The non-leftist end of the blog universe is now all abuzz over what I'll call the "Qana discrepancies." The term "Qana" is currently the second most searched term on Technorati. A few notable posts:

Confederate Yankee asks "Were the Qana Bodies Staged?"

Sweetness & Light wonders if this represents the premier of "Hezbollywood"

EU Referendum asks "Who is this man?"

Soccer Dad wonders "To what degree was the media manipulated?"

Daled Amos notes "Further discrepancies"

For my part, everything coming from a known propaganda machine is immediately suspect. Even a propaganda machine spreads truth on occasion, but a propaganda machine doesn't deserve the same benefit of the doubt as a known trusted source. Islamofascists are notorious for engaging in the practice of taqiyya--i.e., lying. I don't think anyone outside of Hizb'Allah is claiming to know exactly what happened at Qana. Those who were there have a story, but their story doesn't appear to make sense. We may never know the full story. We can, however, be confident of at least four things:

1. This story, like all others involving dead children, has been, and will continue to be, manipulated to maximum effect by the Hizb'Allah operatives in the area

2. There are pieces of the Qana story that we don't have right now

3. Most of the pieces we do have originate from questionable sources

4. The pieces of the story we do have don't fit together quite properly

If there turns out to be "something there," and past performance is any indication, the blogs are likely to chew on this for a week or so before the MSM catches wind of it. And then they'll pat themselves on the back for "digging deeper" and "asking the tough questions."

(* - I stole the title from someone, but I lost my notes on who it was. If it was you, let me know.)

UPDATE: * - The title was inspired by a comment by George guy, who blogs at Neoprophet.

Posted by: Ragnar at 09:10 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.

It says something about the morality and respect for human life of Hezbollah that they would use innocent civilians as shields; that's just something that for civilized people is not acceptable

Posted by: Ragnar at 10:49 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

Everyone seems to be condemning the carnage at Qana, but no one seems to have succeeded in putting together a full explanation for exactly what happened. Viewed with only a few facts in mind, the story makes a certain amount of sense. The IDF hit a building with a bomb. After the bomb hit the building, the building collapsed. After the building collpsed, dead bodies were found in the rubble. Given the above facts, one might presume that the bomb caused the building to collapse and the collapse of the building killed the people. As we learn more facts, however, it appears that the story may not be quite so cut-and-dried.

From the facts as they presently appear, the building in Qana was hit by an IAF air strike sometime between midnight and 1:00 am, and collapsed sometime between midnight and 8:00 am. Hizb'Allah claims the building collapsed immediately after it was hit. The IDF claims they have evidence the building didn't collapse until approximately 8:00 am. The IDF's reputation for veracity is about 1,000 time higher than Hizb'Allah's, so I'm going to give the IDF the benefit of the doubt on this one.

The building's collapse resulted at least partly from combination of the air strike and the passage of time. There's a possibility that something else happened to the building eight hours later. If the building collapsed as a result of only the air strike and the passage of time, we can expect the building would've shown visible signs of significant structural damage after the air strike and before its collapse. If this is true, it's hard to believe anyone could consider the building a safe place to be hanging out after receiving a bomb hit sufficient to bring it down. Perhaps a structural engineer could address whether a building on the verge of total collapse might appear sound to the untrained eye.

Apparently, it's generally agreed that approximately 50 dead women and children were found in the rubble of the building sometime after its collapse. Either they were killed by the airstrike at midnight, killed by the collapse of the building eight hours later or killed by something other than the air strike or the building collapse.

If the women and children were killed by the airstrike, it seems very strange that the corpses would be left in the building for eight hours, unless no one in the village knew the building had been hit, which seems unlikely. Assuming it was known that the building had been hit, how could the people of the village know that all the "corpses" were dead? Wouldn't there normally be an evacuation of the survivors and the corpses? If the women and children were killed by the collapse of the building, it seems very strange that living women and children would be placed in a building which had been hit by an air strike and was showing signs of structural damage.

Hizb'Allah has definitely been milking the Qana event for every ounce of propaganda value. We haven't yet seen any conclusive evidence that the building collapse itself was a staged event, but there may be more here than first meets the eye.

Posted by: Ragnar at 03:14 PM | Comments (60) | Add Comment
Post contains 539 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Good questions indeed, but after reading this post at EU Referendum, there are even more questions that need to be addressed:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/07/milking-it.html

Posted by: Ariya at July 31, 2006 03:25 PM (yHb0A)

2 Must be some top secret weapon that doesn't kill men?

Posted by: QC at July 31, 2006 03:37 PM (PX+vn)

3 - Collect dead women and children in ,make-shift' morgue.
- Park rocket launchers next to building
- Wait till boom.
- If boom not close enough, make own boom.
- Wait for media
- Pull out 'dead' women and children
- Hold them up like dead fish prizes for the cameras.

Posted by: Patton at July 31, 2006 03:59 PM (vEIZF)

4 Witnesses also claim there were two explosions, the second one happening a minute or two after the first. Ammo dump?

Posted by: Chad Evans at July 31, 2006 04:02 PM (+0rMT)

5 The problem is that even if it was staged the propoganda has already spread, and like the cartoon war, the truth no longer matters.

It doesn't seem to matter in this propogandized war what Israel and America actually does, since we can be set up and falsely accused so easily and effectively. I think we need to fight to win this war against radical islam and not worry so much about the spin. we know who we are and we do not seek to kill innocent children.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at July 31, 2006 04:06 PM (aH6Zf)

6 A conspiracy theory involving the Jews, that is more of a Greg area

Posted by: davec at July 31, 2006 04:19 PM (voZp6)

7 You guys sound like the people who think Mossad pulled off the 9-11 attacks.  Admittedly, the evidence for this is not as crushing as the evidence that Islamofascists did 9-11, but I hope you remain persuadable on this if the facts don't follow your fantasies/wishes. 
 
Look, I've seen nothing credible that says the building waiting 8 hours to collapse.  But let's suppose it didn't.  You asked why would the bodies be in there 8 hours later.  ARE YOU HIGH?  This is some isolated village in the middle of a war zone.  Trucks, buses, and cars and ambulances have been blown sky high on all the roads around.  The village was under attack.  Who was going to go excavate them in the night?  How would word get out that 50 people were killed?  Who would come get them, since there isn't a functioning government in that part of Lebanon? 
 
I'm a firm believer that Occam's Razor should apply here.  I believe the Israelis that Hezbollah was firing rockets from right around there.  I believe the Israelis when they say they weren't targeting the building.  I'm sure Hezbollah is lying that they weren't there.  But they don't have the foresight, the institutional structure, to manufacture something this big.  And they don't NEED to.  They knew if the war went on long enough, by the law of averages, some Israeli ordinance would cause a massacre.  It happened in 96, in the same spot. 
 
There is no need to create embarrassingly stretched and far-fetched conspiracy theories to excuse the event.  It was entirely predictable that this would happen.  If you believe that the Israeli response was justified, this shouldn't change your mind.  You just look unsure in your convictions as you stretch and strain to somehow make this okay.  It's war.  In an air war against insurgents in populated areas, this is going to happen, even with smart bombs and humanitarian intentions.  Is Hezbollah glad this happened?  You bet.  Is it bad news for Israel and their weapons supplier, us?  You bet.     

Posted by: jd at July 31, 2006 04:22 PM (xhBN1)

8 Even if it wasn't a hoax, those dead civilians are not Israel's responsibility. Israel did not target them, and shit happens in war. Too bad, so sad. The Lebs should have thought of that before giving Israel a reason.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 31, 2006 04:25 PM (8e/V4)

9 You're right, Dreamer. Israel should now increase the pressure with an all-out assault. To let Hizb'Allah survive will be a serious mistake, and will cost Israel dearly in the future. This is probably the one and only time they will get to deliver a knockout blow to Hizb'Allah.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 31, 2006 04:25 PM (rUyw4)

10 Where I'm skeptical is the number killed.  It's a moving target, and while it is tough for those on the ground to count, since there is no functioning government and damn few hospitals or morgues that aren't out of operation or jammed and overworked, it is entirely to Hezbollah and Amal's and the Lebanese government's interest to boost the numbers as much as possible.  So I'm skeptical about all the casualty counts.  But the idea that this was some kind of Hezbollah media plot is ridiculous.  Some of the stuff Bluto posted was pretty convincing about staging a few incidents in the long running war of the intifadah.  But this really would have taken Hollywood preparations, including having sufficient corpses available for use, and not putrefied ones, either--they'd have to be reasonably fresh.  OK, so they take eight hours to round up living Arabs, and convince them to get into a buildling in the middle of the night and then blow it up...
 
Seriously, this is some dumb shit you guys are working with.  Stay here on planet earth, please.

Posted by: jd at July 31, 2006 04:26 PM (xhBN1)

11 jd, I see you are back using your own nick.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 31, 2006 04:27 PM (rUyw4)

12 JD.  The reporters didn't seem to have any trouble getting there.  Hezbollah didn't seem to have any trouble getting to the reporters.  Not a single body was removed before the reporters got there.  You are just in denial of all the other evidence and harping on one disputed fact. 
 
You believe Hamas to be primitive and too stupid to pull that off (racist?).  Just what do you base that on?  Arabs are just too dumb? 
 
You know they are not you know regardless they are playing this for all it's worth.  You know they place the launchers in Christian neighborhoods rather than Muslim one every single time they get that chance.  All civilians are on a side it's just the way it is. Hesbollah is laughing it's ass off at our concern for out enemys casualties.  Yes they are spot on sharp.  You keep writing them off like that and soon you'll be the dead civilian and they won't give a shit.

Posted by: Darth Odie at July 31, 2006 04:36 PM (D3+20)

13

Don't get me wrong it's tragic but I'm not going to let my emotions override logic.

Posted by: Darth Odie at July 31, 2006 04:37 PM (D3+20)

14

Hizbollah is getting it's ass kicked and is desparate to find ways to get the international community to say: " Bad dog " to Israel, all the while maintaining their non-humiliating posture of perserverance and victory over the enemy. Don't expect them to think rationally like us. They are deviant in mind and deed!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 31, 2006 04:38 PM (gLMre)

15 What bothers me is that we in the West are getting so upset over the deaths of a few civilians in a war zone that we even worry if it was staged or not. So what? Why should we care? I, for one, don't give a gerbil's patoot. The notion that ruthlesness and civility are mutually exclusive, and that ruthlessness in defense of one's own culture is incompatable with advanced civilization, well that idea is the suicide pact of the Western countries. I think it's high time we get the heck over it. No war in history that has been fought to a decisive conclusion has ever NOT resulted in the deaths of numerous civilians, and most of them are going to be on the losing side. Too bad, so sad, but I JUST DON'T CARE about anything but winning this war.

Posted by: Hucbald at July 31, 2006 04:58 PM (nznaK)

16

I think all the dead were from two Muslim families. I'm aware that Hezbollah in the north has been putting equipment near Christian neighborhoods.  I don't doubt that they do that for a moment.  Lebanon is heading for an ugly civil war.  The Cedar Revolution was one of the great successes of Bush's foreign policy.  Working with the French, they kicked the Syrians out of Lebanon, and started Lebanon on the long road back to peace and democracy.  And free markets.  All that is in ashes now. 

 

 

Posted by: jd at July 31, 2006 05:01 PM (xhBN1)

17 I guess the ban got removed.  Still never heard what it was about.  But thanks, Jawas.  Much appreciated.

Posted by: jd at July 31, 2006 05:02 PM (xhBN1)

18 I was trying to think of a clever pun involving the miraculous transmutation of something to 'whine', but I couldn't.

Posted by: George guy at July 31, 2006 05:02 PM (QkOQC)

19 jd, I'm absolutely sure that Lebanon would not have been able to deal with Hizb'Allah, whether Israel had attacked Hizb'Allah, or not. Having a group of terrorists operating insided your country fully armed, and frankly, more militarily capable than that nation's army hardly inspires visions of ultimate democracy. It was only a matter of time before Hizb'Allah, goons of Syria and Iran, took over the government of Lebanon. They were already de facto rulers, as they had a veto over Lebanese policy vis a vie Hizb'Allah. And there was something about that UN resolution to disarm Hizb'Allah. How did that work out?

