CAIRO, Egypt — Al Qaeda's No. 2 said the terror network's branch in Iraq had "broken the back" of the U.S. military with hundreds of homicide bombings, in a video posted Saturday that was the latest in a string of new messages by al Qaeda's leaders.
Well, forget the "it seems." In the grand tradition of organizations that seem not to realize we're already aware of the causes they ram down our throats in the name of "awareness," I am officially declaring April "Jihadi Awareness Month."
To be followed by "Illegal Immigrant Awareness Day" on May 1st. Which runs concurrent to "Vinnies Daughter Awareness Day." She turns five.
And remember, don't use your curling irons whilst sleeping.
1
Arabs haven't lost a battle since Saladin, or so it would seem based on their overblown rhetoric. The only backs being broken in Iraq are those of innocent Iraqis.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 28, 2006 11:06 PM (M3nr/)
Terroists Murder Over 14,500 in 2005.
The State Department has released it’s summary report on terrorism in the year 2005. The vast majority of all terror attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda and other “radical†Islamist groups. Iraq remains the focus of terrorist activity. Iran remains the most active state sponsor of Islamic terrorist groups.
Bloomberg :Terrorists killed more than 14,500 people in 11,000 attacks across the globe last year, the U.S. State Department said in its annual report on terrorism.
Al-Qaeda Threat
The al-Qaeda terrorist network remains a threat, with plans to attack the U.S. in a manner to match ``or even surpass the terror of 9/11,'' Henry Crumpton, the U.S. State Department's anti-terrorism chief said.
``Al-Qaeda is not the organization it was four years ago,'' the report said. The group's leaders are scattered and on the run, while its Afghan safe haven is gone. Its relationship with the Taliban has diminished, and its finances and logistics have been disrupted, Crumpton said.
For these reasons, ``al-Qaeda and its affiliates are desperate to claim Iraq as their own,'' Crumpton said. ``We and our allies, along with the emerging Iraqi government, must deny Iraq to al-Qaeda.''
Al-Qaeda is fragmented and desperate to create a safe have in Iraq.
Yahoo News : "Al-Qaida is not the organization it was four years ago," the report said.
However, "overall, we are in the first phase of a potentially long war," it said. "The enemy's proven ability to adapt means we will go through several more cycles of action/reaction before the war's outcome is no longer in doubt. It is likely we will have a resilient enemy for years to come."
A new generation of extremists, some of them getting training through the Internet, is emerging in cells that are likely to be more local and less meticulously planned, the report said. These small groups, empowered by technology, are very difficult to detect or counter, it said.
"We must maintain unrelenting pressure against al-Qaida," Henry Crumpton, the U.S. ambassador in charge of counterterrorism, said Friday at a briefing at the State Department. "We know they aim to attack the U.S. homeland."
The terrorist have threatened the American people directly with attacks even larger then the 9-11 attacks. After this years failure to produce civil war in Iraq by bombing Shite holy places it seems that the desperate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s message last week indicates a change in strategy. Since he has been unable to drag large blocks of Sunni’s into a civil war he attempted to start he has not turned his attention to the Sunni themselves. Branding as Apostates any who cooperate with the new Iraqi government and targeting they and their families for murder. Just after Zarqawi’s message last week there have been several targeted murders of prominent Sunni politicians and their families. By turning on his own sect he hopes to use fear to stop the participation of Sunni Muslims in the advancement of a new Iraqi government.
Zarqawi to Sunnis : Be extremely aware, those who join these apostate forces have nothing with us except the sharp swords, and between them and us will be nothing except grave days and nights.
Sunni of Iraq, will you stand for this murderer ruling over you? He stands in the way of both your freedom and our exit. Destroy him for he is certainly a murderer of his own and cares for nothing but power. He ignores the orders of his commanders while singing their praises. Truly he is the liar and the hypocrite. Fight and destroy al-Qaeda so all our peoples can have peace. Surely you heard him ignore and do the opposite of Bin Laden’s call for you to come to Sudan. He has failed his assignment and now desperately rebels against his own, so has become his blood lust! Abu Musab al-Zarqawi must be destroyed.
Clinton W. Taylor Talks Trash
I say, I say trailer trash that is. What is an uneducated hillbilly like me doing linking a Yale grad? Is that not unusual, for the classes to mix like that? Well not when you have as much class as Clinton does. Plus I’m a reading addict and he provides just the fix for that.
Clinton W Taylor Via The Spectator : Flash back to February 5, 2003, when Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the U.N. General Assembly about Iraq's WMD program. He played audio of an intercepted phone call between an Iraqi Brigadier General and a Colonel, dated November 26, 2002, and showed slides of their transcribed conversation:
COL: About this committee that is coming...
GEN: Yeah, yeah...
COL: ...with Mohamed El Baradei [Director, International Atomic Energy Agency]
GEN: Yeah, yeah.
COL: Yeah.
GEN: Yeah?
COL: We have this modified vehicle.
GEN: Yeah.
COL: What do we say if one of them sees it?
GEN: You didn't get a modified...You don't have a modified...
COL: By God, I have one.
GEN: Which? From the workshop...?
COL: From the al-Kindi Company
GEN: What?
COL: From al-Kindi.
GEN: Yeah, yeah. I'll come to you in the morning. I have some comments. I'm worried you all have something left.
COL: We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left.
GEN: I will come to you tomorrow.
COL: Okay.
That sure got the General's attention, didn't it? There was something about the mention of a "modified vehicle" from the "al-Kindi Company" that made him want to visit this colonel's site, wherever it was, "in the morning." That would be November 27, the first day that IAEA and UNSCOM inspections resumed. And on the very first day of the inspections, this general was rushing out to tend to this particular vehicle.
Probably because of those darned hydrogen generators. Yeah? Yeah.
Plus my master, The Macktastic Rusty Wicked says, “Link him Howie or else!â€
1
In case no one has seen what i think they're talking about:
Mobile weapon labs found in Iraq?
These vehicles show components made by "Al-Naser Al-Adeem State Co." which is different to what the article talks about.
Posted by: davec at April 14, 2006 12:06 PM (CcXvt)
2
actually in the article it goes on to specify:
Senior Iraqi officials of the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and Engineering facility in Mosul were shown pictures of the mobile production trailers, and they claimed that the trailers were used to chemically produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. Hydrogen production would be a plausible cover story for the mobile production units.
So it most likely is exactly the vehicles we're talking about.
Posted by: davec at April 14, 2006 12:14 PM (CcXvt)
3
Yeah, it all makes sense--except the mobile weapons lab were not for nukes, and nuke stuff is what this guy was investigating. General WMD was the broader interest of the UN weapons inspectors. Moreover, the mobile weapons crap has been entirely discredited. Nobody believes that who has expertise in intel. Nobody. Even the WH admits that was a pantload of crap. Remember when Bush said "We've found the WMD"? That was a mobile weapons lab. Turns out, it had nothing to do with WMD...oops.
Posted by: jd at April 14, 2006 12:16 PM (aqTJB)
4
uh Jd did you read the link I posted, the reason no one can prove these were weapon labs is because of "dual use", where they could have been used to produce B/W or even chemicals for agriculture / missile fuel.
Problem is, they were never declared, they had been prepped for discovery -- tanks washed with caustic soda, and painted, they were in military colors, and no one has been able to explain the gas collection purpose.
It's pretty easy to fall into the old no WMD line, but there are things that are not reported in the U.S press, like for example this:
1.7 tons of Enriched Uranium removed from Iraq in 2004, as it does not talk of the purity of enrichment, and doesn't discuss it's purpose you'd have to wonder what it was doing there after the U.N inspections in the first place.
Posted by: davec at April 14, 2006 01:01 PM (CcXvt)
5
Tried to go to your link, but it didn't open, whether the problem was your end or mine, I dunno. But my point is--they were hiding these from Baradei, who was investigating Nukes. But the mobile labs were for bio, if they were for anything. You wouldn't hid a bio from Baradei. And the idea of mobile centrifuges is ludicrous to anyone who knows crap about nuke processing.
Remember, Cheney went before the country and said we believe he has a reconstituted nuclear weapon, later amended to weapons program. When the VP says "we believe" about something that was highly contentious in the intel community, that's a lie. If you present an uncertainty as a certainty, that's deception.
Of course, coming from the guy who said the insurgency is in its 'last throes' (some last throes!), we shouldn't expect too much truth.
Posted by: jd at April 14, 2006 01:29 PM (aqTJB)
6
Link worked for me I must be special. (yes I'm wide open on that one go ahead)
Posted by: Howie at April 14, 2006 03:56 PM (D3+20)
7
Why wouldn't they hide a biological weapons from him? he is a U.N official, and biological/chemical weapons would obviously concern him enough to mention it to UNSCOM ? less you think because they work for different departments of the U.N they don't care about violations of any U.N rules, unless it concerns their field? and judging about their discussion that Baradei was visiting a facility where it was stored, not that they had a "nuclear" mobile lab, I don't believe anyone claimed such.
Oh and 1.7 tons of enriched Uranium, was that declared?
Posted by: davec at April 14, 2006 05:06 PM (CcXvt)
8
You make a good point, Dave. My working assumption was that the alleged dual use trucks would fool a non-expert in bio like Baradei, but they may have also been concerned about his reporting their presence, or members of his team being cross-trained, or someone taking a picture.
I think I was also affected by the fact that the entire dual use story has been thoroughly discredited. Most of Powell's testimony has been refuted, and he himself admits it.
But, on the point that I raised, your counter argument is apt.
Posted by: jd at April 15, 2006 06:09 AM (uT71O)
9
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2003/iraq-mobile-bw-plant_cia28may2003.htm
Just in case you could not read it the first time.
As I said:
Problem is, they were never declared, they had been prepped for discovery -- tanks washed with caustic soda, and painted, they were in military colors, and no one has been able to explain the gas collection purpose.
