, Sullivan had instead gotten a British bullet in the head.
As with where Sullivan's personal survival had been concerned, the best thing that could have happened for "this crowd" was to get themselves captured. For capture meant they had survived; they would return home eventually.
After all, had they not been grabbed by U.S. forces the alternatives were decidedly bleak, given where they were. It seems entirely likely that they would have either:
A) gotten away unscathed, and now be unable to get home at all, leaving their families to suffer in silence, with no clue as to their whereabouts,
B) been wounded and managed to avoid capture, and remain today with the remnants of Taliban forces, and again with their families having no idea what was happening to them or,
C) been killed outright and their bodies would today be little more than decomposing and forgotten, their final fates unknown to those "back home".
Ah, well, we can't have everything, can we. . .
And I suspect that John Adams might have had a particular opinion. . .
UPDATE: March 18. The Telegraph tells us:
Four of the British Guantanamo Bay detainees released last week were armed and trained by Islamic militants in Afghanistan, US officials told reporters last night.
Officials at the American Embassy in London sent a letter containing detailed allegations about the four men, from East London and the West Midlands town of Tipton, to The Sun newspaper. . .
. . .British officials privately expressed agreement that the four were not innocents abroad, though they played down any idea of a close connection with al-Qa'eda. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
MORE DETACHMENT FROM REALITY
The amusingly named Human Rights Watch has released . . . you guessed it, a report critical of the U.S. Surprise, surprise. CNN reports:
HRW would probably have wanted the U.S. to politely arrest Nazi soldiers on the D-Day beaches and ship them back to the U.S. for trial. CNN continues:
That bears repeating: Three deaths.
Now, it's time for the standard "U.S. is setting a bad example" statement:
And they showed up for work that day, thinking they were in a nation at peace.
Silly them.
How does one know it's ideological? Because in their "report", they finally do get around to mentioning the Taliban (it takes two sides to make a war, after all), but only in passing:
Then, they offer this dumb assertion:
Fortunately, the U.S. is showing some guts, and not letting HRW dictate the agenda. CNN continues:
Sort of like the Nazis were "believed responsible" for invading Poland in 1939.
And like the Nazis were "believed responsible" for bombing London in 1940.
And like the Japanese militarists were "believed responsible" for bombing Pearl Harbor in 1941.
Enough silliness. Now, back to the adults, who are trying to win a war to protect freedom. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 09, 2004
The amusingly named Human Rights Watch has released . . . you guessed it, a report critical of the U.S. Surprise, surprise. CNN reports:
The United States' military used excessive force during arrests of suspected Islamic militants in Afghanistan resulting in avoidable civilian deaths, according to Human Rights Watch."Excessive force" in arrests? In a war zone? That any of the "arrests" occurred in "non-contested" areas is entirely HRW's opinion. The "report" in one instance cites this "evidence":
One U.N. official who collected complaints about U.S. operations in 2002 said many of the complaints concerned the “use of cowboy-like excessive force” against residents “who generally turn out to be law abiding citizens.” The official noted cases of U.S. forces “blowing doors open with grenades, rather than knocking,” and roughly treating women and children.This is a joke, right?
HRW would probably have wanted the U.S. to politely arrest Nazi soldiers on the D-Day beaches and ship them back to the U.S. for trial. CNN continues:
A report by the U.S.-based group also said three people had died in U.S. custody in Afghanistan, and the military has failed to properly investigate the deaths.Your eyes don't deceive you. That's right, they are talking about three deaths, not explained to their satisfaction. Three deaths, in a war.
The first two deaths were ruled homicides by U.S. military pathologists who performed autopsies, but officials have yet to explain what happened to any of the three men, the group said.
That bears repeating: Three deaths.
Now, it's time for the standard "U.S. is setting a bad example" statement:
"The United States is setting a terrible example in Afghanistan on detention practices," Brad Adams, executive director of the Asia division of the group, said.While Islamists who blow themselves up in restaurants are setting what sort of example then? Terrible, too?
"Civilians are being held in a legal black hole -- with no tribunals, no legal counsel, no family visits and no basic legal protections," he said.That is ideologically driven, "anti-war" gibberish. Civilians unfortunately can find themselves in dire straights in any war zone. Ask the people in the WTC on September 11, 2001.