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 31, 2006 05:14 PM (rUyw4)

20 On September 16, King Hussein declared martial law. The next day, Jordanian tanks (the 60th armored brigade) attacked the headquarters of Palestinian organizations in Amman; the army also attacked camps in Irbid, Salt, Sweileh and Zarqa making no distinction between civilians and the guerrillas. Then the head of Pakistani training mission to Jordan, Brigadier Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (later Chief of Army Staff and President of Pakistan), took command of the 2nd division.
The armored troops were inefficient in narrow city streets and thus the Jordanian army conducted house to house sweeps for Palestinian fighters and got immersed in heavy urban warfare with the inexperienced and undisciplined Palestinian fighters.
Hussein has often been criticised because of the ordering of 'random' attacks, however, many justify Hussein's decisions, saying that he was out of options. For example, Queen Noor, Hussein's wife, described in her bestseller book title Leap of Faith how serious things were, how many people were killed by the Palestinian groups, and the fact that Hussein didn't actually want to do anything violent, but he was forced to.

King Hussein of Jordan knew the dangers of having a terrorist state, inside a state ~ he took actions to stop it. However it does not seem he was vilified for the actions he took, even though he was forced into a campaign of the same nature.

Posted by: davec at July 31, 2006 05:43 PM (voZp6)

21 All-Seeing Eye ...
OK, I'm a little skeptical of your facts and by extension the conclusions you draw from them. There are a lot of "apparentlies" and "seems very stranges" in your post. But that's alright, they can be held up to scrutiny I'm sure. Where can I find the details of timelines you're using between bombing and collapse and maybe some of the other unanswered questions?

Posted by: glenn at July 31, 2006 05:52 PM (oxMjD)

22 After being buried in the three story building collapse one might expect to see considerable crush damage to the bodies. But in the photos none is seen,

Posted by: agesilaus at July 31, 2006 05:57 PM (WcB3E)

23 Are you so blind?
Little children!
Don't make excuses.

Posted by: Cedar Revolution at July 31, 2006 06:13 PM (q5wwn)

24 Agesilaus,
Less than half of the bodies came out in one piece.
CNN said "it would be inappropriate to show" some of what was caught on film. The bodies were dismembered for the most part. Get your facts straight.

Posted by: Cedar Revolution at July 31, 2006 06:18 PM (q5wwn)

25 Joe--I absolutely agree.  Hezbollah was a time bomb waiting to go off.  Israel was provoked.  But it was almost inevitable.  The Lebanese government was much stronger than it had been but still a long way away from strong enough to remove Hezbollah. 
 
And I agree with Dave C.  There's a double standard at work.  Hussein was a visionary for peace by the time of his death, and people forgot the Arab on Arab violence (or, the more sophisticated remembered that Arafat was a filthy liar, and that it would have meant a coup if they didn't get booted).  If you want real Arab on Arab brutality, read up on Hama some time.  That was worse than anything the Israelis have done.
 
But this is not an exclusively Arab problem.  Native Americans were treated with extreme brutality by the Europeans, including the famous "Nits make lice!" slogan, which newspapers and soldiers promulgated to encourage the killing of children and infants.  But it was just as brutal as the way Native Americans treated each other when two tribes came into conflict.  What do Native Americans complain about today?  You got it. 
 
It's kind of like Jawa doesn't spend a lot of time on Oklahoma City...
 

Posted by: jd at July 31, 2006 06:19 PM (xhBN1)

26 I have to question the IDAF tactics. If you go to the Kevin Sites blog on Yahoo you'll see that he interviewed a member of Hizballah. He's a reserve guy. He showed Sites the RPG and 3 assault rifles he had and said that it's normal of a family that has a member in Hizballah to keep a few weapons in their house for protection. And the guy said that the heavier weapons are stored in much safer places. So why is the IDAF targeting these launch pads, which are just places in the street or in mosque courtyards which are in populated areas, that can just be put down elsewhere and not targeting the areas where the rockets actually are! I still hear rockets are hitting Israel.

Posted by: Some Dude at July 31, 2006 06:37 PM (WW510)

27 CNN gets its reporting from stringers. From what population do you suppose those stringers arise? Amish? Jewish? Christian Lebonese? Hezballah agents?

There is no truth in this war, merely propaganda.

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at July 31, 2006 06:43 PM (3nKvy)

28 You want to talk about Oklahoma City jd? Okay, lets; McVeigh and Nichols belonged to a white supremacy sect who, like you, blamed the Joooooos for everything, and were likely aided by muslims operating out of the Filipines, where Nichols frequently went under the auspices of finding a Filipino wife. OKC was very likely an al Qaeda backed operation.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 31, 2006 06:45 PM (v3I+x)

29 Keep going guys -

Soon enough, you'll have this whole ugly business sorted out. And all from the comfort of your own easy-chairs.

Respect.

Posted by: Bertrand at July 31, 2006 06:49 PM (BV7IP)

30 John Doe 2 was said to be a Middle Easterner.
But the more likely nationality was Iraqi.
In the '91 war, many Iraqi Generals and Colonels made deals with the U.S. before the war even started.
They were repatriated to OKC.
The government has never released videos in evidence that would settle this matter once and for all. They would show JD2 getting out of the passenger side of the Ryder truck just prior to the explosion.
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/11/1542199.php

Posted by: Greg at July 31, 2006 07:00 PM (q5wwn)

31 Glenn:

Here's one news article on the strange timing:

IDF: Qana building fell hours after strike

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3283816,00.html

Posted by: The All-Seeing Eye at July 31, 2006 07:15 PM (c/4ax)

32 Illuminated One,
YNET?
Ha, ha.
That's the Al Jazeera of the Jewish world!

Posted by: Greg at July 31, 2006 07:27 PM (q5wwn)

33

Uh, jd, Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols did not blow up the Federal Building in OKC in the name of a religion. There was no religious jihad going on in that attack, as far as I can tell. They were trying to kill federal agents in revenge for the US Governments actions against the Branch Dividians in Waco. I'm sure we would be discussing it on a daily basis if McVeigh had inspired thousands of similar attacks in the US and around the World, and if those attacks were ongoing. But to discuss a one-time thing that happened years ago on a daily basis would be ridiculous, and quite frankly a waste of time. We do, however get reminded of it as if it did occur daily, and that strikes me as rather odd.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 31, 2006 07:46 PM (rUyw4)

34 A conspiracy? A conspiracy? Apparently some of you can't HANDLE a conspiracy, not this one at least.

Islam is a Total Conspiracy, of murder, mayhem and deceit leading to world domination. Sound familiar?

Posted by: n.a. palm at July 31, 2006 07:50 PM (mTlKc)

35 I.M.: You bet is was. McVeigh and Nichols were not capable of carrying OKC out by themselves.

The real 'conspiracy' here was perpetrated by the FBI, covering up the connnections to Iraq, Phillipines and local palestinian sympathizers living in OKC.

Posted by: n.a. palm at July 31, 2006 07:57 PM (mTlKc)

36 Greg -

I guess I didn't realize the IDF statements re: the lapse in time was a controversial piece of information. It's been covered by the AP and written up all over the place.

Posted by: The All-Seeing Eye at July 31, 2006 08:05 PM (c/4ax)

37 I made some observations from some of the photos as well.

Only the men are bloody. The women and children are not. Nor are they bruised or show any physical injury. In contrast recall the picture for OKC of the little blonde headed boy and the picture taken by Michael Yon of the little Iraqi girl Farrah. The devistation to their fragile little bodies is laid bare before the world. I posted them to my site for easy reference.

That is not to say they images are not those of children and women victims of some horrible tragedy. It does offer the question though of what tragedy?

Posted by: Cmunk at July 31, 2006 08:11 PM (n4VvM)

38 Uh, IM--I don't blame the joos for anything, although I sometimes blame the government of Israel for actions that I consider unwise, or even more rarely, utterly immoral.  You have me confused with someone else, I think. 
 
Damn, my wry point about OKC was missed.  I wasn't accusing Jawa of supporting it. 
 
And you conspiracy nuts...wow. 

Posted by: jd at July 31, 2006 08:16 PM (NL1A+)

39 I have my blog up now. I am no longer building a website. So can someone tell me what to do with the trackback? The software I am using, has really lame help files. I should know, I used to write really lame help files.

Posted by: Cmunk at July 31, 2006 08:23 PM (n4VvM)

40 Uh, Eye, YNet News is going to be about as objective as Isracast in this case. Do you have any slightly more legit news sources that quote this time discrepancy? I didn't see it at Reuters, CNN, USA Today, or any paper that sources AP feed for its stories. I guess what I'm asking for is an MSM source ... if they're not part of the conspiracy that is.

Posted by: glenn at July 31, 2006 08:35 PM (oxMjD)

41 Jd-

You may not think it matters whether Hizb'Allah is lying or telling the truth re: Qana, but it does.

If Hizb'Allah is lying about this incident, the world should know it. At one time, the Pali Arabs were taken at their word. In a 'he-said, she-said' between the Pali Arabs and the IDF, the public didn't know who to believe. Over time, the Pali Arabs have lost crediblity--and rightly so.

I believe Hizb'Allah is reading from the same playbook as the Pali Arabs, and they deserve to be called on it.

Posted by: All-Seeing Eye at July 31, 2006 08:43 PM (BjOjj)

42 I'm hungry.

Posted by: James H. Wundermunch at July 31, 2006 09:00 PM (BV7IP)

43 JD I agree that the Lebanese were on the right track.  Hezbollah did not have control.  The "Cedar Revolution" was bad for Hisbollah because sensible people knew there was no threat to Lebanon from Israel.  In one swift stroke Hezbollah has got it's ass kicked, created a threat from Israel, and probably assured their victory in the next election.  They are winning the politcal battle and to them the death is worth it. 
 
I understand you really. I've seen it all over. War is bad OK. You can think for a month of Sundays for reasons it should not be so.  You can wish till you are blue in the face.  You can deny it.  But in the end it's, still there, staring you in the face. They aren't leaving you any other options. 
 
They want it and think they can win.  What you want or dream of doesn't count. 

Posted by: Howie at July 31, 2006 09:20 PM (D3+20)

44 Bertrand - stick your easy chair up your prolapsed rectum - please.

n.a. palm - my Shar Pei could have planned and carried out the OKC bombing.

jd - I think your more full of than a bertrad with an easy chair crammed up your ass - but I do admire your ability to argue without getting excited. Either you're one hell of a masochist or a truly decent (but mixed-up) person.

Cedar Revolution - who services your goats while you come online and have your vowel movements?

Posted by: Barney Coppersmith at July 31, 2006 09:34 PM (2BOvC)

45 JD, let me be as brief and blunt as possible; I know that you are fully in the camp of people whom I know to be enemies of my country and all of civilization, and the only reason I waste words on you is in the hope that you may one day see the error of your ways, though I have no hope of it. Know this though; events are unfolding exactly as I've been predicting for the last few years, and they will continue to do so, because what is happening is essentially a pattern following a formula, and you are a willing, eager participant in helping things go to hell in a handbasket by all your equivocating and apologizing for murderers, so don't expect any mercy when the time comes, and you are dragged out into the street to hang with your beloved muslims, liberals, and other scum. Shut the hell up and go hang out with the kos kiddies and wait your turn at the rope.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 31, 2006 09:46 PM (v3I+x)

46 1. Hezbollah is infininately better trained than the Pali's could hope to be, plus Iranian Revolutionary Guard are assisting...if Pallywood can pull this garbage certainly the Hezbullies can.

2. Rigor Mortis. I've got the chart on my site. The Israelis claim to have a photo of the buildingng standing at 7am...bomed between 12am and 1am...media is called at 8am, probably arrive around 9am...dig time...bodies are pulled...stiff as a board. In those temperatures rigor mortis should have come and gone (significantly) some 10 hours after the alledged time of death (Israeli bombing) that is not what we see on the film. Those people are stiff indicating a time of death within hours of filming.