The ability to put components/chemicals/equipment to "dual use" gave the U.N a headache during their inspections, and the Iraqi's were continually giving cover stories for their activities.
Posted by: davec at April 15, 2006 11:25 AM (CcXvt)
Secretary of Defense on Iraq Anniversary
Donald H. Rumsfeld talks about what we have gained in the last three years. He’s not been fired yet so what the hell.
Secretary Rumsfeld Via Centcom :Some have described the situation in Iraq as a tightening noose, noting that "time is not on our side" and that "morale is down." Others have described a "very dangerous" turn of events and are "extremely concerned."
Who are they that have expressed these concerns? In fact, these are the exact words of terrorists discussing Iraq -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his associates -- who are describing their own situation and must be watching with fear the progress that Iraq has made over the past three years.
The terrorists seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq. I believe that history will show that to be the case.
1
You may be interested to know what Gen. Newbold had to say re: Mr. Rumsfeld:
He points the finger at Rumsfeld and says the planning "was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions — or bury the results."
The "consequence ... was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy, Al Qaeda, became a secondary effort."
=
beware wary of warplans when the only generals endorsing them are general electric and general dynamic.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at April 10, 2006 01:15 AM (K5Ko+)
Helicopter Pilot Video(Updated)
In a cheap attempt to break our will the enemy in Iraq has attempted to copycat the Somalia incident that broke Bill Clinton’s will. The US military has called the video despicable. Our thoughts and prayers go to our fine pilot and his family.
CNN : "We are outraged that anyone would create and publish such a despicable video for public exposure," military spokesman Lt. Col. Jonathan Withington said in a statement. "The terrorists continue to demonstrate their immoral disregard for human dignity and life."
The U.S. military reported Sunday that an Army AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopter went down, likely from enemy fire, west of Yousifiah on Saturday evening while conducting a combat air patrol.
The video shows what appears to be a helicopter ablaze -- and later with no flames -- and insurgents dragging what appears to be "part of" a burning body away from the wreckage.
Hat Tip : Bareknucklepolitics for the video (available here). I (that's me Howie) have a copy and will send by email request at the address on the contacts page. ER uh I would if could my email clients all refuse to send a file that large.
Update : Al emails to question the last part of clip that shows the body. It's not very clear exactly what it is. Possibly a dummy? Right above the belt where the hips meet the waist it does not look quite right to me either.
Military analysts have authenticated the terrorist videotape released this week that militants said showed the burning wreckage of an Apache helicopter and the body of a U.S. Army pilot being dragged, U.S. military officials have told NBC News.
So I’m not sure, real or really staged? I'm not convinced that this is a body I suppose it could be, but I thought I had seen fire that behaved like that before. Just burns on and on, smoking and never consuming anything. Reminds me of this video on Infovlad.net. You can find Vlad’s entry here and scroll till you see the Feb 15th entry
Vlad : Recipe of flammable liquid? Whose logo is this? The video looks bit old though.
The fire in the new Video looks very similar to Vlad’s entry. Just thought I'd expose their little magic trick.
more...
1
The military may feel compelled to make such a response knowing the media will show it but there really is no shock, to me. It is disgusting but what's new? I don't know of any people throughout history who've proven more creative, time and again at being despicable. They have absolutely no conscience.
Posted by: Javapuke at April 05, 2006 11:39 AM (MhOES)
2
The video is a sign of weakness and desperation.
Posted by: Venom at April 05, 2006 12:13 PM (dbxVM)
4
My respects to the fallen Americans, and their families.
Today brings us another example of what we are up against. We give them Gitmo with three hots, and a cot. While our dead get the treatment. Moon god worship is the greastest trick Satan has ever pulled. But, it is the religion of peace.
ROPMA
Posted by: Leatherneck at April 05, 2006 04:22 PM (D2g/j)
5
Where is the ALSE vest? Do they make nomex uniforms in the digital camo pattern? I haven't seen one. There are several things wrong with this picture.
Posted by: REMF at April 05, 2006 08:25 PM (7RMSi)
6
This scene is the future of the world if we don't stop the spread of islam now. All muslims must be exterminated.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 05, 2006 11:20 PM (0yYS2)
7
The thing that worries me the most: what took that Apache down?
As I'm been told, this is a powerful fighting machine, heavily armored and capable of almost everything. In the video it looks as if it was totally destroyed on impact! Unless the scene is an aftermath where the Army destroyed the Apache after leaving the crash site. In that case the dragging is staged!
But what took that Apache down. Could a simple RPG do this? Maybe, with a lucky shot! Or are other countries testing their hardware out on American military?
If the video is not an aftermath, and they have weapons that can destroy an Apache in a way the video shows, we have a problem!
Posted by: Dan at April 06, 2006 01:26 AM (Z2OsI)
8
Duh. Of course we have a problem. Yes, they shot it down. No, it wasn't staged. Yes, that was a body. And yes, we should kill 'em all, then dig 'em up and kill 'em again.
Posted by: RangerRuss at April 06, 2006 01:57 AM (cbhJK)
9
Haha! You stupid American think you safe. Ha! Well we have the anthrax. You catch the anthrax. No cure for anthrax. You die slow, painful death, American sadist pig! Haha! You think you catch us? We go to Switzerland! What you do? declare war on Switzerland? Stupid American. You can't declare war on Switzerland kill em all. kill em alkill em alllkill em allkill em allkill em allkill kill em allkill em allem allkill em allkill em allkill em kill em allkill em allallkill em allkill em allkill em allkkill kill em allem allillkill em all emkill em all allkill em allkill em all
Posted by: without war america is useless. at April 06, 2006 06:00 AM (zqsRN)
10
time to take care of things in iraq bring the troops home and retake the mexico/u.s. border and round up all the illegals
Posted by: shane at April 06, 2006 06:09 AM (Dp7Sn)
11
Good plan Shane, but we need to invade Iran and Syria first.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 06, 2006 06:28 AM (0yYS2)
12
Ohh anthrax how scary. You seem to forget we have that and so much nerve gas wer are burning it off. Enough bombs to destroy the entire world several times over, intelligence.
ssssssssssstupid.
Posted by: Howie at April 06, 2006 07:26 AM (D3+20)
13
Dan they have a few stingers and once in a while they find a guy that can work em. We had a video a while back. Probably shoulder fired missle.
Posted by: Howie at April 06, 2006 07:31 AM (D3+20)
14
My mind can still not comprehend how someone would want to produce a video like this, real or not. It's just unhuman.
Posted by: Muslihoon at April 06, 2006 07:45 AM (Q8UK2)
Argentina Claims Falkland Islands Again
(Buenos Aires, Argentina) As I recall, it was only a little over two decades ago that the Argentine government, ostensibly in a wag-the-dog move by the military leadership, invaded the British Falkland Islands. They were unsuccessful. Nonetheless, memories are short in the political realm and Argentina is again making noise about its sovereignty over the South Atlantic islands of Falkland (called Malvinas in Argentina), South Georgia, and South Sandwich.
Argentine President Nestor Kirchner said the Argentine government chose to solve the dispute through dialogue and diplomacy and by peaceful means. He also said that the British government must "show willingness to negotiate the sovereignty of the islands" because the "claim for the islands is a permanent objective and undeniable right of the Argentine people."
Just what the world needs -- another hot spot preparing to flare.
1
I guess the Argentines wish for another ass kicking. They wish to take advantage of the British while they are in Iraq. What a bunch of idiots they are.
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 03, 2006 09:26 AM (rUyw4)
What about the undeniable right of the Falklands people? They're all English, for crissakes. I hope Argentina gets their ass kicked again.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 03, 2006 09:51 AM (8e/V4)
3
How soon they forget. They surely can't be that da*n forgetful....
Posted by: Lonevoice at April 03, 2006 12:47 PM (kTR7o)
4However, on the day of the handover of Hong Kong, former British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd remarked to Argentine Foreign Minister Guido di Tella; "I know what you're thinking, but you will never see this happen in Port Stanley."
You can take that to the bank.
May God save the Queen.
Posted by: davec at April 03, 2006 01:11 PM (CcXvt)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 03, 2006 10:53 PM (0yYS2)
8
How odd. The Falklands, South Georgia, & South Sandwich are remote. Really really remote. Were not talking tropical paradise here. This is ridiculous. Unfortunatly, Blair is no Margret Thatcher.
Posted by: nuthin2seehere at April 04, 2006 04:06 AM (blNMI)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 04, 2006 08:55 AM (WCwrR)
10
For additional information Argentina at present has in its docks 2 british ships which can not leave. One is a falkland islands fishing vessel and the other is H.M.S. Endurance
Posted by: falklandsanon at April 04, 2006 10:21 AM (vEK2y)
11
The English forcibly occupied the Malvinas
until 1774 despite the Spanish protests. In
1819 an Argentine Governor was sent there. In
1831, after a dispute over whaling, the USS Lexington destroyed all Argentine installations at Puerto Soledad (Stanley) and Argentina broke diplomatic ties with the former British colony. On the 2nd January 1833, following Sir W. Parish's
advice (at the time the British Ambassador in Buenos Ayres), the English landed some families that were brought by Capt. Onslow aboard the Clio. The Argentine flag was taken down and the Union Jack raised instead in Lt. Colonel Pinedo's presence, who did not resist superior forces in both number and armament.
Argentina has protested since that very day but
the British crown gave its deaf ear to the
claim also since that day. The 1982 landing
tried to recover the islands and it was NOT an
invasion but a landing on own territory. Despicable and apparently useless as it might have been, the war served both countries well
to know who their real friends and foes are.
I have good acquaintances with people showing four and more generations in the islands and heartily respect their loyalties and what they consider their land. But it is not, although
if ever returned to Argentina, its legal owner, they should be allowed to keep their properties, language, religion and government, and whatever keeps their society together, even local laws and bylaws, EXCEPTION MADE of sovereignty. Some
English 'machos' writing in here have not had the
terrific experience that war gives. Perhaps
they should be careful with what they write.