And they showed up for work that day, thinking they were in a nation at peace.
Silly them.
How does one know it's ideological? Because in their "report", they finally do get around to mentioning the Taliban (it takes two sides to make a war, after all), but only in passing:
. . .Human Rights Watch said that Taliban and other anti-U.S. forces operating in Afghanistan had themselves violated international humanitarian law by carrying out armed attacks and abductions against civilians and humanitarian aid workers. But Human Rights Watch pointed out that under international law those violations could not serve as an excuse for U.S. violations. . .I must have missed the part where HRW cites examples of U.S. commanders directly stating it is okay to abuse detainees and prisoners because the Taliban behave atrociously.
Then, they offer this dumb assertion:
. . President George W. Bush and officials in his administration stated in June 2003 that the United States does not torture or mistreat detainees in the custody of the United States. But the United States has refused to allow any independent observers access to detention facilities in Afghanistan, except for the International Committee of the Red Cross, which does not report publicly on its findings. . .Under the "international law" that HRW claims to so respect, in a war situation, combatants are under no obligation to allow any other observers of detention or P.O.W. facilities other than following the tradition of allowing in the ICRC.
Fortunately, the U.S. is showing some guts, and not letting HRW dictate the agenda. CNN continues:
The U.S. has rejected criticism by the group, which says international law may have been violated.Last but not least, this from the "background" on the war in Afghanistan. As an example of HRW's supposed "objectivity", but which is actually more indicative of willful self-delusion, it is priceless:
"This report shows lack of understanding on the region, this is a combat zone," Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty told a news conference on Monday. "We follow strict rules of engagement and the laws of war."
"Some of the things reported in the Human Rights Watch report have happened, like the case of two detainees who died in custody in Bagram, and we are investigating that very actively," he said.
. . .Operation Enduring Freedom as originally planned was a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. It was, in its first manifestation, a military operation against the Taliban government of Afghanistan and the network of foreign groups, including al-Qaeda, believed responsible for the September 11 attacks . . .Hmmmm. "Believed responsible" . . .
Sort of like the Nazis were "believed responsible" for invading Poland in 1939.
And like the Nazis were "believed responsible" for bombing London in 1940.
And like the Japanese militarists were "believed responsible" for bombing Pearl Harbor in 1941.
Enough silliness. Now, back to the adults, who are trying to win a war to protect freedom. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 09, 2004
ONCE MORE, FOR THE TONE DEAF
From a speech in his constituency on March 5, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Blair explains how the liberation of Iraq was part of the wider war on Islamist terror, which we have been fighting since September 11, 2001:
. . .September 11th was for me a revelation. What had seemed inchoate came together. The point about September 11th was not its detailed planning; not its devilish execution; not even, simply, that it happened in America, on the streets of New York. All of this made it an astonishing, terrible and wicked tragedy, a barbaric murder of innocent people. But what galvanized me was that it was a declaration of war by religious fanatics who were prepared to wage that war without limit. They killed 3,000. But if they could have killed 30,000 or 300,000, they would have rejoiced in it. The purpose was to cause such hatred between Muslims and the West that a religious jihad became reality; and the world engulfed by it.
When I spoke to the House of Commons on 14 September 2001 I said: "We know, that they [the terrorists] would, if they could, go further and use chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons of mass destruction. We know, also, that there are groups of people, occasionally states, who will trade the technology and capability of such weapons. It is time that this trade was exposed, disrupted, and stamped out. We have been warned by the events of 11 September, and we should act on the warning."
From September 11th on, I could see the threat plainly. Here were terrorists prepared to bring about Armageddon. Here were states whose leadership cared for no one but themselves; were often cruel and tyrannical towards their own people; and who saw WMD as a means of defending themselves against any attempt external or internal to remove them and who, in their chaotic and corrupt state, were in any event porous and irresponsible with neither the will nor capability to prevent terrorists who also hated the West, from exploiting their chaos and corruption. . .