3. Israel has announced they believe an IED did the deed.

4. There is a load of other anomalies...no hole in the roof, lack of blood at the scene...dead bodies don't bleed this from the CNN reporter (no friend of Israel I would imagine)...and Israeli citizens, used to seeing this kinda of carnage, telephone in that the color of the victims is not normal.

Hezbollywood. Busted.

Posted by: Khepri at August 01, 2006 12:33 AM (/Eavv)

47 Improbulus, I googled 'american core values' - the recurring themes were laudable: freedom of speech and belief, and harmonious diversity. Threatening to kill people who do not believe in these things wins you the award for unthinking irony.

I don't know how you regard The New Statesman - might be lefty nonsense for all I know, as I don't read it. But I quite liked this article:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200111260006

In fact, it's over-long and a bit wishy-washy, but the pithy little comment at the end sums it up well:

"...the suspension of the civil rights of which America was so justly proud must be giving quiet satisfaction to those behind the 11 September outrages. Disrupting the American way of life was what they wanted, and this is what they have now achieved."

Posted by: Dale at August 01, 2006 06:27 AM (BV7IP)

48 Dale, enemies of our country don't need civil rights, they just need a short rope and a tall tree. If you can't see that, you're an idiot.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 01, 2006 08:06 AM (v3I+x)

49 Dale, for the life of me, I can't think of a single civil right that has been suspended, unless you count being able to aid the enemy as a civil right. I just got through reading the Constituion, and I can't find that right in it. Sorry, Dale, but the terrorists are laughing because they have people like the authors of the article in question carrying their water for them.

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 01, 2006 10:29 AM (rUyw4)

50 Misguided Dale: We are not threatening to kill people who don't share freedom of speech and support harmonious diversity, nutcase! We are threatening and are killing people who are threatening to kill us. Give a little thought to it before you spew! 

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at August 01, 2006 11:00 AM (gLMre)

51 Guys, I wasn't writing an open letter to the general public - I was responding to one person's posts. Having read through the thread, I concluded that this JD person was thoughtful, and more eloquent than most - whether or not I agree with his opinions is quite irrelevant. As it goes, I felt that JD came off as being on Israel's side, albeit with one or two minor reservations.

He didn't deserve to have some certifiable nut-job threatening to dangle him from the end of a rope. Last Gasp Larry - if you doubt that these things were said, scroll upwards. I'm not saying that the majority of people here would cheerfully hang JD - most people here have *at least* a tenuous grasp on sanity, most have more - but the offer was made.

I wasn't trying to make any general comments. It was a specific response to a specific post. I certainly meant no offense to people with whom I've never conversed before.

Posted by: Dale at August 01, 2006 03:01 PM (BV7IP)

52 Children die because of an Israeli airstrike and you point the finger at Hizbollah.

I thought Americans didn't really believe in conspiracy stories?

Posted by: Anwar at August 01, 2006 03:26 PM (Lgnxs)

53 Anwar -

I'm pointing out that Hizb'Allah has the incentive and the means to fabricate a story, and it looks very much like they may have done so.

No honest broker should object to reasonable questions about a story that doesn't make sense.

Posted by: The All-Seeing Eye at August 01, 2006 04:10 PM (c/4ax)

54 Kevin Sites interviewed some poeple who were around when the building was hit. They heard it and ran to the place. They used their farming tools to try to dig people out. And I can see why equipment didn't come in until later. The first day of clearing the rubble and looking for the bodies ended at 8:00pm. Obviously they don't work at night.

Posted by: Some Dude at August 01, 2006 07:54 PM (WW510)

55 No Dale, I don't doubt that these things were said. Take it in stride. I personally need several death threats daily to get my fix.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at August 02, 2006 03:34 AM (gLMre)

56 Kevin Sites: Ha, Ha.

Posted by: Greyrooster at August 02, 2006 04:02 PM (XqAoh)

57 I believe Mel Gibson did to preclude his arrest for DUI.

Posted by: Mel Gibson's Brother at August 03, 2006 03:11 PM (rlFTO)

58 Anwar: Why can't you damn ragheads understand that Hezbollah is not a country. It's a terrorist organization founded, funded and armed by Iran. Iranians are to cowardly to fight so they get screwed up fanatics to do it for them. hezbollah is too cowardly to fight eye to eye so they hide behind women and children. The blame is on Hezbollah.

Posted by: Greyrooster at August 03, 2006 04:03 PM (XqAoh)

59 Greyrooster, you could say the same thing about the US. They supported the wahhabis in Afghanistan in the 80's and in Bosnia in the 90's to fight their wars. And have you been to Lebanon lately? Have you seen it for yourself? I know Kevin Sites has.

Posted by: Some Dude at August 04, 2006 03:19 PM (WW510)

60 Greyrooster, you could say the same thing about the US. They supported the wahhabis in Afghanistan in the 80's and in Bosnia in the 90's to fight their wars. And have you been to Lebanon lately? Have you seen it for yourself? I know Kevin Sites has.

Posted by: Some Dude at August 04, 2006 03:19 PM (WW510)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Party of Allah has issued new, high-tech body armor to its agents in southern Lebanon. This new armor is expected to stop any and all weapons the IDF may plan to use against Hizb'Allah.

UPDATE: SeeDubya notes "Actually, they’ll probably try this, and it’s pretty close to what they’re doing already, so I shouldn’t laugh."

Thanks to Stix and Banter in Atlanter for the links.

Posted by: Ragnar at 01:42 AM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

1 lol is that photoshop from Counter-Strike Terrorist model?

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2006 02:34 AM (UhBGz)

2 I see the followers of Mohammed in a different harness.

Posted by: Aaron's cc: at July 31, 2006 03:25 AM (ov6Vw)

3 This body armor has amazing powers. Worn by Hezbolla it repels bullets but worn by an Israeli to turns into a big red bulls-eye!

Posted by: Cindy at July 31, 2006 05:52 AM (bUP5y)

4 The history of the Mohammedans is one of pedophilia and matricide, starting with the big throat-slitter and pig anus himself, Prophet Mohammed (Goats Be Upon Him).

Mohammed was a pedophile, that is a historical fact.

Posted by: Darth Vag at July 31, 2006 07:08 AM (+nlyI)

5 Slightly OT, but I was just watching Washington Journal on al C-SPAN, and a lefturd caller from New York, who called himself "the Human founder of the Human party", said that it was un-Christian to fight against terrorists. Well, I'm the Sane founder of the Sanity party, and I say not only is it permissable to kill terrorists, but also anyone who gives them aid and comfort.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 31, 2006 07:31 AM (v3I+x)

6 This old chestnut just won't die. The sexual age of consent in the West at the same time as Mohammed's life was not fixed in law.  Royalty could marry very young, and consumate it at menarche, which is what Mo did, even in the low end estimates of his youngest wife's age.  You are not criticizing Islam when you call him a pedophile---you are applying modern standards of morality upon the past.  Such marriages were far from unique to Islam, and were not uncommon even in the US in the 18 and 19th centuries.  The sexual age of consent in many American states in the 19th century was 12, and was 7 in Delaware.  The early feminist movement had it raised, mostly to keep wealthy capitalists from marrying 11 year old working class girls.

Posted by: notjd at July 31, 2006 08:25 AM (NL1A+)

7 I should add, though, that child marriages in Islam today are an obscenity.  We stamped it out first, and they should stamp it out now.  Many gulf state Arabs travel to India and Pakistan to "marry" girls as young as 8, who are sold into marriage by their parents.  That is heinous and disgusting and immoral.  Why don't the same standards apply to Mo?  Well, in one sense, they do, but they would also apply to Charlemagne, who had multiple wives, concubines, and some very young brides...

Posted by: notjd at July 31, 2006 08:28 AM (NL1A+)

8 It doesn't matter what you say about this, not jd, a man that had sex with a 9-year old is a pedophile, no matter the age or time. I realize there were marriages of convenience and of royalty, but any 60-yr. old who wanted sex with someone that young ain't right in the head. Period. Stop making excuses for this sicko. And because others were sick does not excuse Mo.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 31, 2006 08:31 AM (rUyw4)

9 Joe--the point is that if you are going to criticize Mo for this act, then you have to recognize that it was common in the culture which produced Jesus. It's intellectually similar to saying that "Christianity is the religion of slavery" because for centuries, its founders tolerated slavery, and told slaves to accept their condition. That critique, like yours of Mo's "pedophilia" ignores the fact that the ancient world widely accepted slavery, as it did very young marriage.

I'm sure you and I agree that slavery and child marriage are wrong. And I'll oppose either practice, anywhere in the world, today. But to cudgel Mo for this, without cudgeling the historical sins on your own side, is just silly. It's the same deal as when far left critics of America pretend that they can ignore everything Jefferson wrote and everything Washington did, simply because both men owned slaves.

Posted by: notjd at July 31, 2006 08:43 AM (NL1A+)

10 Incidentally, Joe, I'm posting as notJD because I was banned for something that has not yet been explained to me.  For the record, I never called for anyone to be banned, and defended IM and G. rooster's right to post racist, homophobic, personal attacks, and even defenses of the Klan.  I don't think I've attacked anyone personally, beyond calling GR "gay rooster" after he hoped I died of AIDS with my "Muslim boyfriend".  Can't imagine what I was banned for, but I'm sure someone will explain it.

Posted by: notjd at July 31, 2006 08:50 AM (NL1A+)

11 Yes, notjd has a point--sort of. The child-bride thing was/is weird, but's certainly not anyone's main beef about Islam today.

We need to stay focussed on its use of terrorism.

Posted by: youngbourbonprofessional at July 31, 2006 09:09 AM (gZnyq)

12 JD, you equivocating piece of shit, Christians do not worship Charlemagne, or any other pedophile, but muslims do worhsip mohammed, who is documented as a pedophile in his own biography. I hope you die soon in a terrorist attack, but I hope it takes you a long time to die from wounds, and that your pain is great.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 31, 2006 09:10 AM (v3I+x)

13 Excellent point.  we don't worship Charlemagne.  But some of us in the west carry around a big ol' book, called the Bible, maybe you've seen it.  In it, we revere the heck out of David, Solomon, Abraham..not a single one of them obeyed our standard vision of marriage.  If you did an ID check of Solomon's dozens of wives, dozens (hundreds?) of concubines...are you sure you wouldn't find ten year olds?  In any case, would it be a valid point against Christianity or Judaism that several of their key founders (moses, david, solomon) practiced polygamy and/or concubinage with underage women?  Let it go.  There are much better reasons for opposing Islamo-fascists, as professional points out, wisely.  There are two problems with using the "Mo is pedophile".  One, it ignores comparable historical problems in Christianity's history. Two, it alienates all Muslims, not just the terrorists.  I believe our president--this needs to be a war within Islam.  If we gratuitously insult Muslims, they are unlikely to ally with us.
 
Incidentally, the interpretation of the hadiths varies as to her age.  It is not clear that she was nine.  That is one interpretation. But even if she were...get over it.  Applying modern moral values to prior historical conduct is usually an intellectual sin of the left.

Posted by: notjd at July 31, 2006 09:30 AM (NL1A+)

14 YPB.  I think the pope said that Islam's treatment of women in modern times is an issue the west should push?  60 percent of all forced marriages in Britain are associated with the Mulsims.  The age of censent in there is 16. 
 
So were not talking about willing marriages were taLking marriages where  the woman or girl is forced or coerced into this.  Many times under theat of an Honor killing. 
 
Child brides are commen I did a post on those too.  It's not so much that Christians never married young and some still do.  But such marriages under Islam outnumbers all the rest of these put together.  Seems to me it says something when one cult outnumbers all the rest in this.

Posted by: Howie at July 31, 2006 09:44 AM (D3+20)

15 NotJd:   For you to say that pedophilia and slavery were common in the culture that produced Jesus and stating that Mo and Jesus needed to be regarded in a similar light is asking for an express one-way ticket to hell! Of course it was a sick culture that produced Jesus, because Jesus is the remedy for a sick world! Mo was a temporal pedophile/terrorist while Jesus is immortal/savior. Hope that gets you on the right track! 