They might be one day crying for their lives,
sweating hands trying to hold a rifle, rubber
legs trying to hold them upright, in the roar
of cannon thunder, whistling missiles, smoke,
cordite and blood smell and companions torn in pieces all around. Kindest regards. Salvador aka Argie
Posted by: Argie at April 04, 2006 12:06 PM (TPy7e)
12
The English forcibly occupied the Malvinas
until 1774 despite the Spanish protests. In
1819 an Argentine Governor was sent there. In
1831, after a dispute over whaling, the USS Lexington destroyed all Argentine installations at Puerto Soledad (Stanley) and Argentina broke diplomatic ties with the former British colony. On the 2nd January 1833, following Sir W. Parish's
advice (at the time the British Ambassador in Buenos Ayres), the English landed some families that were brought by Capt. Onslow aboard the Clio. The Argentine flag was taken down and the Union Jack raised instead in Lt. Colonel Pinedo's presence, who did not resist superior forces in both number and armament.
Argentina has protested since that very day but
the British crown gave its deaf ear to the
claim also since that day. The 1982 landing
tried to recover the islands and it was NOT an
invasion but a landing on own territory. Despicable and apparently useless as it might have been, the war served both countries well
to know who their real friends and foes are.
I have good acquaintances with people showing four and more generations in the islands and heartily respect their loyalties and what they consider their land. But it is not, although
if ever returned to Argentina, its legal owner, they should be allowed to keep their properties, language, religion and government, and whatever keeps their society together, even local laws and bylaws, EXCEPTION MADE of sovereignty. Some
English 'machos' writing in here have not had the
terrific experience that war gives. Perhaps
they should be careful with what they write.
They might be one day crying for their lives,
sweating hands trying to hold a rifle, rubber
legs trying to hold them upright, in the roar
of cannon thunder, whistling missiles, smoke,
cordite and blood smell and companions torn in pieces all around. Kindest regards. Salvador aka Argie
Posted by: Argie at April 04, 2006 12:07 PM (TPy7e)
13
Argentina is only holding one fishpoacher ship, the 'John Cheek' whose owners had the cheek of invading (or shall we say trespassing?) Argentinian waters for squid.
HMS Endurance came on its own to drydock in the Naval Base at Puerto Belgrano to get its ruddder fixed and to make certain reconditioning to follow international safety obligations.
Later on, not in Argentina to avoid our Gauchos from prying upon secret paraphernalia, certain ship's equipment will be upgraded. The package will include radar systems, gyrocompass, speed log, meteorological equipment, electronic chart system, GPS, navigational sounder and some internal comms.
A few weeks ago, the crew of the British ice patrol vessel, under the command of Captain Nick Lambert, paid tribute to those killed in the 1982 conflict. The event took place during the ship’s visit to the port of Ushuaia. It was the first visit by the British icebreaker to Ushuaia since 1982. It is also the first time that the members of an Argentine war veterans’ association stage a joint ceremony with members of the British Armed Forces.
The commanding officer of HMS Endurance laid a wreath at the foot of the war memorial with a message that read: “From HMS Endurance to the fallen in the South Atlanticâ€. Members of the Ushuaia Centre of Ex Combatants followed suit.
After the ceremony, the crew of HMS Endurance and the members of the Veterans’ Association had an informal talk which continued later on board HMS Endurance when the veterans visited the ship.
Kindest regards. Salvador aka Argie
Posted by: Argie at April 04, 2006 12:32 PM (TPy7e)
14
What's your point Argie? Do you really want the Royal Marines to give you another asswhipping? Because that's what you'll get. Again.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 04, 2006 04:40 PM (0yYS2)
15
The "John Cheek" hasn't been charged as there is international verified proof to say it was fishing in Falklands Waters.
"HMS Endurance" can't leave after its rudder repair as there is a dock "Strike" and the majority of the crew are stuck in a hotel.
When you state a forceable takeover in 1833 it makes it sound like a major battle the fact the the british walked in and took control as "spain/argentina" had left all but minor staff. Unlike in 1982 when Argentina came in.
I can also assure you alot of the Islandsers know what war is, they were held at gun point, threated, held in capativity (goose green and pebble). movement restricted, witness death, homes destroyed.
Posted by: falklandsanon at April 05, 2006 05:33 AM (vEK2y)
Posted by: sandpiper at April 05, 2006 08:48 AM (O2c+K)
17
"The 1982 landing
tried to recover the islands and it was NOT an
invasion but a landing on own territory. Despicable and apparently useless as it might have been, the war served both countries well
to know who their real friends and foes are.
I have good acquaintances with people showing four and more generations in the islands and heartily respect their loyalties and what they consider their land. But it is not"
Ok, I think it's time you look beyond all of that stupid Argentine propaganda.
Yes, Britain abandoned it colony in 1774, no one is denying that, but they still asserted Sovereignty. Now I'm sure that the original indigenous people of South America, who were living there a hell of a lot longer before Argentina ever existed would suddenly say that the land that the people form Spanish descent lived on was always threes and was there god given right to have. Of course not. They'd have no right to, since the people of Spanish decent have been living on that land for generations, they have every right to claim that land their own.
Now, how can you deny the very same thing to the people living on the Falklands? Who's families have been living there for generations? You can't, simply because if you do, then you claim that the land that YOU live on is not your own as well. That's how Argentines clam is so critically flawed.
The only way the islands would become part of Argentina is if the people of the Falklands agreed to it. So far, they have said NO, no matter how low the Argentine government as gone for support, with the use of bribes.
Posted by: Reality Check at April 08, 2006 12:10 PM (nFv13)
Posted by: mekkaz at April 08, 2006 04:08 PM (G9BUr)
19
i think that mr blair might find a little invasion and controlled war in this area a perfect deflection from the missdemeanours of messrs two shags and co.
Posted by: y smythe at April 30, 2006 09:19 PM (2m2Gg)
20
I hope the resolution of this conflict with both powers over the falklands can inspire others to follow (especially in a not to distant future). Like in the Basque and Irish disputes that settled at similar periods for example. My message is positive and for comnication/understanding. I happen to believe in a pro-peace European Union. Not to get too political, but I believe in the positive energy that is slowly showing itself to its citizensa nd to the rest of the world. It would be excellent to have a negotiation with a third respected Ear, and possibly the people themselfs could decide and be heard.
Posted by: Scram Jet Squirrel at May 02, 2006 01:04 AM (4IDjB)
21
I believe Argentina is trying to asert itself as a world power, however trying to fight GBis not the smartest thing to do especially since the SAS/SBS is preforming better than the US Navy SEALS. Argentina would have a lot better luck invading Uruguay. As for the "who had original sovereignty" thing almost every single country exsists because someone invaded someone else. Ultimately it is up to people who live their to chose. So the people of the Falklands all say God save the Queen, I say GOD BLESS AMERICA
Posted by: the Brimerican at May 07, 2006 12:50 PM (uSuoa)
Iran Test Fires High-Speed Torpedo
Fox News was showing video earlier today of the "new" Iranian Hut high-speed torpedo, which travels in excess of 220 miles per hour underwater, and is said to be undetectable by sonar. It seems likely that it could, however, be heard by passive means from some distance underwater.
April 3 (Bloomberg) -- Iran's navy said it successfully test-fired its fastest torpedo capable of reaching a maximum speed of 360 kilometers (223 miles) an hour, the official Islamic Republic News Agency said.
Coincidentally, in the 90s the Russians deployed a high-speed torpedo, developed years earlier by the Soviet Union, called the Shkval (Squall) that is capable of speeds up to 230 miles per hour. It achieves this velocity by deliberately cavitating the water around the torpedo to reduce friction.
Neither the Hut, nor the Shval offers protection against incoming B-1 bombers, something that Iran might want to take into consideration.
1
"Fox News was showing video earlier today of the "new" Iranian Hut high-speed torpedo, which travels in excess of 220 miles per hour underwater, and is said to be undetectable by sonar. It seems likely that it could, however, be heard by passive means from some distance underwater."
I bet this sucker makes all sorts of noise. The problem is that if you happen to be in front of it (ie the target) you won't hear it as it travels faster than sound travels in water. So you won't be able to hear it unless you are not the intended target.
Firing this thing and being able to hit something with it are two completely different problems.
Posted by: Fred Fry at April 03, 2006 05:29 AM (JXdhy)
2
When we go to war against Iran, this thing will probably take out one or two ships, maybe even an aircraft carrier, but they will lose their country. Muslims are animals and we should kill them all.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 03, 2006 05:57 AM (0yYS2)
3
Assuming the Hut's a direct derivative of the Shkval, it's range is very short (7 km), which means that the large vessel carrying it (because the missile's 26 ft long) will have to get in very close to use it. A Harpoon missile has a range of almost 100 km. The Iranian ship would have been taken out long before it had a chance to get a shot off. They may instead use it against commercial ships in the Straits of Hormuz until the US forces put an end to it.
Posted by: Graeme at April 03, 2006 06:25 AM (o1ojb)
4
Ok. SO they have super speedy torpedos, and the multiple-warhead radar-evading missile. Quite the blustering intimidation factor for a country that can't make their own nukes without Russian, Pakistani and North Korean help. Wake me when they've got their own Zionist death ray.
Posted by: AbbaGav at April 03, 2006 06:32 AM (5XR09)
5
All the more reason to GIVE them some nuclear technology, say, in the form of items like n-jdams, at least twenty, at key sites all over Iran.
Hey, is that mushrooms I smell?
Posted by: n.a. palm at April 03, 2006 07:03 AM (nwcKF)
Russia sold China about 50 of these missle/torpedos in the mid-1990's and I'm wondering if maybe the Chinese gave this technology to Iran, or if Russia did. It had to be one of the two.