. . . Possible that Saddam would change his ambitions; possible he would develop the WMD but never use it; possible that the terrorists would never get their hands on WMD, whether from Iraq or elsewhere. We cannot be certain. Perhaps we would have found different ways of reducing it. Perhaps this Islamic terrorism would ebb of its own accord.
But do we want to take the risk? That is the judgment. And my judgment then and now is that the risk of this new global terrorism and its interaction with states or organizations or individuals proliferating WMD, is one I simply am not prepared to run. . .
Read the whole thing. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 09, 2004
From a speech in his constituency on March 5, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Blair explains how the liberation of Iraq was part of the wider war on Islamist terror, which we have been fighting since September 11, 2001:
. . .September 11th was for me a revelation. What had seemed inchoate came together. The point about September 11th was not its detailed planning; not its devilish execution; not even, simply, that it happened in America, on the streets of New York. All of this made it an astonishing, terrible and wicked tragedy, a barbaric murder of innocent people. But what galvanized me was that it was a declaration of war by religious fanatics who were prepared to wage that war without limit. They killed 3,000. But if they could have killed 30,000 or 300,000, they would have rejoiced in it. The purpose was to cause such hatred between Muslims and the West that a religious jihad became reality; and the world engulfed by it.
When I spoke to the House of Commons on 14 September 2001 I said: "We know, that they [the terrorists] would, if they could, go further and use chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons of mass destruction. We know, also, that there are groups of people, occasionally states, who will trade the technology and capability of such weapons. It is time that this trade was exposed, disrupted, and stamped out. We have been warned by the events of 11 September, and we should act on the warning."
From September 11th on, I could see the threat plainly. Here were terrorists prepared to bring about Armageddon. Here were states whose leadership cared for no one but themselves; were often cruel and tyrannical towards their own people; and who saw WMD as a means of defending themselves against any attempt external or internal to remove them and who, in their chaotic and corrupt state, were in any event porous and irresponsible with neither the will nor capability to prevent terrorists who also hated the West, from exploiting their chaos and corruption. . .
. . . Possible that Saddam would change his ambitions; possible he would develop the WMD but never use it; possible that the terrorists would never get their hands on WMD, whether from Iraq or elsewhere. We cannot be certain. Perhaps we would have found different ways of reducing it. Perhaps this Islamic terrorism would ebb of its own accord.
But do we want to take the risk? That is the judgment. And my judgment then and now is that the risk of this new global terrorism and its interaction with states or organizations or individuals proliferating WMD, is one I simply am not prepared to run. . .
Read the whole thing. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 09, 2004
AND HERE THEY ARE NOW
Sky provides profiles of the soon to be released "Britons". They are, of course, all wonderful young men.
Let's summarize, then, who they are, what their families seem to say, and how things apparently turned out for each of them:
1) Ruhal Ahmed, 23, from Tipton, West Midlands . . . told his family he was going to a wedding. . .
WHERE HE ENDED UP: Ahmed was taken by US forces in Kandahar, Afghanistan and the family heard on January 26, 2002, that he was being held in Guantanamo Bay.
Yep. Happens all the time -- go to wedding, and get captured by U.S. Special Forces.
2) Asif Iqbal, 20, a parcel depot worker from Tipton. . . His parents believed it was time for him to settle down and get married, and he met his prospective bride during his first week in Faisalabad [Pakistan].
WHERE HE ENDED UP: He told his father he wanted some time to think and went to Karachi, but did not return, according to reports.
Thinking seemed to take him a bit off the beaten track, shall we say. . .
I think, too -- and have not yet found myself in Edinburgh or in Oslo.
3) Shafiq Rasul, 25, also from Tipton, left for Pakistan in late September 2001 to attend a computer training course in Lahore, according to his brother. . .
WHERE HE ENDED UP: Rasul is believed to have been captured in Mazar-e-Sharif after a mutiny by prisoners.
He must have been in Afghanistan working on his final project: How to provide broadband access to war-destroyed communities.
4) Tarek Dergoul, 24, a former care worker for the elderly in east London is the son of a Moroccan baker and a lifelong Muslim.
WHERE HE ENDED UP: It is believed he was captured in the Tora Bora mountains to which the Taliban had fled after the US military onslaught. . . He originally told his family he was flying to Pakistan in 2001 to learn Arabic. . .