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 31, 2006 09:45 AM (gLMre)

16 I agree with notjd. Not only were mores different, but I question the historical certitude of early accounts of Mohammed.

And we certainly need not dig in the past for reasons to revile the shameful state that Islam has fallen into. One babyhunter equals a thousand pedophiles in my mind.

Regardless of what many think, there are good Muslims out there. A vanishingly small minority, to be sure, but a minority worth encouraging. Belittling their faith is counter-productive.

This is my own opinion, not a Jawa editorial stand.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at July 31, 2006 10:10 AM (vBK4C)

17 Bluto, I totally disagree with the premise that we don't have to dig into the past to expose these Islamists. That is exactly what we must do, because these people want to recreate the past, a past where the Caliphate murdered, enslaved, raped, looted and destroyed everything they could in the name of old Mo. That is one of the major problems we face in exposing these people. They seek a return to the Dark Ages, and if we don't wise up, they will succeed. In case you didn't know, Rome was not destroyed until the aquaducts were damaged beyond repair. Think about that. The barbarians couldn't defeat Rome completely until they destroyed the infrastructure that allowed a civilization to exist in the first place. There are ramifications in this for the West, and we need to know the history of these people. This is another good reason that no more Muslims should be allowed to enter the West or the US. They are nothing but a fifth column, and whether they are radical today or not, the potential exists for the future.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 31, 2006 11:06 AM (rUyw4)

18 And jd, I don't think you should be banned, for whatever that is worth. And I haven't seen you post anything that I think you should be banned for. But this is not my blog.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 31, 2006 11:26 AM (rUyw4)

19 The civilized Christian West abandoned child marriage long ago, but the uncivilized muslims still practice it, along with honor killings, revenge killings, cousin marriage, etc. ad nauseum. We are civilized and the muslims are not, and no amount of equivocating by idiots like jd can change that.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 31, 2006 12:05 PM (v3I+x)

20 We abandoned cousin marriage? Damn, why didn't the message get to grandma in time! (it is legal in 26 states, although six have requirements like you have to over 55 or one of you has to be infertile).

But Bluto is right. And, I also think that focusing on the past, to the extent that specific Islamic practices are proposed for return, as Joe points out, makes sense. So let's all agree that forced marriages, honor killings, the status of women, underage marriages, are all topics that reform elements within Islam must be encouraged to change. And prevent their return. Iran was a very liberal society from 1950-1979, a modernizing secularizing culture. They went backwards, because the shah killed so many liberals, leaving only radicals. There was only one alternative to his evil rule--islamofascism. Many took it, never believing it would be worse. It was/is.

Oh, and if Jesus came to save us from child marriages, he took his sweet time about it, last gasp. Ditto for slavery. Here you have this savior, who NEVER mentioned that slavery was wrong, and it was all around him? (Mo didn't either).

Hmmm...I'm telling people to avoid calling Mo a pedophile to avoid alienating all of Islam, but I'm raising Jesus' treatment of slavery and child marriage at the risk of alienating Christians...double standard, I guess.

Posted by: notjd at July 31, 2006 12:54 PM (UU9WQ)

21 But, you see, jd, we Christians don't intend to kill you for your statements. Quite a difference, I'd say. 

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 31, 2006 01:16 PM (rUyw4)

22 Damn right, Joe, and a difference I appreciate.  Even if I had been trying to offend Christians, I know you would not have chosen violence as the response.  I've been doing some reading on the middle ages and the Reconquista, and when Islam and Christianity met on the battlefield, sometimes each would abuse the others' symbols, in order to rally their own troops and shock/scare the enemy.  And it was an era in which someone would choose death rather than, for example, stamp on the cross (or kiss it, in the case of Jews and Muslims).  That era is still more alive in the Muslim world than our own.

Posted by: jd at July 31, 2006 02:18 PM (xhBN1)

23 Bluto, if you want to coddle the crybaby "good " muslimes so as not to be counterproductive and shock them out of there trancelike following of " kill the infidel " doctrine, well that is your choice in a free country. I, and a few others have different plans for them! 

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 31, 2006 03:09 PM (gLMre)

24 NotJD: There is little in the Bible about Jesus saving us from any earthly abominations of our own making. It is all about saving our souls for the life hereafter. That is sort of what Jesus meant when He said: " Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's and unto God what is God's "

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 31, 2006 03:11 PM (gLMre)

25 Larry: the "crybabies" are not "good" Muslims. The good Muslims are keeping their mouths shut. A few of them actually speak out against Islamo-Fascism. Example: Muslihoon, who writes for Vinnie at Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at July 31, 2006 03:27 PM (vBK4C)

26 Christians "revere David"? Since freakingnwhen?

Mohammed is viewed as the perfect man. Muslims have a term for it aside from "sunnah." Sunnah means Prophet's Traditions (i.e. live like Mohammed).

I'm so sick of moral equivalence argument which are used so westerners can stick their heads back in the sand in lieu of thinking.

Example//

To live somewhat like Jesus Christians invented monastic orders.

To live like Mohammed Muslims go on jihad, capture innocent people and chop off their heads.

Thinking: not just for rocket scientists.

Posted by: Chip at July 31, 2006 03:48 PM (M3MqL)

27 Hey, Chip--I'm sure you are aware of the long tradition of Sufi mystics, who go through spiritual experiences quite similar to that of Christian monks.  And of the long tradition of Christian conversion by the sword. 
 
History: Not just a one-sided diatribe for your own prejudices.

Posted by: jd at July 31, 2006 03:56 PM (xhBN1)

28 Leftwing moral equivalence = morons

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 31, 2006 04:13 PM (8e/V4)

29 Depends on what you mean by moral equivalence. If we are talking about the 7th century, I don't think christians have any moral superiority. If you are talking about today, yeah, I think we, the West, are better by a lot, in terms of human rights, women's rights, individual freedoms, government, religious tolerance, social values (most of them, anyway--they have some pretty strong community feelings, which can be bad and good). So I guess I will leap in, and call people on attacking Islamic history, when our own history is often as dark and ugly. But I agree with you that people who draw a moral equivalence between, say, the invasion of Afghanistan and Hezbollah rockets on Israel, are not playing with a full deck. Or people who compare beheadings by Al Qaeda in Iraq to Abu Ghraib, and say that they are the same. They are not the same. But it is equally wrong to point to the beheadings as a reason to ignore the murders and tortures at Abu and Bagram and say, hey, they are worse, so we are okay. That's moral blindness.

Posted by: jd at July 31, 2006 04:32 PM (xhBN1)

30 >>>If we are talking about the 7th century, I don't think christians have any moral superiority.

Leftwing moral equivalence is dumbing down your thinking. Christians don't claim moral superiority. The Bible makes it very clear that both "David" and I are scumbags in need of God's grace. That's why Jesus died on the cross for us-- because we are not morally superior. We christians are saved by God's grace, not by our "moral superiority." (And by the way, that also shows how ignorant and stupid you Lefwingers are who claim that christians are "hypocrites" for not being morally perfect. Of course we aren't pefect. That's WHY we are christians. duh!!!!!!).

However I do claim that islam is a cult born of a sword-wielding, gold digging pedophile named Mohammed, which has real consequences. And that christianity is born of the teachings of Jesus, which also has real consequences.

Jesus does not equal Mohammed, and islam does not equal christianity. End of story.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 31, 2006 04:52 PM (8e/V4)

31 Let's get back to the body armor, man, the body armor!
That's sick, as you youngsters like to say these days...
 
btw, haywood and the better half had a great time up at Oshkosh last week, thanks for asking. Love the fashions, love that you parents out there don't care or know how much lil' Kelli and her friends are showing off.
 
Hey, I hope they're all of the age of legal consent! Being American, I have naturally high levels of testosterone. And naturally advanced intellect, so I know better.

Posted by: haywood jablowmi at July 31, 2006 05:45 PM (VUmVc)

32 what gets me is that their holy book makes it a point to state the poor "bride's" age at marriage and upon consumation. it's as if it was an important thing that needed to be known, tho I'm sure I can't imagine why. it seems to be almost a point of pride with those people.
for sure, our Biblical heros had wives and concubines but if the number is noted, it's not the pivotal point of the story.
oh- and as a mother of 6, JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE DOES IT, DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT!

Posted by: middleagedhousewife at July 31, 2006 05:52 PM (O2SW8)

33 The way I see it, from everything I know of them, I can't see first-century Christians wearing the Hizb'Allah "body armor." In fact, I don't see them wearing ANY armor.

From everything I know of Mohammed and the 7th-century Muslims, I can totally see them wearing the body armor if they thought it'd give them even a slight edge in battle.

Of course, this "armor" wouldn't have given one much of a fighting edge back in those days--unless your enemies were laughing too hard to fight. This armor is only useful in a time of civilization, Western guilt, live news feeds and a 24-hour news cycle.

Posted by: The All-Seeing Eye at July 31, 2006 06:10 PM (c/4ax)

34 JD, just because old laws are still on the books in 26 states doesn't mean that people still marry their cousins, but the majority of muslims do still marry their cousins as a matter of practice. A Pakistani told me he is married to his first cousin, and both their parents were first cousins, etc. ad infinitum. It keeps the wealth in the family, and reinforces family bonds, and is considered an acceptable risk despite the occasional horribly deformed or stillborn baby.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 31, 2006 06:56 PM (v3I+x)

35 Or worse yet an occasional Mad Hatterdinnerjacketpizzaface!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 31, 2006 07:21 PM (gLMre)

36 A good muslim keeps his mouth shut, heh? I guess that means he agrees with you. Or then again, if he agrees with you wouldn't he be talking? Help me out here ... in the meantime I will consider a Muslim to be good once they realize they are following violent doctrine, and I might even like them if they convert to Christianity! Bottom line, if you are lieing in a gutter dieing, are they going to help you or will the eye of Allah be upon them urging them to let the infidel die?

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 31, 2006 07:31 PM (gLMre)

37 Oh yes, I know there is that lady professor who has spoken out and got the Ayotollahs all upset with her. I commend her for that! They can rewrite and delete all the bad shit from the Qua'ran. Then it would fall alongside all the other cardboard religions. At least a step up. But there are many more steps to ascend to Heaven. Or only One. That's the Zen of it! Have you accepted Christ as your personal saviour?

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 31, 2006 07:41 PM (gLMre)

38 I'm still trying to figure out what classifies this body armour as "new", or is this a lighter variant on the wailing Um in full hijab, with scruffy urchin and crying baby that we still see in other areas?

Rather than debating Mohammed's paedophilia, what we should be keeping our eyes focused on is the ninth, or "Sword" Sura of the Qur'an, which is the one that provides the jihadis with their divine mission to wipe us all out. Well, one eye on that, and the other on all the people both in Europe and in the US who feel that even a tiny, minor, fleeting jab at the US and those who support her, is worth a thousand lifetimes of the dhimmi-tude they'll bring upon themselves (and whatever few of the rest of us who survive the purges).

As to the comparison between the Bible and the Qur'an~ there isn't one. While many atrocities have been carried out in the name of the Bible, they are done *in contravention* of G-d's word. In the Qur'an, followers of Islam are called on *to COMMIT* atrocities, which are laid out in detail. Christianity, while asserting the desire of bringing all souls to Christ, still recognizes the human dignity inherent in every person God created. (If it weren't for this, we would probably still have slavery to this day). In the Qur'an, everyone who isn't a Muslim has no worth whatsoever, and is subject to (and owed) whatever treatment a Muslim cares to mete out to him. Originally there was some leeway given to Christians and Jews as "Children of the Book", but that was overturned by several subsequent revelations, and we now all rank lower than beasts of burden. The Qur'an exhorts Muslims to take what groups of us they don't kill and sell us into slavery. One reads fairly frequently of cases where Arab Muslims (generally Saudi's) get busted here in the US for practising (still!) slavery. Not a whole lot of that thing going on with Christians. Nor do Christians do to practisers of other religions what Muslims in non-Western countries do: in Saudi for example, you can't wear any article of clothing, jewelry or accessory denoting any faith whatsoever, you can't legally own a Bible, you can't meet in groups of more than two (or maybe it's one now), and you can't even legally speak to your children about Christ.