My theory is that Iran might place these missles on civilian maritime vessels, and try to use them as a first strike against our aircraft carriers. I don't think they can get a military vessel close enough to our carriers to hit them. Just one avenue of attack, perhaps high speed military craft might be used in a night attack. I wouldn't underestimate the craftiness of these guys, that's for sure.
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 03, 2006 07:43 AM (rUyw4)
7
The way I see it is that if the thing is any good, we would already have a better version of it and have a way to take them out before they were able to get close enough to do any damage. Every time we have to take one of these chumps out, we learn of some new military technology that we've developed and had operational for a while. By the time we take out Iran, we'll have some kind of missle that will knock on the door of their huts and take a DNA sample before determining if that particular hut is a prime target.
Posted by: slug at April 03, 2006 07:55 AM (wcNc2)
Sound travels about 4 times faster in water than it does in the air.
Assuming the 7km (~4mi) range to be accurate...
With their torpedo, the 3355mph soundwave would be heard by those within range, in ~4 seconds. Which if my guesstimate is close, is 12 seconds shorter than it would take the Iranian's new toy to get up to speed anyway.
Posted by: me at April 03, 2006 11:41 AM (/l2PJ)
9
They use it once, they lose their navy, most likely their air force as well. Which means the calculation they have to make is, will it be worth the loss of their air and sea forces in order to be able to destroy whatever it is they're aiming (carrier? submarine? American-flagged merchant vessel?) when they shoot the One and Only.
I think that's the case with any attack by any system of theirs on our forces. Things are on a hair trigger now, and one side is lead by a man who thinks world leaders don't blink when he is speaking, and is preparing the way for the return of an 800 year old man who has been hiding in a well since the 12th century.
Posted by: Mike James at April 03, 2006 01:37 PM (BJYNn)
10
So once again, the unevolved savages come out to throw rocks at their betters. We should exterminate them like the vermin they are.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 03, 2006 10:57 PM (0yYS2)
11
Don’t know what you guys are talking about but if they can field a few hundred of those speed boats w/ torpedoes they may do some damage. Our ships are good but as the ant said to the elephant hold on my 3million relatives would like to play.
Posted by: john at April 04, 2006 12:59 PM (koOZj)
12
john, I believe that each torpedo is 26 feet long (as Graeme noted above) and they require a specialized tube for firing. That most likely puts it outside of the capabilities of a "speedboat".
13
i don't mean a small miami vice boat but somthing like a 60' fast patrol boat.thats what it looked like on cnn
Posted by: john at April 04, 2006 01:57 PM (koOZj)
14
John, do you mean the type of fast patrol boat that destroyers and aircraft would target and swat like flies within minutes of leaving port?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 04, 2006 08:29 PM (0yYS2)
15
The gulf is a small area, by the time we know were under attack it could be to late. Don’t forget they are not as stupid as saddam was. I bet there ports have anti ship missile batteries protecting them. They had an exercise a few years ago call millennium. Where they pulled a retired general out to be the opforce . And he pulled just that kind of attack and he kicked there butts with 16 ship kills. Naturally they stopped the game and sent the old guy home. Then set the rules so they would win
Posted by: john at April 05, 2006 05:27 AM (5zbYP)
16
We are living at an important time. Atheism, which people have tried for hundreds of years to portray as “the way of reason and science,†is proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance. Materialist philosophy that sought to use science for its own ends has been in turn defeated by science. A world rescuing itself from atheism will turn to God and religion. And this process has begun long ago.
It is clear that believers have important duties in this period. They must be aware of this major change in the world’s way of thinking, interpret it, make good use of the opportunities that globalization offers and effectively represent the truth along this road. They must know that the basic conflict of ideas in the world is between atheism and faith. It is not a struggle between East and West; in both East and West there are those who believe in God and those who do not. For this reason, faithful Christians, as well as faithful Jews are allies of Muslims. The main divergence is not between Muslims and the "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians), but between Muslims and the People of the Book on the one hand, and atheists and pagans on the other. Of course, we must not show hostility to such people but view them as people who need to be rescued from their error.
Posted by: TO pagant I.M at April 06, 2006 10:31 AM (zqsRN)
17
Those boats wouldn't even get out of the ports before our radar and jets rip them to shreds ha ha ha ha ha ha the torpedos would just add to the fireworks.
Posted by: Tom at April 06, 2006 07:18 PM (CGl+5)
18
i hope you guys are right about them. they seem a little to willing too die
Posted by: john at April 07, 2006 02:07 PM (x+DJD)
19
Odds are the speedy torps are useless against military type vessels. What about vs civvy ships.. like.. oil tankers? Take out two or three of those and what happens to our economy? Can these torps be mounted on supertankers filled with oil.. heading to Russia.. or.. China? How will they react if we take out these full tankers. The situation there is far more complex than most realize. We could threaten to pull out of the non proliferation treaty.. and threaten to ship nukes and tech to countries hostile to China and Russia.. and Iran. this has it's own dangers.. but.. the game Iran is playing is no less dangerous. If China and Russia come aboard and take a stronger stance against Iran's erichment program.. it would be more likely Iran would seek to halt.. or at least to freeze it's capabilities. Sometimes the only way to win is not to play.
Posted by: Dave at April 12, 2006 11:29 PM (/gJOn)
20
The problem will not be the torpedos, but the hundreds of "SUNBURN" anti ship missiles thatIRAN has aquired from Russia. They are land, air, or ship launched, travey at twice the speed of sound, hug the water and perform violent side to side manevours en routhe to the biggest ship in the group,,, (they seek the biggest one activly) i.e. the carrier.
These are undoubtedly (hundreds of them) in the mountains on the north shore of the gulf, and be sure lots in the Hormuze area.
The Phalanx machine gun defence can NOT even get a fix on them before they HIT. IRAN will not do a a 1 or 2 launch, they will launch a whole lot of these things, and several at tankers crossing Hormuz. Sink a few there and it's "closed", then no one is able to get IN OR unfortunatly no one out either. ANY US navy vessle in the gulf will be SUNK, and any tanker trying to get out too... ALSO where do you think supplies for 130000 US troops come in to IRAQ, Answer, through HORMUZ, if HORMUZ is closed, soon Bushie will have to supply 130000 troops by air as they are surrounded by "insurgents"
I sincerly hope sane minds prevail, otherwise I fear there will be lots of US boy's blood in the gulf. NOTE the gulf is small, shallow and very clear water. There are almost NO places that a sub can get deep enough to avoid easy detection from air.
Recipe for a disaster greater than Pearl Harbour and the Twin towers combined times 10...
Posted by: Patrick at April 21, 2006 07:17 AM (8QuYO)
21
I read a paper detailing such a scenario; however, it doesn't take defensive innovation into consideration.
Perhaps that's why there's the new SeaRAM ASMD system. They are drop-in replacements for the Aegis and are designed to detect and successfully intercept even supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles. Last I checked, it had been tested against Sunburns or the equivalent and had won. It can also deal with multiple targets at once. Put a lot of SeaRAMs on the ships of the fleet, and even a hundred Sunburns will have a hard time getting through.
As for blocking the strait with sunken ships, could not a sufficiently large missile or bomb set on the blockade help to clear it? I see it as sorta like busting a dam, and the British developed dambusting technology all the way back in World War 2.
Posted by: Charles at June 13, 2006 06:53 AM (rudhd)
I Am So Sick Of This (UPDATED)
"Our troop's time is better spent doing this or that rather than rescuing him/her."
Oh, STFU.
Our military, which you statistically never bothered to join, takes pride you will never have, rescuing civilians from harm, no matter their ideology.
Idiot commenters like that fail to grasp the basic concept that our military is designed to protect us. All of us.
Not just here, but there as well.
That's what they do. We do (er, I did heh). Kill people, break things, and protect Americans. Not leftist Americans, not conservative Americans, not American Indian African Irish Indo-Chinese Jamaican Arabian Pashtu Tobrukian Americans.
Just Americans.
And, truth be told, they like doing it.
Here, or there.
So give us a goddamned break on the You-Think-You-Know-Best-What-The-Military-Should-Spend-It's-Time-Doing-Thing.
Unless you have 4 stars on your epaulettes. Then I might listen. But probably not, I have an issue with authority figures.
Updated with revised and extended remarks.
more...
1
"they (er, we) like doing it"? What a fucking joke. I'm an infantryman with the 2nd battalion, 22nd infantry regiment with the 10th Mountain Division. Our sector is the Abu Ghraib province, bordering the al-Anbar province about 30 minutes humvee's drive outside Baghdad. My job as of now is PSD for our battalion's command group. We drive around the battalion commander, sergeant major, XO, and ops major. Ok, none of them have 4 stars on their chest, but it's as close as I'm ever going to get.
We spent almost a full month looking around the areas in our sectors (we're responsible for 2) where known kidnapping cells operate for this strumpet. Maybe I shouldn't say "spent", more like "wasted" a month. We had pushed the insurgency in our area back several weeks in operational capability. In the time we wasted looking for this idiot, the insurgency was allowed to restock and refit their cache's. So we had to spend the next month doing raid after raid busting up cells that had regrown. Which would have been unneccessary if we had never been sent on a retarded mission to find this chick.
Civilians and reporters over here know the risks. They leave the wire knowing what kind of danger they're in at all times. Jill Carroll left Baghdad alone, unarmed, and disguised as a muslim woman. But time after time they make the same mistakes over and over again. It's just a matter of time before they get themselves kidnapped, and then waste our time when we have to go look for them.
Do I take pride in finding civilians? Hell no. And that's straight from a grunt's mouth that's on the ground, who was involved in the search for Jill Carroll, and also found the French civilian engineer Bernard Planche.