If he wanted to learn Arabic there were quite a few better places to go -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, even his family country of origin, Morocco. Just to name four.
Going to Pakistan to learn Arabic is a lot like moving to the U.S. to learn Japanese. . .
. . . unless one is actually planning on falling in with a certain crowd.
5) Jamal Al Harith, also known as Jamal Udeen, 35, is a website designer from Manchester of Jamaican origin. . . Born Ronald Fiddler to devout churchgoing Jamaican parents, he converted to Islam in his 20s. . .
. . .He has three children but was reportedly devastated when his marriage broke down. He moved back to Manchester, where he worked as an administrator in a Muslim school.
WHERE HE ENDED UP: . . . He was believed to have been captured by US forces while being held in Kandahar Jail in Spring 2002. . .
Clearly, being a web site designer/computer student is becoming far more dangerous work than any of the rest of us have fully realized. . .
Obviously, they were unfairly targeted by the imperialistic U.S. military -- which, of course, had nothing better to do than capriciously pick up the likes of members of wedding parties, computer operators, and down in the dumps, divorced men.
Yep, routine tourists. Just like those two Israel-visiting, self-detonating "Britons" -- whose families of course didn't know (one was, of course, apparently considered a "teddy bear" by his mother), or will not admit to knowing what they were up to either. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Sky provides profiles of the soon to be released "Britons". They are, of course, all wonderful young men.
Let's summarize, then, who they are, what their families seem to say, and how things apparently turned out for each of them:
1) Ruhal Ahmed, 23, from Tipton, West Midlands . . . told his family he was going to a wedding. . .
WHERE HE ENDED UP: Ahmed was taken by US forces in Kandahar, Afghanistan and the family heard on January 26, 2002, that he was being held in Guantanamo Bay.
Yep. Happens all the time -- go to wedding, and get captured by U.S. Special Forces.
2) Asif Iqbal, 20, a parcel depot worker from Tipton. . . His parents believed it was time for him to settle down and get married, and he met his prospective bride during his first week in Faisalabad [Pakistan].
WHERE HE ENDED UP: He told his father he wanted some time to think and went to Karachi, but did not return, according to reports.
Thinking seemed to take him a bit off the beaten track, shall we say. . .
I think, too -- and have not yet found myself in Edinburgh or in Oslo.
3) Shafiq Rasul, 25, also from Tipton, left for Pakistan in late September 2001 to attend a computer training course in Lahore, according to his brother. . .
WHERE HE ENDED UP: Rasul is believed to have been captured in Mazar-e-Sharif after a mutiny by prisoners.
He must have been in Afghanistan working on his final project: How to provide broadband access to war-destroyed communities.
4) Tarek Dergoul, 24, a former care worker for the elderly in east London is the son of a Moroccan baker and a lifelong Muslim.
WHERE HE ENDED UP: It is believed he was captured in the Tora Bora mountains to which the Taliban had fled after the US military onslaught. . . He originally told his family he was flying to Pakistan in 2001 to learn Arabic. . .
If he wanted to learn Arabic there were quite a few better places to go -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, even his family country of origin, Morocco. Just to name four.
Going to Pakistan to learn Arabic is a lot like moving to the U.S. to learn Japanese. . .
. . . unless one is actually planning on falling in with a certain crowd.
5) Jamal Al Harith, also known as Jamal Udeen, 35, is a website designer from Manchester of Jamaican origin. . . Born Ronald Fiddler to devout churchgoing Jamaican parents, he converted to Islam in his 20s. . .
. . .He has three children but was reportedly devastated when his marriage broke down. He moved back to Manchester, where he worked as an administrator in a Muslim school.
WHERE HE ENDED UP: . . . He was believed to have been captured by US forces while being held in Kandahar Jail in Spring 2002. . .
Clearly, being a web site designer/computer student is becoming far more dangerous work than any of the rest of us have fully realized. . .
Obviously, they were unfairly targeted by the imperialistic U.S. military -- which, of course, had nothing better to do than capriciously pick up the likes of members of wedding parties, computer operators, and down in the dumps, divorced men.