And these are the fine, noble folks that the Left is bending itself into pretzels to promote. Over all of our "Evil", "Nazi", "Fascist", "Christian fundamentalist", Militarized and Brainwashed, Red State, First Ammendment-clinging Americans who really want nothing so much as to be done with all this B*S*, all the moral relativists and all these repugnant, filthy, and disgusting people.

Posted by: Katje at August 05, 2006 08:53 PM (odotS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Stratfor holds forth on the partial cease fire announced by Israel:

The Israeli air force has been operating intensely for almost three weeks and clearly can use a 48-hour stand down. This decision, if confirmed opens the door to a cease-fire in place that would leave Hezbollah with a draw -- a victory from Hezbollah's point of view. At this point, Hezbollah has a critical decision to make that will not be known until dawn local time, as that is when Hezbollah has launched its first salvoes at Israel in the past.

Posted by: Ragnar at 11:47 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Just want you to know that I'm only now just getting to see this "MyPetJawa" for the First TIME!!! You are blocked in Saudi Arabia. Never to be seen by any of us there. Can't be done. Unless you're really computer literate - I am not - and have a satellite connection - I do not. You did try to send me a "back door" once, to my e-mail, at the request of another blog. And I do appreciate it. But, that didn't work. Can't wait to return to normalcy - the States - in October - even if only for just a few short weeks. Tomorrow I head back to The Sandbox. Should you ever want to see news on executions - as they occur - only two this year, however, so far - check out Stilettos in the Sand. There's a link at The Religious Policeman. Enjoyed your site - a lot - off and on the past two weeks or so. Thanks! BT

Posted by: Beth T. at July 31, 2006 01:05 AM (Azw+s)

2 Hizbollah between a rock and a hard place! How sweet! Warms the heart!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 31, 2006 01:24 AM (gLMre)

3 Israel doesn't get it. Islamofascists will always "win" a measured war simply by surviving. It doesn't matter when the next Hezbollah rocket is launched -- it matters that there is still a Hezbollah with rockets.

Posted by: Jefferson Makabi at July 31, 2006 01:26 AM (eF/IZ)

4 No, I think Israel has gotten it, begging to differ. I think it's the whiny wimps at UN, France, and Russia who haven't gotten it and want so desparately to protect baby vermin  ....

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 31, 2006 07:58 AM (gLMre)

5 Hizballah can never be defeated as long as Syria and Iran are not stopped from supporting them. The Hizzies are like the Viet Cong and NVA in Vietnam in that they have an unassaliable source of materiel and safe haven to which they can retreat if they're losing too badly. We couldn't win in Vietnam because we didn't expand the war enough, and Israel is in the same position. For this thing to end, Syria and Iran will have to fall - there is no other option, and given Iran's military modernization, thanks to Russia and China, (Don't forget, they're our allies!), this can't happen without a major war, which is looking less likely all the time.
The problem is thus: Our forces are tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq; Afghanistan remains a wild, uncivilized frontier, where warlords and bandits are the only real power, and the Pakistanis, (They're our bestest allies!), are still financing, training, arming, and directing the Taliban, because the Paki's want to get back in control of Afghanistan's poppy harvest, and to have Afghanistan as a buffer against Iran, (Formerly Russia, but that threat has passed, and now they want a gas pipeline from Russia), on their western border. In Iraq, our troops are bogged down fighting an insurgency largely directed by Iran, which anyone with half a brain knows, though nobody in government, (ironically, where most of the half-brained can be found), has the balls to say this out loud for fear of provoking Iran and causing them to dislike us.
So, Iran is directing an open war on two fronts, just like Russia and China did in Vietnam, literally straight from the playbook; only subsitute islam for communism, and the Jews for capitalist, colonial imperialism, and not much else has changed, including our hapless efforts to "win the hearts and minds" of the civilian populace. Now, we lost one war already to these tactics and strategies, and we're pretending to try to win three more - in Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan, doing exactly what caused us to lose Vietnam in the first place. Let me make that a little more blunt: We are doing exactly the same thing that didn't work before. We failed spectacularly in Vietnam because we were trying to fight, by the rules of conventional warfare, a classical state vs. state war against an enemy who did not care for the Rules of War, and who made up new rules as they went, with us trying hard not to pretend we were still fighting the Nazi's.
When the lefturds say that Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam, they aren't kidding - the enemy is using the same tactics and strategies, the lefturds are still cheering for them to win, and we're still muddling along trying to do things the old-fashioned way, according to the Rules of War and the Geneva Convention. Oh, and the Constitution, can't forget that, and how even our enemies, especially our enemies, are entitled to its protection. We are using new tactics, but our strategy is exactly the same as in Vietnam, the only war we ever lost. Here are our choices: Keep doing what we're doing - fight an unending war, without the possibility of victory, by the enemy's rules, in which we must be blind in one eye, deaf in one ear, and have one arm and one leg tied behind our backs; or we can concede defeat and withdraw; or we can make new rules which favor us for a change, and kick out all the muslims from our lands, and invade and crush their lands, leaving smoking ruins and millions dead. Muslims are not evolved understand anything but brutal, crushing violence, and anything short of that will not work against them.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 31, 2006 08:07 AM (v3I+x)

6 IM: "Hizballah can never be defeated as long as Syria and Iran are not stopped from supporting them."

Agree.

It is a huge mistake for the Administration to call this war a "War on Terror." Terror is a tactic. We're not fighting the Basque Separatists, for God's sake.

The war should be called: "War on Radical Islam." Only by naming the enemy can we defeat them. Radical Islam is not popping up out of nowhere. It is fed and watered in Iran, and Syria. And financed and spread worldwide through Saudi Wahhabi propoganda.

Hizb'Allah translates into "Word of Allah" I believe. Why does the MSM inexplicably write it Hizbollah? It is as if they want to avoid the fact that Israel's enemy is fighting for Allah.

Why did the UN not pull its "observers" from the Lebanese border when the fighting started? What purpose do they serve sitting in the line of fire? Where is the MSM's curiousity?

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at July 31, 2006 11:27 AM (aH6Zf)

7 All good points, Dreamer, and questions I would like to have answers to myself. As to where the curiosity of the media is, it has "Left" the building.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 31, 2006 11:29 AM (rUyw4)

8 Dreamer -

I agree that the "War on Terror" term is silly. A war on fear sounds a lot more like a war on a societal ill (poverty, illiteracy, etc.) than it sounds like a real war against a real enemy. A war on fear is won when no one is afraid. Our problem isn't that the people are too afraid.

The name "Hizb'Allah" is generally translated as "Party of Allah", but Arabic wrods, like English words, can have multiple meanings. For all I know, "hizb" may also translate to "word".

Any Arabic speakers out there?

Posted by: The All-Seeing Eye at July 31, 2006 01:50 PM (c/4ax)

9 All-Seeing Eye: you're right - it's "Party", not "Word." I don't speak Arabic, and I just remembered the translation incorrectly. The important part for me is "Allah" because it underscores the fact that it is a Radical Islamic movement.

Regarding the naming of the enemy - what I see is that if we say it's a "War on Terror" we are basically on the defensive and our emphasis goes into protecting ourselves from terror attacks (protecting airports etc.) Like the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, the War on Terror is confusing, ill-defined and unwinnable.

"War on Radical Islam" is proactive (and less confusing).

Because Radical Islam is state-sponsored, it makes sense to spend more of our time and money defeating our declared enemies Iran, Syria and to stop the Wahhabi propaganda coming out of Saudi Arabia.

We know that Radical Islam does not recognize a cease-fire. So, we should not be apologetic about seeking victory, victory over this fascist movement.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at July 31, 2006 03:44 PM (aH6Zf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Cross-posted from The Dread Pundit Bluto

From The Washington Times:

Intelligence reports indicate the leader of Hezbollah is hiding in a foreign mission in Beirut, possibly the Iranian Embassy, according to U.S. and Israeli officials.

The Times story goes on to speculate on possible Israeli action (emphasis added):

If confirmed, the reports could lead to an Israeli air strike on the embassy, possibly leading to a widening of the conflict, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Foreign embassies are sovereign territory and an attack on an embassy could be considered an act of war.

Posted by: Bluto at 11:17 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: Ragnar at 09:19 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Allahpundit at HotAir posts a video of Ed Peck, Jimmy Carter's Ambassador to Iraq. This guy is a piece of work.

Among other things, he says that Hizb'Allah is not a terrorist group and states that they're much like Allied soldiers in WWII. I don't care what your opinion is on Hizb'Allah and / or Allied soldiers. Making that kind of comparison is just stupid.

h/t to Michelle.

Posted by: Ragnar at 11:04 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

Ya know, they say a picture's worth a thousand words:

If so, what does this picture say?

h/t: Eric @ Classical Values.

Posted by: Ragnar at 10:17 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

If you don't believe Bluto (and who's insane enough to do that?), maybe you'll believe your own eyes. My real-life friend Linda posted this video today. Her words, "I've had this video for years."

Posted by: Vinnie at 06:41 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

Mark Steyn's latest column. The money shot:

...Saudi-Egyptian-Jordanian opportunism on Palestine has caught up with them: It's finally dawned on them that a strategy of consciously avoiding resolution of the "Palestinian question" has helped deliver Gaza, and Lebanon and Syria, into the hands of a regime that's a far bigger threat to the Arab world than the Zionist Entity. Cairo and Co. grew so accustomed to whining about the Palestinian pseudo-crisis decade in decade out that it never occurred to them that they might face a real crisis one day: a Middle East dominated by an apocalyptic Iran and its local enforcers, in which Arab self-rule turns out to have been a mere interlude between the Ottoman sultans and the eternal eclipse of a Persian nuclear umbrella. The Zionists got out of Gaza and it's now Talibanistan redux. The Zionists got out of Lebanon and the most powerful force in the country (with an ever-growing demographic advantage) are Iran's Shia enforcers. There haven't been any Zionists anywhere near Damascus in 60 years and Syria is in effect Iran's first Sunni Arab prison bitch. For the other regimes in the region, Gaza, Lebanon and Syria are dead states that have risen as vampires.

Meanwhile, Kofi Annan in a remarkable display of urgency (at least when compared with Sudan, Rwanda, Congo et al.) is proposing apropos Israel and Hezbollah that U.N. peacekeepers go in, not to keep the "peace" between two sovereign states but rather between a sovereign state and a usurper terrorist gang. Contemptible as he is, the secretary-general shows a shrewd understanding of the way the world is heading: Already "non-state actors" have more sophisticated rocketry than many EU nations; if Iran has its way, its proxies will be implied nuclear powers. Maybe we should put them on the U.N. Security Council.

Hat tip: SK

Posted by: Ragnar at 01:45 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

Posted by: Ragnar at 09:27 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Given that the commercial is from Electronic Arts, I wonder if its a computer game.. an air combat flight sim highlighting IAF.  Interesting timing..

Nice vid tho!

Posted by: JeepThang at July 27, 2006 09:45 AM (0411H)

2 Warmongering Jews! (My tongue is firmly tucked into my cheek)I doubt many of Isreal's neighbors will be buying a copy of this one. Unless they want to learn from Israeli strategy. I wonder if the PLO is going to come out with a game about Munich?

Posted by: Cmunk at July 27, 2006 09:45 AM (7teJ9)

3 Just checked EA's website.. nothing came up on an IAF or Israel game searchl.  oh well. 

Posted by: JeepThang at July 27, 2006 09:47 AM (0411H)

4 The copyright notice at the end says "(c) 1998".

Might be a good time for a re-release.

I remember back during Desert Storm, when you could sell a dried dog turd for 10 bucks with the appropriate marketing (e.g., "pre-processed MRE").