Posted by: Ryan at April 02, 2006 05:20 AM (aLiCo)
2
Sorry you feel that way Ryan, but you can't expect every day to be like a recruiting commercial. If you don't like doing the job, you can always get out when the time comes, or make enough trouble until they discharge you. Remember, you don't just work for the Army, you work for We the People, as did I, as have millions of others. Suck it up and drive on.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 02, 2006 07:25 AM (0yYS2)
3
Ryan--thanks for writing from real knowledge, and for your service. It is an interesting debate. If we don't have reporters going outside the Green Zone, we don't know enough. If we do, they will inevitably get kidnapped, some of them, and our military will be less effective at its main job because it will spend resources searching for them.
So, are you suggesting that they don't leave the Green Zone? Or that if they do, the military should not be tasked with looking for them?
Posted by: jd at April 02, 2006 07:27 AM (uT71O)
4
NOrmally I would agree with you, however, these people who are going over often have no business being there. The term freelance journalist in Jill Carroll's case is generous at best. She was a defender of the insurgency and was going over there with an agenda which she knew she could sell to the Christian Science Monitor, a paper which sides with Hamas over Israel as an example of its bent.
Meanwhile the military needs to 24-7 bust up these bastards and IF they have the time to go around and save these people fine, but I would say that right now this is a military that already has one hand tied behnd its back and is never allowed to go out and do its business of killing the enemy as best it can. This just makes its job that much harder.
Posted by: Steve Sharon at April 02, 2006 07:54 AM (/wox2)
6
Jill Carroll was one of the few reporters who would leave the Green Zone, she did not think that she could do a good job covering Iraq from the inside of an armored vehicle. Being a war reporter has never been more dangerous in any other war. I will miss her reporting. If anyone has any links to anyone else who is doing that kind of reporting please post them.
Posted by: john Ryan at April 02, 2006 08:35 AM (TcoRJ)
7
Ralph Peters and Michael Yon have given some of the best reporting out of Iraq by going out of the Green Zone and embedding with Coalition units for protection.
Jill Carroll could have done the same thing.
Posted by: Michael in MI at April 02, 2006 09:52 AM (GANmF)
8
Here's a link to Michael Yon's outstanding coverage:
Posted by: Michael in MI at April 02, 2006 09:55 AM (GANmF)
9
>>>which you statistically never bothered to join,
So only those who statistically bothered to join the military have a right to voice some opinion about the military or U.S. policy? To me, it would seem entirely irrelevant.
I haven't formed an opinion yet one way or the other about the substance of your post, and I'm not just looking to pick a nit with it either, but your comment sounded remarkably like the Liberal cheapshot against "chickenhawks" who support the war yet haven't bothered to join the military. It's fantastic rhetoric, but it has little or no substance.
It reminds me too of the Liberal tactics the Bush Administration used against those who opposed the Harriet Myers nomination and Dubai ports, calling us "sexist" and "racist." There is an attitude behind those tactics that I find disturbing and dissapointing coming from conservatives. We shouldn't let ourselves stoop to that level.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 02, 2006 09:58 AM (8e/V4)
10
Vinnie's been reading too much starship troopers.
Hey newsflash: civilians can express opinions too, and they can also be valid, even if they are about the military.
Amazing, I know.
Posted by: MiB at April 02, 2006 10:00 AM (2hPsb)
11
Vinnie, you strained at a gnat, and swallowed a camel.
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 02, 2006 10:22 AM (rUyw4)
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 02, 2006 12:48 PM (rUyw4)
14
A few years ago some liberal politician wanted to send our troops to south america to guard the rainforests what a waste of troops
Posted by: sandpiper at April 02, 2006 01:31 PM (0Wk0b)
15
For those of you who haven't looked into any background, Jill Carrol DID travel with U.S. troops for a month as a reporter. The CSM even quoted the company captain, who seemed to speak well of her.
And how many of you have actually read her articles? They seem balanced enough to me that you could read pretty much anything into them you want. For me, I detect a moderately liberal slant, but let's be fair. She frequently wasn't particularly supportive of Iraqi officials and certianly didn't paint the insurrection in glowing terms. Suffering civilians, whatever the percieved cause, seemed to be the burr in her saddle.
I probably wouldn't agree with her politics if she discussed them with me, but that hardly qualifies her as a "moonbat."
Posted by: David at April 02, 2006 01:39 PM (wZLWV)
16
>>>First off, I'm not calling anyone a chickenhawk.
I know you weren't calling anybody a chickenhawk. But dismissing somebody's comments about how to best use our military just because they haven't served in the military is a specious argument-- just like the chickenhawk slur the Left uses.
>>>it helps to have an insider's view when telling the military what you think they ought to be doing.
Whether or not to use our military to rescue moonbats who've placed themselves in harm's way is a civilian decision-- not a military one. This isn't Starship Troopers. So I disagree.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 02, 2006 04:06 PM (8e/V4)
17
Yup, Carlos. You're right. This isn't Starship Troopers. Damned shame in my opinion.
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at April 02, 2006 05:27 PM (WOQ34)
18
I know you weren't calling anybody a chickenhawk. But dismissing somebody's comments about how to best use our military just because they haven't served in the military is a specious argument-- just like the chickenhawk slur the Left uses.
Actually it's not. The specious comes in when bloggers and blog commenters pipe up with the notion that a person's ideology should be the determining factor as to whether or not it's worth it for the military to rescue them. Which, to me, is in the same vein as the Left's constant carping that the military should be utilized only as a perpetual Meals-on-wheels organization run under U.N. auspices.
Whether or not to use our military to rescue moonbats who've placed themselves in harm's way is a civilian decision-- not a military one. This isn't Starship Troopers. So I disagree.
Yeah, but it isn't made by bloggers or blog commenters.
Starship Troopers: Never read it, never saw it. Don't have the slightest clue why it keeps being referred to.
Posted by: Vinnie at April 02, 2006 05:42 PM (/qy9A)
19
In Starship Troopers, only military veterans were granted full citizenship and a say so in political matters.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 02, 2006 06:07 PM (8e/V4)
It was a pretty good scifi book written in the 50's. They made a lame movie version of it a few years ago.
I generally agree with you. The distinction I might make, however, would not be based on their ideology, but rather on whether they had ignored our government's warnings to stay out of the danger zone. Add to that the moron's goals of thwarting our government's objectives there (and our military's), and I can see why some people would object.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 02, 2006 06:58 PM (8e/V4)
22
Bravo to Vinnie for not wanting to only save those who support the president's policies (and bravo to the person who pointed out that the reporter did not, as evidenced by her stories, at least, hate the president's policies). We are all Americans in the war on terror. On 9/11 they killed Republicans and Democrats and Greens and libertarians and independents. And our troops are conservatives and liberals and all points in between. And you know what? To Osama, we are all infidels deserving of death. same with Zarqawi.
Posted by: jd at April 02, 2006 07:06 PM (uT71O)
23
That's the problem as I see it Carlos. If it had been Mark Steyn instead of Jill Carrol, I fear we wouldn't be having this debate.
I'm a conservative, I believe in the sanctity of human life. If I want to be consistent, that life has to include stupid people who willingly go into danger zones where they ought not be.
We cannot stand one of our neighbors. They drive us nuts. But if their house was burning down, I wouldn't hesitate to go in and rescue them.
Posted by: Vinnie at April 02, 2006 07:30 PM (/qy9A)
24
What I would see as reasonable is our government saying--hey, if you go into X area, you are on your own because of the danger it poses to our soldiers, whether that area is Somalia or Anbar province. I don't think that is what journalists in Iraq were told, particularly as so many in government from Wolfowitz on down have complained about the press not getting out of the GZ and getting the real story.
But our obligation to rescue or not rescue must NEVER be affected by the politics of the person kidnapped. The criteria must be neutral (an obvious exception should of course be made for true traitors and spies, but that almost goes without saying).
I feel the same as Vinnie. I don't currently have any neighbors I dislike, but I grew up next to a truly awful human being...but I still would want him rescued if his house caught on fire.
Posted by: jd at April 02, 2006 07:37 PM (uT71O)
25
Allright, did anyone read Ryan's post? I mean for crying out loud, he said it best. And Maximus, that was a whacked comment.."he can get out when his time comes," and sounds like you could use a tour in Abu Ghraib, to open your eyes.
Ryan, 1AD OIF1 03-04 here, I too was in the same area, and your post is similar to one of mine earlier...
Some of these arguments crafting a soldier's responsibilities to include looking for goofball, glory-hounding journalists instead of using that time to as you put it work on more pressing concerns is naive, unrealistic, unfair and lacking any kind of practical application.
Good post and well said Ryan, blogroll anyone?
Posted by: capster at April 02, 2006 09:03 PM (IARJ7)
26
What didn't you understand about my comment capster? If Ryan doesn't like how the Army does business, he can take a discharge at the end of his enlistment, and that's the way it is, because the Army doesn't care about a soldier's opinion. I don't like the fact that our soldiers waste their time trying to resuce these idiots who take side with the enemy then get bitten by the rabid dog they were trying to pet, but if I was still in, I'd have to follow orders too, or get out. As far as your Abu Ghraib comment, it was an incoherent non-sequitur, so I will disregard it as a brain fart on your part.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 03, 2006 06:15 AM (0yYS2)
27
Poor Vinnie... Somehow he's attracted a legion of useless, clueless moonbats...
Posted by: juandos at April 03, 2006 06:20 AM (2bfAx)
28
Vinnie, I'm not saying anything against Jill or for the contractors, but comparing the two was like comparing apples and oranges.
There's too much hooplah always surrounding the reporters. Peters and Yon wouldn't even be there were it not for the vast majority of left-leaning journalists hampering the effort and being used for the enemy's propaganda.
If we're complaining that reporters are lazy for not leaving the green zone and stupid for venturing out unarmed and unprotected, I'd imagine that says a lot. It says they're useless.