Yep, routine tourists. Just like those two Israel-visiting, self-detonating "Britons" -- whose families of course didn't know (one was, of course, apparently considered a "teddy bear" by his mother), or will not admit to knowing what they were up to either. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 09, 2004
CAN YOU FEEL THE LOVE?
The BBC reports that five of the slugs will be back in the U.K. from Guantanamo shortly:
. . .BBC crime correspondent Danny Shaw said the five men who were being released were due to fly in to RAF Northolt, in west London, on Tuesday evening. . .
So, when is their "homecoming" parade?
Medical teams would be on hand to examine them and provide treatment if required.
As if they got no medical treatment when in U.S. custody. . .
After all, for heaven's sake, the U.S. military was even providing these morons with Islamic-sensitive meals.
But, now for the good news:
. . .Under the Terrorism Act, they could be detained for up to nine hours while immigration staff or police verify their details and interview them, Mr Shaw said.
However, police might exercise their formal powers of arrest with some of the men, in which case they'd be transferred to a high-security police station and could be held in custody for days. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 09, 2004
The BBC reports that five of the slugs will be back in the U.K. from Guantanamo shortly:
. . .BBC crime correspondent Danny Shaw said the five men who were being released were due to fly in to RAF Northolt, in west London, on Tuesday evening. . .
So, when is their "homecoming" parade?
Medical teams would be on hand to examine them and provide treatment if required.
As if they got no medical treatment when in U.S. custody. . .
After all, for heaven's sake, the U.S. military was even providing these morons with Islamic-sensitive meals.
But, now for the good news:
. . .Under the Terrorism Act, they could be detained for up to nine hours while immigration staff or police verify their details and interview them, Mr Shaw said.
However, police might exercise their formal powers of arrest with some of the men, in which case they'd be transferred to a high-security police station and could be held in custody for days. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 09, 2004
"RED" KEN WOULD HAVE A SOLUTION
Last night's CBS Evening News (shown on Sky satellite in Britain) had an interview with U.S. Iraq administrator Paul Bremer. The story is also on the CBS web site. Bremer told Dan Rather:
Paul Bremer, America's top diplomat here, is convinced that Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, is behind some of the atrocities.
"There is no question that al Qaeda has been active here,'' said Bremer.
"Zarqawi has been in Iraq recently. He has been operating in Iraq. We believe he is still in Iraq. We know what his strategy is because he laid it out in a secret letter that we were fortunate enough to capture," Bremer explained. . .
On Iran:
. . ."You said that Iran had not been particularly helpful in the southern part of the country. What do you mean?" Rather asked.
"Well they've had, um, they've had elements of their government that have been active in an unhelpful way in the country and we think that should stop," Bremer replied. . .
Lastly, on life's mundane things. After all, last summer, all we seemed to hear about was how -- in the immediate wake of a war! -- the electricity was not as reliable in Baghdad is it usually is (usually, being the important word here) in New York or California:
. . .Oil production and electricity generation has surpassed pre-war levels. There are over a million cars on the road.
"The economy is now moving. The white goods are being sold; the shops are there; lots of cars as you pointed out. May be too many -- traffic jams -- that's a good sign," Bremer said. . .
Well, that will have to stop! Car usage? People going about their lives, minimally hindered by interfering, fussbudget politicos! Not permitted!
Someone call London mayor Ken Livingstone.
There are plans to see about the feasability of extending the "anti-congestion" zone a bit within central London. Ha! Nonsense. That's thinking small.
How about extending the zone to Baghdad? Gosh. Think of all the money to be made! It might even make up for the fact that the current London charging zone is making much less than Ken had hoped it would -- mostly because he's helped chase out quite a few shoppers, who have taken their cars (and their business) elsewhere. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Last night's CBS Evening News (shown on Sky satellite in Britain) had an interview with U.S. Iraq administrator Paul Bremer. The story is also on the CBS web site. Bremer told Dan Rather:
Paul Bremer, America's top diplomat here, is convinced that Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, is behind some of the atrocities.
"There is no question that al Qaeda has been active here,'' said Bremer.