Posted by: The All Seeing Eye at July 27, 2006 10:12 AM (I9YKk)

5 IAF kicks a lot of ass. But the PAF is better, but if only they had the kind of support from the US as Israel has.

Posted by: Some Dude at July 27, 2006 10:32 AM (llVQM)

6 So, in other words, the Paki Air Force is worse, then?

Posted by: Cybrludite at July 27, 2006 10:40 AM (ysugF)

7 Don't get him started...

A friend of a friend told him a story once and now they're looking to cast the PAF version of Top Gun.

That and they shot down some Iranians in the 70's - BFD!

Posted by: Barney Coppersmith at July 27, 2006 12:59 PM (R4293)

8 Those wacky Hebrews!

Posted by: JeepThang at July 27, 2006 01:38 PM (0411H)

9 Yeah Barney,

Somehow, Some Dude is stuck with the idea that PAF is the best of the best, according to a testimony from a PAF pilot who went on a training run against some ill-equiped Iranians...

And by the way, IAF was a flight sim produced by EA a couple of years ago. It was one of the first to incorporate sat mapping tech.

- Max

Posted by: Max at July 27, 2006 01:45 PM (WM45z)

10 That was totally sweet! Aw man, that made my day! ^________^!

Posted by: Crusader Coyote at July 27, 2006 01:52 PM (wyQq6)

11 Good game back in the day. You can probably find a copy online somewhere. EA no longer supports it, IIRC. It was kinda the last gasp of the "Jane's" series with the equipment they had from that run.

Posted by: Spade at July 27, 2006 02:27 PM (NpnyQ)

12 Thank you! Thank you! I'm not fading into anonyminity after all!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 27, 2006 03:51 PM (gLMre)

13 Hay!!!

Where is hondo and what happened to his posts??????

Posted by: Barney Coppersmith at July 27, 2006 05:25 PM (2BOvC)

14 Hey!!!

Where is hondo and what happened to his posts??????

Posted by: Barney Coppersmith at July 27, 2006 05:26 PM (2BOvC)

15 Shame Israel doesn’t know how to make them.

Posted by: John doe at July 28, 2006 09:42 AM (z/dr3)

16 " Where is hondo and what happened to his posts?????? "
 
Most likely the thought police are out in full force again!
 
/deleteshield/active

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 28, 2006 12:59 PM (gLMre)

17 Israel built the LAVI jet fighter to replace the F-16 but then scrapped it:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/lavi/lavi_07.jpg

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 28, 2006 06:05 PM (hxDqc)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I'm not much of a Bible-quoter, but I thought these words of Psalm 83 were particularly appropriate at this time:

See how your enemies rage; your foes proudly raise their heads.

They conspire against your people, plot against those you protect.

They say, "Come, let us wipe out their nation; let Israel's name be mentioned no more!"

They scheme with one mind, in league against you ...

Deal with them as with ...

hose destroyed at Endor, who became dung for the ground. I'm sure we all remember what happened at Endor.

Posted by: Ragnar at 01:40 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

1 To complex - must be more poetic ...

Kill them all - Let God sort it out! -

Where the fuck is Endor? Is that south or west of Jersey?

Posted by: hondo at July 26, 2006 01:45 PM (MVgHp)

2 Hear hear All-Seeing Eye,
Now checkout the following link with modern Hebrew equivalent of this same sentiment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WxQcWNHmAo&search=IAF
Best
GM

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at July 26, 2006 01:49 PM (Bp6wV)

3 Very strange stuff. I just saw at Ace's a post on a thousand year old psalm book found in a peat bog that was opened to the 83rd psalm in Latin. End of days?

Posted by: Kingslasher at July 26, 2006 02:11 PM (SOfML)

4 Whats this? Jews killing kids again. Reminds me of Beirut.

Posted by: Scott at July 26, 2006 02:15 PM (69hsc)

5 Scott, sorry I mean Abu-Scott El-Islami
And you should know, you were there; weren't you? you f**king Muslim

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at July 26, 2006 02:18 PM (Bp6wV)

6 Hasan Nausuousballashit should get what's coming to him anytime now. BTW where is Latin?

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 26, 2006 02:26 PM (gLMre)

7 What's this, Israel killing kids again, reminds me of all those buses filled with Jewish children the moon god worshippers killed.

I guess the Hizbolla are getting to close to buildings with children in them, and the rounds are hitting people not engaged in this war.

Posted by: Leatherneck at July 26, 2006 02:38 PM (8uWFo)

8 Those of us who are of the superior race (Swedish/German) piss on little Iranian Jews.
Mehr: If I wanted to listen to an asshole. I fart. And it would smell better than you.
And your mother who is now busy servicing a goat.

Posted by: Scott at July 26, 2006 02:54 PM (69hsc)

9 You did see that an ancient Psalter was found this week in Ireland, open to Psalm 83, right?

Dumb Ox
http://thomistic.blogspot.com/2006/07/dumb-ox-news-miracle-psalm-omen.html

Posted by: D.Ox at July 26, 2006 03:18 PM (kt5H4)

10 Well, we have a no talk, lets kill problem. I think the Israelis are preparing Lebanon as their battlefield for the Iranians & Syrians. No proxy there. Steve

Posted by: Steve Hollahan at July 26, 2006 03:55 PM (hw3fe)

11 see http://www.harpazo.net/Psalm83.html

Posted by: ocs at July 26, 2006 05:01 PM (gpYEF)

12 1 - the psalm says that God should destroy the enemies of Israel with tempest.

and what is the name of the IDF operation? "operation summer rain." which is a tempest.

2 - many endtimers have lomg predicted that enjditme would come on Tisha B'av - the 9th of Av, a Jewish month.

THIS year, Tisha B'Av comes on... 8/3.

weird coincidences.

Posted by: reliapundit at July 26, 2006 06:57 PM (aGPJG)

13 I have to admit that this is certainly interesting.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 26, 2006 07:40 PM (v3I+x)

14 Reliapundit,

Hey, don't scare me. I better go buy more wine, and fill up my gas tank. Just in case your correct. I guess I better go ahead, and get more BBQ stuff, and more cold beer too.

Dam moon god worshippers making me buy more booze, and pork.

Posted by: Leatherneck at July 26, 2006 07:43 PM (D2g/j)

15 Reliapundit,

Hey, don't scare me. I better go buy more wine, and fill up my gas tank. Just in case your correct. I guess I better go ahead, and get more BBQ stuff, and more cold beer too.

Dam moon god worshippers making me buy more booze, and pork.

Posted by: Leatherneck at July 26, 2006 07:45 PM (D2g/j)

16

I believe that the butt-kicking Hezbollah is getting will make Iran step back and mull over the situation. You know, the way mullahs mull over situations. They might look at the moon and decide the 12th Imam, or whatever, is not quite ready to come out of the well. And perhaps they will decide to think about what might happen to them were they to stick their nose directly into Lebanon. Then again, they might launch a missle attack on Israel tonight. It is difficult to know what crazy people will do, and the leadership of Iran is indeed crazy.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 26, 2006 07:53 PM (rUyw4)

17 Jesusland Joe,
Oh they are much worse than crazy they are categorically demonic. I wished the U.S. had gone after them before taking care of Saddam.

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at July 26, 2006 09:18 PM (Bp6wV)

18 Yes, and king Saul sought the services of the witch of Endor (not related to a witch of Eastwick . . .). Was this the witch he saw?

Ewok Witch Doctor

1Sam 28:7
Then said Saul to his servants, Seek me a woman who has a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and inquire of her. His servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman who has a familiar spirit at Endor.

Posted by: Ansar al-Kufir at July 26, 2006 10:06 PM (iMOvg)

19 Even though the evil Alliance defeated us at Endor, we shall have our revenge.

Hear me Lucas, we shall be avenged!

Posted by: Darth Rusty at July 26, 2006 10:59 PM (x+8Rs)

20 don't just quote the bible, read the scripture.
jer.6,7,8 and the comp. mat. 23 and 24.
there are also prophecies concerning: holes in the wall, strange gibberish painted on the inside of s "high place",
a group of edler men forming a "council of 70 chanting hasten thy return and meeting to comit the worst desecratin of abamanation by choosing the ONE.
gentle men it was you who birthed the cub in the south, raised him and tought him to rend and tear then you think to negate him by placing chains around him and throwing him in a cage. It also was you gentle men who birthed the cub of the north, raised and tought him to rend and tear.
gentle men it was you who birthed these two lions, in the south and in the north or have you forgoten your scripture or is it that you have lived with your delusions and lies for so long and have come to beleive in these delusions and lies so strongly that you can't see that you are the only ones left that give any real credence to them??
Never forget, a covenent is an agreement that is binding on both parties. It was Moses who suplied and sent the FAITHFULL and RIGHTOUS to destroy the false hipicrits, it was G-D himself who opened the earth to swallow Korah and his campanions; gentle men both groupes were of full-blood and yet G-d favored the true and rightous.
Also did not the Lord send Jonhah to Ninivah, were the Ninivites of the BLOOD, were the Ninivites decended from Abrahah, Ithzhaak, and Ya'akabah.
For thy son, SALAMUNALOH,

Posted by: mike ben moshe at July 27, 2006 02:49 AM (8oZdo)

21 don't just quote the bible, read the scripture.
jer.6,7,8 and the comp. mat. 23 and 24.
there are also prophecies concerning: holes in the wall, strange gibberish painted on the inside of s "high place",
a group of edler men forming a "council of 70 chanting hasten thy return and meeting to comit the worst desecratin of abamanation by choosing the ONE.
gentle men it was you who birthed the cub in the south, raised him and tought him to rend and tear then you think to negate him by placing chains around him and throwing him in a cage. It also was you gentle men who birthed the cub of the north, raised and tought him to rend and tear.
gentle men it was you who birthed these two lions, in the south and in the north or have you forgoten your scripture or is it that you have lived with your delusions and lies for so long and have come to beleive in these delusions and lies so strongly that you can't see that you are the only ones left that give any real credence to them??
Never forget, a covenent is an agreement that is binding on both parties. It was Moses who suplied and sent the FAITHFULL and RIGHTOUS to destroy the false hipicrits, it was G-D himself who opened the earth to swallow Korah and his campanions; gentle men both groupes were of full-blood and yet G-d favored the true and rightous.
Also did not the Lord send Jonhah to Ninivah, were the Ninivites of the BLOOD, were the Ninivites decended from Abrahah, Ithzhaak, and Ya'akabah.
For thy son, SALAMUNALOH,

Posted by: mike ben moshe at July 27, 2006 02:50 AM (8oZdo)

22 for thy son SALAMUNALOH shall be the one to build a home to remember my name .
your hands have blood upon them, your rule was one of blood and wars, his rule shall be of
SALAM!!!!

Posted by: mike ben moshe at July 27, 2006 03:03 AM (8oZdo)

23 I'm just trying to figure out who will - in this timeline - be playing the part of Anakin/Darth Vader. You know; the guy who will kill the Emperor Amma-damma-ding-dong and bring balance back to the force.

Posted by: Hucbald at July 27, 2006 05:57 AM (mdDoK)

24 Jesusland Joe: They have been getting their butts whipped for years and years. They keep coming back stronger than ever. The problems between mulims and jews will never cease. Why must we be a part of it? Israel is our friend. But having them bombing apt complexes with bombs that say made in the USA realing helping defuse the situation? The Jews are not 100% correct everytime. We cannot allow them to act like middle easterners. Lowering themselves to that level gives fuel to the fires of Islam and the stinky Iranian Jews.

Posted by: Scott at July 27, 2006 06:53 AM (69hsc)

25 Come on, people. Everyone knows where Endor was. Endor -- (fountain of Dor; i.e., "of the age",) a place in the territory of Issachar (Josh. 17:11) near the scene of the great victory which was gained by Deborah and Barak over Sisera and Jabin (comp. Ps. 83:9, 10). To Endor, Saul resorted to consult one reputed to be a witch on the eve of his last engagement with the Philistines(1 Sam. 28:7). It is identified with the modern village of Endur, "a dirty hamlet of some twenty houses, or rather huts,
most of them falling to ruin," on the northern slope of Little Hermon, about 7 miles from Jezreel.