Posted by: Oyster at April 03, 2006 06:31 AM (YudAC)
29
Oyster nails it again. All of you had better listen, because she knows what she is talking about. Useless is the best adjective I've heard in this whole Jill Carroll mess. It speaks volumes about the liberal media and is spot on.
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 03, 2006 08:02 AM (rUyw4)
30
From an earlier chat (a month or so ago) with Ryan doesn't like it but he still does it anyway. As Improbulus Maximus said, orders is orders. He also said he wouldn't mind looking for people who got captured who were normal imbeds, following the troops. It's the random yahoos; free-range journalists, peace activists, moronic children wanting to 'visit' Iraq, etc; that tick him off.
I don't think Vinnie's sinking ship analogy really works that well in this case. Unless, of course, the libs were making speed-holes in the bottom of their boat to reduce drag.
Oh yeah, and I first learned about Jill Carrol from Ryan. He was doing typical grunt complaining about house-to-house searching for the entire day earlier in the week. He was surprised I hadn't heard about it since the news was making a big deal about it, which I had missed because of schoolwork.
Posted by: Ranba Ral at April 03, 2006 09:34 PM (GyNTD)
*with Ryan, he*
and
*analogy doesn't really work that well*
That'll teach me to try to post on 4 hours sleep in the past 3 days.
Posted by: Ranba Ral at April 03, 2006 09:37 PM (GyNTD)
32
vinnie,
about "starship trooper", don't bother with the movie, as someone said above it's a lame hack job by a director who has said it was his intent to trash the book. the original book was written by robert a. heinlien and it's worth a read, he made a number if comments about society that were entirely missing from the movie.
Posted by: "gunner" at April 16, 2006 10:16 AM (SCa13)
1
All of the middle-east is going to attempt to buy, or produce their own Nuclear weapons. Emboldened by Iran, and the non-response from the West, everyone will attempt to acquire them.
The argument will be, well Iran has the bomb, and as we have the right to self-defense by having our own nuclear deterrent.
Posted by: davec at March 28, 2006 08:22 PM (CcXvt)
2
A hypernuclear proliferation is likely to result in the use of nuclear weapons. God only knows what will happen to the World.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 28, 2006 08:32 PM (rUyw4)
3
countdown to liberal that believes his superior intellect is needed to point out the United States is the only country to have ever used a Nuclear Weapon, starting now.
I nominate John Ryan, the math obsessed, equate everything with something the U.S does/has done, super hippy to be first.
Posted by: davec at March 28, 2006 08:51 PM (CcXvt)
4
The world will be a juster place if/when every country has the bomb.
Posted by: Kiumars at March 28, 2006 08:54 PM (4mH9A)
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 28, 2006 09:01 PM (rUyw4)
6
Well thanks davec. Sometimes the math is a little dry of emotion., so I will try to put a little humor in this one just for you. So about the math OK here goes Your statement that "the United Staet is the only country to have used a nuclear weapon" well the math on that is wrong lol we actually used 2 nuclear weapons. And of course Pakistan has had nuclear capability and was directly responsible for advancing Iran's capability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons#Iran this wikipedia article ws interesting especially the section on the crude South African bombs that they built in the late 1970's. A gun type bomb where the fissile material reached critical mass by being fired together so no need for sophisticated electronic detonation.
Posted by: john Ryan at March 28, 2006 11:47 PM (TcoRJ)
7
oh and also the first Indiand test back in 1974 the code name for that test was "smiling buddha"
Posted by: john Ryan at March 28, 2006 11:50 PM (TcoRJ)
8
If these countries had even an ounce of inteligence, they'd all see what a horrible idea a nuclear armed Middle East is. Look at the level of restraint used so far with just conventional and chemical weapons. If this does happen (God, US and Israel forbid) it will be a cycle of constant nuclear testing anytime someone has a point to make, like India and Pakistan. Even if one is silly enough to believe that all the region wants is nuclear "energy", where are the environmentalists? Anytime someone proposed a new power plant in the US or Europe or moved a truckload of waste, Greenpeace was right there with their banners and shouting.
In the interest of making my arguments sound better, I shall employ the John Ryan formula of utilising random facts which happen to fall under the same category as the topic, but at the same time are unrelated to it. Here it goes: For weapons, Pu-240 is regarded as a serious contaminant and it is not feasible to separate Pu-240 from Pu-239. An explosive device could be manufactured using plutonium extracted from low burn-up reactor fuel, but any significant proportions of Pu-240 in it would make it dangerous to the bomb makers, as well as unreliable and unpredictable. Typical plutonium recovered from reprocessing used power reactor fuel has about one-third non-fissile isotopes (mainly Pu-240).
Posted by: Graeme at March 29, 2006 05:34 AM (UJ+fk)
9
Soon, very soon, everyone will understand why we don't let monkeys have guns. Of course, by then it'll be a moot point, because we'll all be sifting through the ruins of civilization looking for something to eat, while running from mobs of cannibals. Well, maybe most people will be sifting and running; I'll be on the greatest safari ever.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 29, 2006 05:45 AM (0yYS2)
10
Graeme, you SHOULD have been a mathmetician. Haha! Or perhaps a career in nuclear technology would be in order. Or if that fails, I suggest a career as a politician.
I only say this because my oldest son has a major in mechanical engineering with a minor in nuclear technology.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 29, 2006 07:25 AM (rUyw4)
11
Actually JJ, the plutonium info comes from the Uranium Information Centre. My field is petroleum engineering, specifically, the production aspect. I'm severely allergic to politics and mathematics.
Posted by: Graeme at March 29, 2006 07:46 AM (wSwVN)
12
Actually, I alwasy favored invasion of Mecca. Take the moonrock and set it at ground zero in NY. Make the bastards pray towards Time Square.
Posted by: Jones at March 29, 2006 08:01 AM (SJ35d)
13
Ok, Graeme, I'm allergic to those two career paths myself, as I chose geology for my major. I work for a small oil company and have been doing nothing but oil and gas leasing for the past six months. What a pain that is. And here in Arkansas(where I have been for the past few months) it is even worse than most places because the land owner can sell mineral rights, royalties, parts of each or both, and the mineral rights are forever separated from the land. After a few generations, you can well imagine what a pain it is to find all the heirs and get them to sign leases.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 29, 2006 08:26 AM (rUyw4)
14
Graeme I do not think that Greenpeace would be allowed to demonstrate in either Iran or Saudi Arabia. These countries are not democracies.
Posted by: john Ryan at March 29, 2006 08:42 AM (TcoRJ)
15
Leave it to john to take the math challenge and apply it where there is no math. To go from "the United States is the only country to have used a nuclear weapon" to that's wrong, they used two weapons is totally wrong. The logic does not follow. At all. And I sincerely hope that the fact that it doesn't follow is the "humorous" part.
Posted by: Oyster at March 29, 2006 08:47 AM (rGS2g)
16
However, John Ryan, Greenpeace could demonstrate against Iran and Saudi Arabia at various locations around the World, such as embassies and cultural centers of these two states. If Greenpeace had any credibility that is.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 29, 2006 09:05 AM (rUyw4)
17
Use it before we lose it, or before some other one of these tiny places looses it on one of our cities. Iran without Tehran might be a country that decides the nuke is no longer worth pursuing.
Posted by: Ernie Oporto at March 29, 2006 11:05 AM (/lpvu)
18
Just once I would like to see the reason America used nukes to end WWII.
Here it goes: Truman used nukes on Japan, because it was believed it would cost America one million men to take Japan. One million. That is a lot of dead Americans, and I am glad Truman was in office to do the right thing, not some little girl like Clinton.
Posted by: Leatherneck at March 29, 2006 03:19 PM (D2g/j)
Stranded, Caught in a Crossfire
Yesterday Rusty posted on the bad news that a police station in Iraq was overrun by the enemy. Police were killed and prisoners about 18 of whom were insurgents were released. Today Rusty shows us how they bragged. In fact they were feeling so damn good about it they got sloppy. US and Iraqi forces trapped them in a cross-fire and captured 50 of them.
ABCNEWS : BAGHDAD, Iraq - Insurgents attacked a police station Wednesday for a second day in a row, but U.S. and Iraqi forces captured 50 of them after a two-hour gunbattle… …About 60 gunmen attacked the police station in Madain, south of Baghdad, with rocket-propelled grenades and automatic rifles, said police Lt. Col. Falah al-Mohammadawi. U.S. troops and a special Iraqi police unit responded, catching the insurgents in crossfire, he said.
Hell Yeah, brave mujahadbeens forgot to fight to the death and were captured by infidel dogs, how humiliating.
Posted by: Rusty at March 22, 2006 11:39 AM (JQjhA)
2
I had a feeling that an operation that big wasn't going to be able to melt into the countryside.
Posted by: ericj at March 22, 2006 12:09 PM (hrQvk)
3
You mean that "Hailus" character is wrong, and the sky isn't falling? I think Bush is somehow at fault for this?
Well actually he's back to talking about a "stolen Election", so maybe he'll give us his new perspective, of how the U.S military is failing by capturing and killing Insurgents.
Posted by: davec at March 22, 2006 12:22 PM (CcXvt)
4
I dunno but I find him less and less funny every day. Come on Hallius earn your keep. If you want to post your issues and postion here you must at least keep us somewhat entertained.
Posted by: Howie at March 22, 2006 12:31 PM (D3+20)
5
Hailus doesn't know what he thinks. He hasn't communicated with his brain in some time. He's too busy shouting that the world is his oyster and something about rounding 'em up.
Posted by: Oyster at March 22, 2006 02:04 PM (g9UJq)
6
I am always a bit more skeptical of good news than bad. No dead or only a few insurgents killed and 50 captured ? weapons reported recovered ? Doesn't this seem all unusual ? I tried to find out more, the New York Times said 146 were initially detained but most were immediately released after testing negative for explosives residue. This sounds more like an "arrest of the usual suspects" than a mass surrender of a large force caught in a crossfire.