"Zarqawi has been in Iraq recently. He has been operating in Iraq. We believe he is still in Iraq. We know what his strategy is because he laid it out in a secret letter that we were fortunate enough to capture," Bremer explained. . .
On Iran:
. . ."You said that Iran had not been particularly helpful in the southern part of the country. What do you mean?" Rather asked.
"Well they've had, um, they've had elements of their government that have been active in an unhelpful way in the country and we think that should stop," Bremer replied. . .
Lastly, on life's mundane things. After all, last summer, all we seemed to hear about was how -- in the immediate wake of a war! -- the electricity was not as reliable in Baghdad is it usually is (usually, being the important word here) in New York or California:
. . .Oil production and electricity generation has surpassed pre-war levels. There are over a million cars on the road.
"The economy is now moving. The white goods are being sold; the shops are there; lots of cars as you pointed out. May be too many -- traffic jams -- that's a good sign," Bremer said. . .
Well, that will have to stop! Car usage? People going about their lives, minimally hindered by interfering, fussbudget politicos! Not permitted!
Someone call London mayor Ken Livingstone.
There are plans to see about the feasability of extending the "anti-congestion" zone a bit within central London. Ha! Nonsense. That's thinking small.
How about extending the zone to Baghdad? Gosh. Think of all the money to be made! It might even make up for the fact that the current London charging zone is making much less than Ken had hoped it would -- mostly because he's helped chase out quite a few shoppers, who have taken their cars (and their business) elsewhere. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Monday, March 08, 2004
WELL, AN ARCHBISHOP AND A SUICIDE BOMBER WALK INTO A BAR. . .
A reader emailed this apparently frighteningly dumb comment by the Archbishop of Canterbury, as it appears on Virtuosity:
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY DENOUNCED PASSION FILM AS PRO-CHRISTIAN. In his homily yesterday during a memorial service for Palestinian suicide bombers, the Right Reverend Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, denounced Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" as being "overtly pro-Christian." OVERTLY PRO-CHRISTIAN! What the blazes does he think the movie is all about.
The main problem with it, however, is that it is NOT true. It appeared on the Iconoclast (humor) web site:
(London)-In his homily yesterday during a memorial service for Palestinian suicide bombers, the Right Reverend Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, denounced Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" as being "overtly pro-Christian."
The most troubling thing about that is that, given his take on the Middle East and on Christianity in general, it is at least loosely plausible! The rest of the piece, however, shows that -- even for this Archbishop -- it is satirical.
"This film is going to have a devastating effect on Anglicanism worldwide," said Reverend Williams. "Impressionable persons may be unduly influenced and actually begin attending church. And it would be a great tragedy if the Church had to divert its precious resources away from protesting against capitalism and democracy and use them instead for religious purposes." The Archbishop became angry at this point and interjected," I didn't enter the ministry to promote the so-called Gospel of someone who allegedly lived 2000 years ago. I became a priest in order to empower gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, heathens and persons with a fondness for sheep!". . .
Well, at least, it appears to be . . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 08, 2004
A reader emailed this apparently frighteningly dumb comment by the Archbishop of Canterbury, as it appears on Virtuosity:
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY DENOUNCED PASSION FILM AS PRO-CHRISTIAN. In his homily yesterday during a memorial service for Palestinian suicide bombers, the Right Reverend Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, denounced Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" as being "overtly pro-Christian." OVERTLY PRO-CHRISTIAN! What the blazes does he think the movie is all about.
The main problem with it, however, is that it is NOT true. It appeared on the Iconoclast (humor) web site:
(London)-In his homily yesterday during a memorial service for Palestinian suicide bombers, the Right Reverend Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, denounced Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" as being "overtly pro-Christian."
The most troubling thing about that is that, given his take on the Middle East and on Christianity in general, it is at least loosely plausible! The rest of the piece, however, shows that -- even for this Archbishop -- it is satirical.
"This film is going to have a devastating effect on Anglicanism worldwide," said Reverend Williams. "Impressionable persons may be unduly influenced and actually begin attending church. And it would be a great tragedy if the Church had to divert its precious resources away from protesting against capitalism and democracy and use them instead for religious purposes." The Archbishop became angry at this point and interjected," I didn't enter the ministry to promote the so-called Gospel of someone who allegedly lived 2000 years ago. I became a priest in order to empower gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, heathens and persons with a fondness for sheep!". . .