Posted by: StJimmy at July 27, 2006 09:02 AM (CFSHN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Looks like the Untied Nations, which generally can't manage to do anything useful for the good guys, and certainly not without agonizing over it for several years, is wasting no time at all repairing the damaged highways connecting the Hizb'Allah terrorists to their Syrian suppliers. Of course, guess whose tax dollars are paying for it?

That's gotta piss of the Jews. But enough to intentionally bomb the UN?

This all seems terribly complicated. Why doesn't the State Department just send our tax dollars straight to Hizb'Allah?

Posted by: Ragnar at 09:05 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

We keep hearing about how Hizb'Allah is viewed as a group of thugs and unwelcome radicals by most Lebanese. From what I can see, that doesn't quite square with all the facts. This story, for example, published a while before the recent "unpleasantries," paints a very different picture of the relationship between Hizb'Allah and the broader Lebanese population:

In Lebanon, where Hezbollah runs a network of schools and hospitals and participates in local elections, Nasrallah, a Muslim, is a hero even to the country's Christian President, Emile Lahoud.

“For us Lebanese, and I can tell you a majority of Lebanese, Hezbollah is a national resistance movement,” says Lahoud. “If it wasn't for them, we couldn't have liberated our land. And because of that, we have big esteem for the Hezbollah movement.”

President Lahoud has such high esteem for Hezbollah, he's ceded control of the border with Israel to them -- a border where Hezbollah and Israeli soldiers now confront each other just a few yards apart.

Apparently, they don't. In a 2005 poll by the University of Jordan, 74 percent of Lebanese Christians polled viewed Hizb'Allah as a "legitimate resistance organization". Majorities of Lebanese Christians had the same view of Islamic Jihad (54%), Hamas (57%) and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (53%). Note that these aren't the numbers for Lebanese population. These are the numbers for the Lebanese Christians. As one would expect, Lebanese Muslims considered all of these groups "legitimate" at levels approaching 100%.

Caveat: the above statements and polling data come from a time prior to last year's assassination of Rafik Hariri. I understand that the assassination had a significant effect on politics in Lebanon. Nevertheless, I was surprised by the above info.

I'd be very curious to hear from any Lebanese readers on this, whether Muslim or Christian.

(Note to Muslim commenters: we have already been informed that Allah is the greatest, that we kuffars will soon be dying fiery deaths and that Satan will be feasting on our bodies for eternity, so there is no need to reiterate that basic info. If you comment, please expand on these basic points or relate them somehow to the events in Lebanon. Thanks.)

Posted by: Ragnar at 10:40 AM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

Cross-posted from The Dread Pundit Bluto

Ignore the irony of Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni being interviewed by a reporter from the country that enabled the murder of six million Jews, and enjoy the relentless logic of Livni's plain-spoken replies. Here, Livni tells the Spiegel reporter, in effect, that Hizballah must cease to exist before there can be peace:

SPIEGEL: What is the goal of the military action?

Livni: It's not only about the goal of the military action but about the demands of the international community that we explicitly share. They are: there must be a government and an army in Lebanon. There can no longer be militias and terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. Hezbollah must be completely disarmed. They should no longer have the ability to be armed by Syria and Iran. In southern Lebanon there can be no more Hezbollah bases. The Lebanese army must be stationed there in its place. The global community a while ago demanded that the Lebanese government fulfill its responsibilities. It hasn't yet done so.

SPIEGEL: How do you react to the massive international criticism of the many innocent victims?

Livni: I very much regret the civilian victims. But there is a very significant difference between us and our enemies: we are defending ourselves against anyone who attacks us and use every means possible to prevent hitting civilians. The Hezbollah, however, intentionally aims its weapons at the houses of uninvolved citizens, at women and children. Israel only attacks areas where, according to our knowledge, there are terrorists. The problem is that the Hezbollah hides some of its weapons in apartment houses.

Cross-posted at Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 09:28 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

Photos here.

Thanks to LGF and PJM for the heads up.

Posted by: Ragnar at 10:35 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

Michelle reminds us that it is, indeed.

Posted by: Ragnar at 09:51 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

Credit to IDF ISRAEL. more...

Posted by: Ragnar at 12:59 AM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

What does it say about our world when this level of unambiguous clarity is so rare?:

What Hezbollah has done is kidnap Israeli soldiers and rain rockets and mortar shells on innocent Israeli civilians. What Israel has done in response is act in self-defense. And I don't quite know what the argument about proportionate force means here. Is Israel entitled only to kidnap two Hezbollah operatives and fire a couple of rockets aimlessly into Lebanon?

The situation is that Israel has lived under the terrorist threat of Hezbollah for years, and these most recent attacks have given it the legitimate right, the same right America would have if we were attacked, to deal with the problem. And that's what they're doing.

Posted by: Ragnar at 08:17 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Mr. Bolton is right on target. In fact, Israel's response is at the very least proportionate because it is fighting for survival. Iran and Hizbolla want to destroy Israel. They don't want to destroy Israel proportionately, partly, just a little bit; they want Israel and it citizens dead and gone. What is the proportional response to that? A UN resolution and a nasty letter? Centuries from now we are going to name planets and starships after George Bush, Condi Rice, Don Rumsfeld, etc. We will name new forms of insidious bowel diseases after Michael Moore, John Kerry, Jack Murtha, etc.

Posted by: Eman at July 23, 2006 08:39 PM (ljoDE)

2 Here is a litmus test on the left's moral compass.

They oppose the Israeli response to the Hezzbollah attacks- But they oppose the US border patroling Minutemen.

If the Minutemen Civilian Border patrol decided to attack Mexico by launching some rockets into Mexico, and maybe take a few Mexicans captive to disuade others from approaching the border...
Every tie-dyed, leather-shoe-wearin veagan hippie moron scum (the left) would fully support Mexico retaliating militarily against the "-racist" Minutemen.

This on one level reveals their self-hate and anti-semitism. On another- it shows their corruption by EVIL.

Posted by: QC at July 23, 2006 08:54 PM (dIfqQ)

3 Blimey, I believe a set of balls has entered the UN building.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 23, 2006 09:32 PM (rUyw4)

4 One reason the left hates him:
Absence of finger in air, will not lick finger, does not give a shit which way the wind blows.
Has a pretty good sense of right and wrong before the day starts, needs no polls for direction.

Good Job Bolton!

Posted by: Brad at July 23, 2006 10:09 PM (6mUkl)

5 was he the guy who used to intor the three stooges (on wpiux in nyc about 40 years ago), "officer john bolton"?

Posted by: reliapundit at July 23, 2006 10:14 PM (0fIrX)

6 was he the guy who used to intro the three stooges (on wpiux in nyc about 40 years ago), "officer john bolton"?

no.. right... that was "officer JOE bolton."
was joe john's father?

as in, "IM YOUR FATHER, JOHN."

Posted by: reliapundit at July 23, 2006 10:15 PM (0fIrX)

7 Bolton uses no primitive angry finger waving which is the body language of the defeated. He uses a more sophisticated eye of the spectacle approach. Good choice Bush!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 23, 2006 11:11 PM (gLMre)

8 If you are a Christian living in Beirut and the Israelis bomb your apt bldg and kill your children who do you hate? The Israelis or the Hezbollah in the south.

Posted by: Scott at July 23, 2006 11:34 PM (5mZ//)

9 Hope you get my drift. Does Israel need more enemies? They are making them.
The Jews have an advantage. They are being killed by their sworn enemy. Hezbollah is killing Jews. Jews are killing everyone. Big mistake. Israel should be fighting on the ground with troops face to face with Hezbollah. Instead they are destroying a country.
Soon the United States will broker some deal and the United Nations dingleberries will come in as a peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah will be a hero to the people who had nothing to do with the war. As I said. Hezbollah is not killing uninvolved people.
I don't care about your reasons. If you kill my family in an effort to kill someone else you are my enemy and I will try to kill you. Israel is not winning this one. Hezbollah will be stronger and Israel will have more people dedicated to their end. Sad.
Guess who will pay the bill? Who pays for the UN Troops. Who will agree to replace the infrastucture of Lebanon?
No one but America. The Jews will not pay for the excessive damage they have created.
Beirut was a sophisticated, beautiful, English speaking, tolerant City. I doubt if it will make another comeback.

Posted by: Scott at July 23, 2006 11:57 PM (5mZ//)

10 Scott:
Too bad for the Christians in the south. If they had allowed Israel to stay or asked NATO in? Probably a better deal for them. They gave away their country, countryside, neighborhoods to these people. Guess what, they not the people of Israel are to blame for this.
To throw up your hands and blame Israel for reacting to hezballah is sad. I truly feel for these people, but to suggest that the Israelis should stop and let the same situation happen again is just typical left wing bullshit. No, it’s time for a change, that is called war and unfortunately it will cause casualties. Too bad these Lebanese could not control their own country.
Scott, tell the families of the dead in Israel that if they just stop now Hezballah will be good. Say it with a straight face and believe it yourself..I’ll bet you can’t. Does the left think that these murdering criminals will just start to behave themselves if the counterattack just stops?
Your drift? If a Jew dies is it not a crime? Is the grief not less? Hezballah launched the first missils into Israel.
Where is your outrage?

Posted by: Brad at July 24, 2006 12:06 AM (6mUkl)

11 The israelis are about to launch a ground attack into one of the Villages in Lebanon, apparently it is being used by Hizbollah to store weapons and missiles.

However to avoid civillian casualties, the Israeli's have actually dropped leaflets over the area to warn people to get out before they come in.

Perhaps one of the bleeding hearts or hand wringers can let us know how many leaflets were dropped or mailed by terrorists from New York to Haifa, from Bagdhad to Bali, warning the civillians and innocents of impending attacks.

I'll understand if the bleeding hearts, hand wringers and terrorist apologists stay silent.

Posted by: Mathewk at July 24, 2006 01:04 AM (pVHqF)

12 "If you are a Christian living in Beirut and the Israelis bomb your apt bldg and kill your children who do you hate?"



That depends.  Is Hezbollah holed up there or are they
hiding weapons there knowing full well that innocents could die which
will be blamed on the other guy?  Because that seems to be their
primary MO.



"As I said. Hezbollah is not killing uninvolved people."



WTF?

Posted by: Oyster at July 24, 2006 05:34 AM (YudAC)

13 >>>If you are a Christian living in Beirut and the Israelis bomb your apt bldg and kill your children who do you hate? The Israelis or the Hezbollah in the south.

Scott,

in answer to your hypothetical, I would hate Hesbollah for bringing Israeli hell down on my head. But that's just me.

However, Israel is not targeting the christian areas, so your point is moot.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 24, 2006 06:59 AM (8e/V4)

14 Prehaps they are not targeting christian areas. However they are killing them just the same. I fail to see the neccessity of destroying highways, public bldgs, airports, etc.
The Jews should be fighting the terrorists with ground troops and leave the uninvolved alone. Being blind will not help the Israelis in the future. If Jews think they need more people to hate them their nuts.

"Too bad these Lebanese can't control their own country"
Hummm. How does a 10 year old Lebanese girl control Islamic terrorists? The U.S. Marines Can't. If we blame the normal Lebanese people for having terrorists in their country then we should bomb Iraq's infrastructure out of existence. Britian says they have groups of Islamic terrorists in their country. Lets bomb the London airport.
And when the terrorist strike here should we bomb our highways, schools, airports, etc. Just how many Americans should we kill to root out the terrorists in the States?

Where is my outrage. If I have my way there would not be a mosque left standing in the world. Is than enough outrage.
But that doesn't have a damn thing to do with killing innocent children in Beirut, does it.
Once again, the Jews should be killing Hezbollah attacking them. Bombing babies in Beirut has nothing to do with that.
The truth is is that Israel doesn't want to invade Lebanon to take care of business. So they have chosen the wrong path.