Posted by: john Ryan at March 22, 2006 02:50 PM (TcoRJ)
7
ER uh have you read instapundit today John? You can always depend on John to harsh your cool.
Posted by: Howie at March 22, 2006 02:53 PM (D3+20)
8
Allah will not be happy. How will they ever get their 72 vigins?
Posted by: Leatherneck at March 22, 2006 03:13 PM (D2g/j)
9
Uhh! What's that smell? Why, it's the scent of sulphur! Why I've been summoned back to the fiery pit to provide more enlightenment to my gathering flock of avid followers! Okay, well, let's just see what tommorrow brings. Maybe another news flash how we are kickin' their arses even as they are freeing more of their comrades from prisons? Then we'll go out and round 'em up again to save face and let most of them go 'cause geesh! the sniffers detected no explosives? ( That must have been because they were so careful to keep the explosives in a sealed urn in the prison lavatory ). Okay there you have it. Next?
Round 'em up rope 'em off and put someone with experience in charge who knows what he/she is doing. Someone who uses more brains than brawn and cheap " bring 'em on " rhetoric while posing in a Hollywood jumpsuit! Someone said that on this web-site and I must give that party the credit for such an accurate framing of this pathetic picture!
Posted by: Hailus at March 22, 2006 03:15 PM (Y2ILH)
10
Halitosis :
Do any of your talking points get past the year 2005? So far we've heard the stolen election, now the "bring it on" and "jumpsuit" stories.
Gee talk about towing the party line, except yours is about two years past it's expiration date.
Posted by: dave at March 22, 2006 03:37 PM (CcXvt)
11
Halitosis:
On your "Bring it on" talking point, let me ask you a quick question:
Out of all the interviews conducted at Abu Gharib, Gitmo, Afghanistan etc. which do you think is the most likely answer when terrorists or insurgents are asked "why do you fight?" :
"My religion commands that I fight any oppression against a fellow Muslim"
or
"I was raising Alfalfa, and reading my Quran, living peacefully, then I heard on infidel TV the U.S President say "Bring it" so you know, I brought it!"
Posted by: davec at March 22, 2006 03:48 PM (CcXvt)
12
Howie that is not a blog I read with any regularity. I did not see anything about this second attack on a police station. If you what you wanted to show me were the lefts (Ted Kennedy) incorrect ideas about US casualties yeah they were way off. In Gulf War I my own beliefs were that it was going to be MUCH more difficult than it was. I believed the hype about their G5 guns and the 4th largest army etc. But i realized that by Gulf War II that he didn't really have any defense left. OK but what about this most recent post ? Have you had a chance to read anymore articles about it ? What do you really think happened ? It doesn't sound like a mass surrender of a fairly large insurgent force to me. No crew served weapons seem to have been recovered. When analysis is colored by emotion ......
Posted by: john Ryan at March 22, 2006 03:50 PM (TcoRJ)
13
Howie here is the link to the NYT story. I read other news stories but they just seemed to repeat the quote from Lt.Col Falah al Mohammedawi.http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/22/international/middleeast/22cnd-iraq.html?ex=1300683600&en=3ce65181146e30d1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Posted by: john Ryan at March 22, 2006 04:02 PM (TcoRJ)
14
Glad to hear the marines kicked some terrorist backside to the kerb, yet again.
Posted by: MathewK at March 22, 2006 04:07 PM (pVHqF)
15
I tried to provide a link to the current Fox News story, but there was a "submission error, questionable content". The Fox News story reports that zero attackers were killed. ZERO ?? This is after a "two hour gun battle" while caught in a crossfire. This puts a new meaning, perhaps on Rusty's comment to this post, "fool me once" .
Posted by: john Ryan at March 22, 2006 05:07 PM (TcoRJ)
16
A leader who seeks soley his own council is a dangerous man! Object lesson in progress!
Posted by: Thesaurus at March 22, 2006 06:45 PM (Y2ILH)
17
Sure they did, no way did they just round up the nearest 50 people so they did not look like dummies, no siree.
Posted by: Sonic at March 22, 2006 07:03 PM (Gsn6c)
18I am always a bit more skeptical of good news than bad.
The media is counting on that. That's what sells their papers. Be skeptical of both and it's always a good idea to check other sources.
Posted by: Oyster at March 23, 2006 09:58 AM (g9UJq)
19
That is 100% Oyster the first question one should think is "why is this person telling me this ?"
Posted by: john Ryan at March 27, 2006 09:39 AM (TcoRJ)
It Takes 1.2 Billion Tons Of Coal To Find A DiamondThis:
The West has overcome Communism, it can and will overcome triumphalist Islam. It will not be easy, but seeing the situation clearly will make the fight clearer in perspective, rather than confused and muddied if one knows not the realities of this war. One must never forget that the enemy - radical, militant, fundamentalist, triumphalist, violent, terroristic (and/or whatever adjective one wishes to use) Islam - is evil.
1
Overcome communism, have we? Property rights of Americans are diminishing by the minute. As for overcoming radical Islam, there's no adequate resolve in America. We're completely occupied "winning the hearts and minds" of the radicals. 9-11 was not enough. We lost in Viet Nam, tied in Korea. There's no win since VJ, 60 years ago. Our own media and our legacy communists have us by the throats.
"Triumphalist" is on the nose, though. Nice word.
Posted by: Layer Seven at March 14, 2006 08:14 PM (NXfxN)
2
Communism is alive and well in the U.S.(S.)A. Just look at California where they're trying to unleash weapons of mass destruction on unsuspecting Californians...
3We lost in Viet Nam, tied in Korea.
No "we" in Korea, The Korean war was a United Nations operation, let them take the blame/fame.
Posted by: davec at March 15, 2006 02:12 AM (CcXvt)
4
We "beat" communism, right. If by "beat" you mean "watched as it imploded onto itself," sure. As much as I like Reagan, he took credit for the fact that, basically, all the cowards before him wern't able to surrender America to the USSR, and that communism defeats itself when left alone.
Anyway, we're going to "beat" islamism, sure - as in, Islamism is an unsustainable tenant that will destroy itself - but, much like the communists, its going to be a rough ride if we don't defend ourselves from it in the meantime.
Posted by: MiB at March 15, 2006 02:47 AM (VeYWn)
5
I have to agree with a couple here. Communism caused the USSR to collapse just like Islamic rule will if left alone. The west keeps sending aid to the Middle East though which, keeps power going to the respirator.
But communism didn't die. It's alive and well and always looking for a new home. When the USSR fell the communists here in the US came out of the closet and actually formed a overt political party. Which is good AND bad. Now we can see them and keep an eye on them, but now they can also openly proselytize in our colleges under the guise of the "open sharing of ideas".
When MiB says Islamism is unsustainable, he's right. Islam can't make it in the free market world. When your product demands more than it gives in return, you go out of business.
Posted by: Oyster at March 15, 2006 04:49 AM (YudAC)
6
MiB, the winner is the last one standing, even if one must compromise to do so, the rest is just details. That said, neither Communism or Fascism are dead, just as the Middle Ages still exist in dark corners of the globe, and those who were our enemies before are still our enemies now, and will be so until they are all dead. That, however, is the sticking point; they won't die if we don't kill them, and no matter how many of them we kill, if we don't stop them from spreading their ideologies and recruiting even from amongst us, they will never go away.
It has been said recently that the Constitution is not a suicide pact; it would be well for us to remember that, and that this is our nation, left to us in trust by those who built it, and we are not bound to honor any claim to it by any person or group who does not wish to abide by its laws and customs, even if they are native born to the tenth generation, and we have no obligation to allow Rights to those who would deny them to us. So, liberals, Communists, Fascists, religious fanatics, and all other enemies of Liberty, known and unknown, must be fought at every turn by every means necessary, because they will never stop attacking us, our Rights, and our country.
Aut Pax, Aut Bellum
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 15, 2006 06:00 AM (0yYS2)
7
Communism isn't dead, it is being taught in public schools all over America. Mr. Bennish's tirade is just the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at March 15, 2006 09:56 AM (WOQ34)
8
What we all mean here is that totalitarianism is alive and well, whether it be secular in the form of communism and fascism, or religious in the form of Islam. No matter the form, it seeks to destroy what we have here in America and the West, and we need to destroy or at least shove it into the dark corners of the World. I'm not sure ignorance, hate, jealousy, greed, etc. can ever be destroyed, but the reason for the existance of civilization is to hold these things back in an attempt to make the World a better place. It is our place to do our best with what we have.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 15, 2006 10:09 AM (rUyw4)
Israeli Anti-Ballistic Missile System(Jerusalem) In the aftermath of the Gulf War, Israel embarked on a project to develop a first-line missile defense system. The result is the Arrow 2.
Israel's Arrow 2 anti-ballistic missile system is capable of intercepting and destroying any Iranian missiles, even were they to carry nuclear warheads, a high-ranking IDF officer told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.
While Iran is Israel's most serious strategic and existential threat, the country, he said confidently, was sufficiently protected by the Arrow, which plays a major role in maintaining Israel's protective envelope.
"We will shoot all of [Iran's missiles] down," he told the Post. "The Arrow knows how to intercept the Shihab missile."
The Arrow 2 can detect even a missile carrying a split warhead and armed with decoys. Last December, it successfully intercepted an incoming rocket simulating an Iranian Shihab-3 missile. Two Arrow batteries with hundreds of missiles are said to be operational, one protecting Tel Aviv and one protecting the northern part of Israel.
The Close Call That Shouldn't Have Been
Today's attempted attack on the Saudi oil processing facility should have been a huge wake-up call for everyone.
ABQAIQ, Saudi Arabia (AP) - Suicide bombers carried out a bold attack on the world's largest oil processing facility Friday but were stopped from breaking in by guards who fired on their cars, exploding both vehicles and killing the attackers.