Well, at least, it appears to be . . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 08, 2004
DEMENTIA! IN COLOR
The BBC tells us:
Palestinian militant group Hamas has released a video showing two Britons it says it used for a suicide bombing a year ago.
Londoner Asif Hanif, 21, killed three people and injured 55 by blowing himself up in Tel Aviv, last April.
Omar Khan Sharif, 27, of Derby, is thought to have fled after explosives strapped to his body failed. . .
Firstly, they aren't "Britons" -- they are British passport holders. They chose to go over to the enemy. They are traitors.
Now, what is particularly different about these nuts is that in the video, the nuts are heard clearly expressing themselves, and offering opinions, in British English:
. . .the pair are shown brandishing assault rifles and calling on God to punish Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W Bush. . .
. . .Sharif delivers a tirade in English against Israel.
He says: "Muslims are being killed everyday. It is an honour to kill one of those people [Jews]."
Hanif, from Hounslow, west London, calls on Muslims everywhere to be "people of action".
Sharif, who was married, says he visited a farm destroyed during an Israeli incursion in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahia.
He asked: "What are we doing, as Muslims, to help?"
Well, "Muslims" like them, blowing themselves up, mean we have fewer "Muslims" like them. . .
That, at least, is a help. The shame is they take lives that are of value, in exchange for their own useless, idiot, deaths. But better that they perish too, than kill and manage to live to go on killing.
Nut number 2 wasn't even capable of actually blowing himself up.
Now, that's REALLY pathetic.
Meanwhile, from the realm of incredible gullibility, the BBC has this:
The British detainees scheduled for release from Guantanamo Bay in Cuba are set to return to the UK next week.
Maxine Fiddler, sister of detainee Jamal Al-Harith, is unsure whether her brother will rejoin his family or face arrest on his return.
"All we know is that the Britons are being brought home sometime next week." she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Meanwhile, Terry Waite has been lobbying the US to treat the detainees in accordance with human rights. . .
Yep, they were all such good boys.
And if you believe that, you will believe anything. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 08, 2004
The BBC tells us:
Palestinian militant group Hamas has released a video showing two Britons it says it used for a suicide bombing a year ago.
Londoner Asif Hanif, 21, killed three people and injured 55 by blowing himself up in Tel Aviv, last April.
Omar Khan Sharif, 27, of Derby, is thought to have fled after explosives strapped to his body failed. . .
Firstly, they aren't "Britons" -- they are British passport holders. They chose to go over to the enemy. They are traitors.
Now, what is particularly different about these nuts is that in the video, the nuts are heard clearly expressing themselves, and offering opinions, in British English:
. . .the pair are shown brandishing assault rifles and calling on God to punish Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W Bush. . .
. . .Sharif delivers a tirade in English against Israel.
He says: "Muslims are being killed everyday. It is an honour to kill one of those people [Jews]."
Hanif, from Hounslow, west London, calls on Muslims everywhere to be "people of action".
Sharif, who was married, says he visited a farm destroyed during an Israeli incursion in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahia.
He asked: "What are we doing, as Muslims, to help?"
Well, "Muslims" like them, blowing themselves up, mean we have fewer "Muslims" like them. . .
That, at least, is a help. The shame is they take lives that are of value, in exchange for their own useless, idiot, deaths. But better that they perish too, than kill and manage to live to go on killing.
Nut number 2 wasn't even capable of actually blowing himself up.
Now, that's REALLY pathetic.
Meanwhile, from the realm of incredible gullibility, the BBC has this:
The British detainees scheduled for release from Guantanamo Bay in Cuba are set to return to the UK next week.
Maxine Fiddler, sister of detainee Jamal Al-Harith, is unsure whether her brother will rejoin his family or face arrest on his return.
"All we know is that the Britons are being brought home sometime next week." she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Meanwhile, Terry Waite has been lobbying the US to treat the detainees in accordance with human rights. . .
Yep, they were all such good boys.
And if you believe that, you will believe anything. ¶ by Robert, Monday, March 08, 2004