Posted by: Scott at July 24, 2006 07:29 AM (zQdkJ)

15 Brad: Once again I did not say Israel should stop the destruction of Hezbollah. Please show me where I said this. Please show me saying it with a straight face.
"If a jew dies it is not a crime"? Where did I say this?
You are as out of control as the Israelis.
Again for you who cannot read. The Jews should be fighting Hezbollah on the ground and not bombing Beirut. They will not kill Hezbollah by bombing Beirut. They must be rooted out. Bombing innocent Christians and moderate muslims does nothing but create more enemies. Not smart.
Iran is responsible for Hezbollah. Bomb them. Iran supports them, arms them, pays them, feeds them and incourages them. Go to the source. Let the innocents hate Iran & Hezbollah, not Israel and America.

Posted by: Scott at July 24, 2006 07:48 AM (zQdkJ)

16 Scott;

Highways, bridges, airport runways [though not control towers] have been bombed to cut off re-supply lines for Hezballah   from Syria. If you can't land planes or drive trucks through, how are you going to get more rockets, guns and ammunition? By bombing supply lines, Israel is shortening the war and saving lives.

There is an old military saying: "Amateurs think strategy, professionals think logistics." The Israelis are showing themselves to be professionals.

Posted by: Charlie at July 24, 2006 08:10 AM (DwY9A)

17 At whose price?

Posted by: Scott at July 24, 2006 09:15 AM (zQdkJ)

18 Then we should be bombing airports, highways, bridges in Iraq to shorten the war and save lives. Don't the terrorists in Iraq get their weapons in the same manner?
Secondly, I am watching several news stations with my own eyes. I know what I see. The pictures I see are apt complexes, gas storage tanks, housing units, etc.
Are people on this blog so pro Israel that they cannot see with their own eyes?
If an American Marine kills a citizen he is investigated and perhaps jailed. Innocent and not so innocent victims are blasted all over the networks. Israelis can kill anyone and many of you cheer.
Killing innocents, bombing highways and bridges will cause the international community to demand a cease fire. A cease fire now will be a victory for Hezbollah. If Israel fights the terrorists and not the Lebanese the call for a cease fire will be less.

Posted by: Scott at July 24, 2006 09:30 AM (zQdkJ)

19
If killing only creates more enemies, then why don't the Americans find themselves fending off armies of crazed Native American, Japanese and German jihadis?
 
The lefty idea of "creating more terrorists" hearkens back to a golden age when Israel lived in peace and harmony with its friendly Arab neighbors.
 
When, pray tell, did such a "golden age" exist?
 
The answer is, of course, that it never existed.  The Arabs committed themselves to destroying Israel the very day it was created.  The Jews have been forced to defend themselves ever since.  They have the option to fight or die.  You simply can't negotiate peace with an enemy that doesn't want peace.  Is this concept really so difficult for the peaceniks to wrap their brains around?

Posted by: All-Seeing Eye at July 24, 2006 09:31 AM (I9YKk)

20 Who said anything about peace? What do you have a preprinted answer any suggestion. Leftie? You talking about me? If you are you simple minded shit you know what to kiss.

Posted by: Scott at July 24, 2006 09:38 AM (zQdkJ)

21 Scott - Everything I think and say on this blog is, in some big or small way, about you.  Some folks think "What Would Jesus Do?"  For me, it's "What Would Scott Do?" I'd bet most, if not all, of the folks here would say the same thing.
 
I've heard they're even thinking about renaming The Jawa Report to "The Scott Report." (http://mypetscott.mu.nu)

Posted by: All-Seeing Eye at July 24, 2006 10:15 AM (I9YKk)

22 And that makes about as much sense as calling me a lefty.

Posted by: Scott at July 24, 2006 10:40 AM (zQdkJ)

23 Why we haven't bombed Iran and Syria to cut off terrorists supplies? Not good for business that's why. A long protracted war in Iraq is much better for the likes of Halliburton ...    Difference with Israel is that their leadership doesn't have their finger in the Big Business pie ....

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 24, 2006 12:05 PM (gLMre)

24 I take it this closed minded so and so all-seeing-eye has an agenda. Somehow his warped mind equates American Indians, Japanese and Germans to religious zealots. This character must be a rabbi with a persecution complex.
Israel is making big mistake this time.

Posted by: Scott at July 24, 2006 01:17 PM (zQdkJ)

25 I'm fairly impressed with Bolton so far. I was worried there when he first came up . My advice he needs to shave his head.

Posted by: Howie at July 25, 2006 10:38 AM (D3+20)

26 I had the same aversion to Bush's choice in the beginning, when I thought Bolton was too hard-nosed at a time when we needed someone who could blend in with the UN. Now I realize Bolton is just the ticket for the pathetic spineless wimps of the United Negations!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 25, 2006 05:48 PM (gLMre)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Via Israel National News:

The British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) has admitted that many of the victims of Israeli retaliation in Lebanon are terrorists and not innocent civilians. A BBC reporter said he saw Hizbullah terrorists using a private home and added, "It is difficult to quantify who is a terrorist and who is a civilian."

Media reports have emphasized that Israeli air strikes have killed more than 350 Lebanese civilians, prompting accusations that the IDF is carrying out "collective punishment" on the country.

Since I realize that the BBC is a foreign news organization and its journalists may not speak English as a first language, it occurs to me that the proper usage of rarely-used English words like "terrorist" and "civilian" may not be clear to them. In order to prevent further confusion, I've put together the following helpful glossary for use by the Beeb's journalists in the future:

"Terrorism": "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons"; "the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation [sic] or coercion or instilling fear"

"Terrorist(s)": "One who engages in terrorism"; "someone who employs terrorism"; "one who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant"; "people and nongovernmental organizations planning and executing acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets"

"Civilian": "a nonmilitary citizen; associated with or performed by civilians as contrasted with the military... a person who is not a member of a military... [a] citizen not part of the state through participation in the military or police force."

It's tough to separate those people engaging in nongovernmental violence against civilians from those who are not in the Lebanese military.

BBC journalists: please contact me if you need any further instruction in the English language. I'm happy to help. I know learning a second language can be tough.

UPDATE: One of the commenters accused me of taking the BBC reporter's comment "out of context" and thereby changing its meaning. I've included more of the news article in order to provide the larger "context."

Posted by: Ragnar at 01:43 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 545 words, total size 4 kb.

From Stratfor:

Hezbollah's strategy will be to tie down the Israelis as long as possible first in the area south of the Litani River and then north in the Bekaa. It can, and will, continue to rocket Haifa from further north. It will inflict casualties and draw the Israelis further north. At a certain point Hezbollah will do what the Taliban and Saddam Hussein did: It will suddenly abandon the conventional fight, going to ground, and then re-emerge as a guerrilla group, inflicting casualties on the Israelis as the Sunnis do on the Americans, wearing them down.

Israel's strategy, as we have seen, will be to destroy Hezbollah's infrastructure but not occupy any territory. In other words, invade, smash and leave, carrying out follow-on attacks as needed. Hezbollah's goal will be to create military problems that force Israel to maintain a presence for an extended period of time, so that its follow-on strategy can be made to work. This will be what determines the outcome of the war. Hezbollah will try to keep Israel from disengaging. Israel will try to disengage.

Hezbollah sees the war in these stages:

1. Rocket attacks to force and Israeli response.

2. An extended period of conventional combat to impose substantial losses on the Israelis, and establish Hezbollah capabilities to both Israel and the Arab and Islamic worlds. This will involve using fairly sophisticated weaponry and will go on as long as Hezbollah can extend it.

3. Hezbollah's abandonment of conventional warfare for a prepared insurgency program.

What Hezbollah wants is political power in Lebanon and among the Palestinians, and freedom for action within the context of Syrian-Iranian relations. This war will cost it dearly, but it has been preparing for this for a generation. Some of the old guard may not have the stomach for this, but it was either this or be pushed aside by the younger bloods. Syria wanted to see this happen. Iran wanted to see this happen. Iran risks nothing. Syria risks little since Israel is terrified of the successor regime to the Assads. So long as Syria limits resupply and does not intervene, Israel must leave Damascus out.

Looked at from Hezbollah's point of view, taking the fight to the Israelis is something that has not happened in quite a while. Hezbollah's hitting of Haifa gives it the position it has sought for a generation. If it can avoid utter calamity, it will have won -- if not by defeating Israel, then by putting itself first among the anti-Israeli forces. What Hezbollah wants in Israel is much less clear and important than what it opposes. It opposes Israel and is the most effective force fighting it.

Are both sides just going in for an extended guerilla slugfest? If so, Israel would seem to be at a distinct disadvantage, given the realities of the modern media and the ample historical evidence that democracies have a weak stomach for the messy brutality of extended guerilla warfare.

Ehud Olmert and the other Israeli leaders surrounding him are both military people and experienced politicians. I think we can presume they know all of the above and have factored all of it into Israel's strategy. It seems to me that they must have some reason to think this game, though played in Hizb'Allah's playground, can be played according to Israel's game plan rather than Hizb'Allah's. They must have reason to think that they know things that Hizb'Allah doesn't. We can only conjecture as to what those "things" might be. Hizb'Allah operatives had to know they were being watched as they prepared for this war, but I'll wager they were being watched more closely than they realized. My guess is that Israel knows quite a bit more about the logistical details of Hizb'Allah's operations in Lebanon than Hizb'Allah ever imagined, and that the IDF is currently using that information to defang Hizb'Allah somewhat more effectively than Hizb'Allah had planned for.

Posted by: Ragnar at 11:33 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 762 words, total size 5 kb.

From Pajamas Media:

During an Al Jazeera interview, Nasrallah apologizes for the deaths of two Israeli Arab children due to a Hezbollah attack in Nazareth: “[W]e consider them martyrs for Palestine and martyrs for the nation.”

Posted by: Ragnar at 03:06 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Sheikh Omar Bakri has long preached that the Jewish nation is "a cancer in the heart of the Muslim world. It must be eradicated and removed." By all accounts, the Jews are getting ready to pour into Lebanon. Sheikh Bakri is right there. He now has a golden opportunity to "eradicate" and "remove" the Jews. So, of course, he's taken up a Kalashnikov and headed out to meet the "cancerous" Jews, right? Well, not exactly:

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- A hard-line Muslim cleric barred from Britain for glorifying violence said on Friday he tried to get on board a British warship to flee Beirut but was turned back. . .

"I know myself I am not welcome in the UK ... but I have the right like everyone else to safety," he said. "It is better to try and fail." . . .

In an interview with Reuters in Beirut last August, the bearded cleric said he had no intention of returning to Britain because of the way Muslims there were being treated.

You hypocritical chickensh!+ b!+ch. All that bloodshed you've been advocating all these years? It's all coming to fruition right before your eyes, live in surround sound. Enjoy the show. I pray you die slowly.

Posted by: Ragnar at 10:05 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

Either ya know who said this, or ya don't:

I have to say, watching George Bush talk about Israel the last week has reminded me of a feeling that I hadn't felt in so long I forgot what it felt like: the feeling of pride when your president says what you want your president to say, especially in a matter that chokes you up a bit. I surrender my credentials as Bush exposer - from the very beginning - to no man, but on Israel, I love it that a U.S. president doesn't pretend Arab-Israeli conflict is an even-steven proposition. . .

Lots of ethnic peoples, probably most, have at one time or another lost some territory; nobody's ever completely happy with their borders; people move and get moved, which is why the 20th century saw the movement of tens if not hundreds of millions of refugees in countries around the world. There was no entity of Arabs called "Palestine" before Israel made the desert bloom. If those 600,000 original Palestinian refugees had been handled with maturity by their Arab brethren, who had nothing but space to put them, they could have moved on -- the way Germans, Czechs, Poles, Chinese and everybody else has, including, of course, the Jews. . .

But I digress. I really wanted to say that, for all those who accuse the likes of myself and the birthday girl of being unpatriotic, or hating America first, the feeling I've had watching Israel defend herself and a US president defend Israel (a country that is held to a standard for "restraint" that no other country ever is asked to meet, but that's another story) just reminds me how wrong that is. I LOVE being on the side of my president, and mouthing "You go, boy" when he gets it right.

Posted by: Ragnar at 07:20 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.