Al-Qaida purportedly claimed responsibility for the attack, the first on an oil facility in Saudi Arabia.
Al-Qaeda has been threatening to do something like this for quite awhile, which is probably why the attack failed miserably.
However, if we do not get our own oil out of our own ground, or figure out an economcially feasible way to get off foreign oil, we could be seriously screwed if one were to suceed.
1
what u gotta think is if they cant keep their own lands safe from terrorists how on earth are they gonna keep US ports safe ?
later
g
Posted by: girish at February 25, 2006 12:41 AM (05ati)
2
ANWR is just waiting for the enviro dolts to shut up and get out of the way. As I recall however, a year or so back, my President left that issue on the table, for some "reason".
Posted by: forest hunter at February 25, 2006 12:59 AM (Fq6zR)
3
We can't drill in our own back yard because the enviro groups, the Democrat party beholding to them, most in our MSM portraying it as destruction rather than safe production, and a percentage of weak-kneed moderate Republicans. No matter what Bush wants its simply impossible to get passed now. We're gonna have to experience huge price hikes doing serious damage to our economy as a result of foreign dependency before the majority of citizens demand it.
Posted by: Javapuke at February 25, 2006 01:16 AM (hg4kb)
4
I'm almost looking forward to a price increase in oil.
The irresponsibility of Americans vehicle of choice is only taylored to looking as big, and expensive as possible with little to no consideration on mpg (at least before the oil price spike)
Out of the immediate people I know that drive huge trucks, or SUV's none of them have more than two children, or use them to carry large amounts of cargo.
At least two of these people have told me we should do something about our oil dependency, due to the price of gasoline -- there was not the same concern when gas was ninety-nine cents a gallon!
The only way to make Americans care about breaking the dependency on foreign oil and stop them suckling the oil teet is to make it too expensive.
Sad but true.
Posted by: dave at February 25, 2006 02:32 AM (CcXvt)
What a person in this country drives is really none of your, or my, business. To say that what we drive is "irresponsible" is as wrong as to say that those who chose to have the Clydesdale draw a wagon rather than a Shetland Pony was irresponsible because the Clydesdale has far bigger road apples.
We have the resources to sustain our chosen way of life sitting underneath our feet, and currently inaccessible for whatever reason.
I also agree that the greeniacs have played a large part in blocking our access to the resources bubbling below, but, we also have to acknowledge the fact that there are a large number of people on our own side willing to capitulate to their demands.
If I'm not mistaken, it was our side that blocked installing more oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.
I believe that, for now, we have to get our own oil, from our own soil (hey, there's a bumper sticker!), until we have viable, affordable (g'bye hybrids!) alternatives.
One last thing, it isn't just us. China and India are starting to place huge demands on oil. The have a quarter of the world's population, all by themselves.
So our truck and SUV are but a drop within a drop within a drop of that.
Be careful of berating people of their vehicle of choice, lest someone starts berating you of your air conditioner of choice, or heater of choice, or refrigerator of choice.
You get the picture.
Posted by: Vinnie at February 25, 2006 04:03 AM (f289O)
6
I have a Jeep Wrangler and a Tahoe. My husband drives farther to work so he drives the Jeep. I work three miles from home and use less gas than the guy next door with a Civic. Being a home owner, and owning two other properties that need work all the time, I refuse to give up my Tahoe. Everytime I go to Home Depot (which is nearby too) I need that vehicle. Whatever the gas costs, I'll pay it. Try bringing a toilet back in a compact car, or lumber, or eight-foot lengths of PVC. If someone wants to give me grief about my big car, I have one word for them:
Shutthehellupandhelpmeloadthismulch.
Posted by: Oyster at February 25, 2006 06:57 AM (YudAC)
Today, I will pour a gallon of gasoline down the drain, to show solidarity with my fellow gas-guzzling citizens and to flout the stupid collectivist ramblings of Dave.
Also, hey, I found the greatest solution ever to our oil problems. Stop shackling American businesses with tons of retarded/ing regulations and a fearful legislative environment where any big company has to buy off politicians just to not get his business effectively outlawed.
I think that would work wonders for American efficiency.
Posted by: MiB at February 25, 2006 07:39 AM (tFcEO)
8
Kindly do not pour your gasoline down the drain. That is environmentally unfriendly, and you certainly don't want that! Besides, the EPA and the environmentalists will come visiting, so have the tea and cookies ready.
Posted by: Tom at February 25, 2006 08:38 AM (+Ip9P)
9
Oil can be extracted from coal for about $30 a barrel and from tar sands for about the same. Hydrogen is a pipe dream, electric cars impractical and alcohol at best a supplement. Environmentalists are the major obstacle to self-sufficiency.
America and Canada have enormous petrochemical reserves. What we suffer now is a shortage of cheap, easily extractable oil. What we have is a huge reserve of more difficult to extract and therefore more expensive oil.
Posted by: Ken Lydell at February 25, 2006 10:26 AM (fEegS)
Well, if you're referring to ANWR you are a bit confused on the facts.
True, environmentalists have fought exploration in ANWR for years. But there was another group opposed to the free market exploiting ANWR. Oil Companies.
Not a single bill has been proposed over the years to develop ANWR that didn't include both tax breaks and royalty forgiveness for companies bidding on leases.
Today with $55 + per barrel oil I think production in ANWR can be economically feasible without paying companies to explore there. And so I'm all for it.
But in the past I was adamantly opposed to subsidizing exploration. Especially in ANWR.
If you're wondering why it's not open now, you'll have to ask the GOP because the certainly could have suceeded in opening it up if it had been as big a priority as say, letting the UAE run a few ports.
Posted by: Davebo at February 25, 2006 11:04 AM (KqO+b)
11
You gonna amend your "Howard the Coward" post now, or are ya gonna make a "Bill the Pill" piece?
Posted by: jawablaster at February 25, 2006 11:45 AM (FkiCe)
12
I guess we should all get behind eminent domain then, in case geologists find an oil well below someones house
flout the stupid collectivist ramblings of Dave.
I'm sure that talking about peoples vehicles of choice is not popular, but it pretty much proved the point: if gas was down to 99¢ again, where it was five years ago no one would care about breaking dependency on foreign oil, just like there was no talk of it back then.
The problem is not so much the fact you drive a big vehicle period, just it's consumption habits -- However you can have the same vehicle with cheaper fuel source. My father has two vehicles in the U.K, one a van and the other what we might concider an SUV.
The price of Gasoline is around $5.74 a (U.S) Gallon in the U.K, he had both modified to use Propane fuel so much like an hybrid once the propane is gone, it starts using regular gasoline, while on Propane it is significantly lower price per mile to run. He told me the price he paid for modification paid for itself after the first year.
What prompted alternatives in the U.K is exactly what I am talking about, unaffordable gasoline, apart from driving smaller engines (I'd never seen an engine the size of a V8!) peoples driving habits were unaffected when petrol was cheap, now money is being poured into cheaper alternatives.
China and India are starting to place huge demands on oil.
Indeed, which means if we continue to consume a huge portion of foreign oil, and block their access to it we're looking at a war, there will be real wars for oil. I'd prefer by that time we didn't care who got what oil, and domestic was used for things like pesticide and other oil-based production.
My support for breaking dependency on oil, doesn't stop at access to cheap gasoline, especially the more expensive it gets the more people will demand an alternative.
Posted by: dave at February 25, 2006 12:24 PM (CcXvt)
No wonder we're trying to solidify ties with member countries of OPEC like the UAE, we're going to need all the influence we can buy.
Posted by: dave at February 25, 2006 01:53 PM (CcXvt)
14
Propane is just another gas that's produced from natural gas processing and crude oil refining. I thought the idea was to get away from oil and gas? If it's strictly for environmental purposes, then yes, it's cleaner. But you still gotta go through the old fossil fuel and gas extraction process to get it.
Raising the price of oil may encourage people to buy more fuel efficient cars, but what about all the transportation industry? When it costs twice as much for your groceries and clothing and everything else because the cost of shipping them has become astronomical we've still got issues. "Great, I only spent five bucks to drive around in my car this week but eggs were three dollars a dozen."
The impact of raising gas prices has wide-ranging ramifications.
Posted by: Oyster at February 25, 2006 04:28 PM (YudAC)
15
Geez, guys, I literally spent minutes slaving and sweating and typing my fingers into bloody stumps working on that cartoon riot post and ya'll are down here still being all serious and shit.
It's the weekend d00ds and d00dettes, let's lighten it up a bit!
Posted by: Vinnie at February 25, 2006 04:34 PM (f289O)
16
Oyster: I gave an example of how the price of Gasoline caused for a focus on alternatives, not that we should all shift to propane. It isn't a relevation -- UPS vans all over the U.S use it as fuel.
There is no reason the transportation industry couldn't follow suite, isn't that the reason that bio-diesel is catching on - requires little(?) / no modification.
Read the article I pasted below to Vinnie, the Saudi's are courting two Nuclear nations, this could have severe ramifications for the U.S.
If you believe that the U.S would protect certain OPEC members regimes from being toppled, to protect our interests, this is obviously beneficial to both parties; however with China selling them arms, and being closer in the region -- what would those regimes need us for? they can outsource their security to China instead of the U.S.
The China/India deals also come at a time when nations are looking to secure their oil in case of problems, wonder what would happen if we all needed more oil (because of war/embargo/etc) and China / India offered to pay much more money over market price? if they no longer need the U.S for protection you can guarantee whoever is protecting them gets the oil they need.
Posted by: dave at February 25, 2006 04:48 PM (CcXvt)
17
hah, I'm still at work, no lightening up for me for a few hours ;/
Posted by: dave at February 25, 2006 05:07 PM (CcXvt)
1
It's obvious he's in that position because the marshals are beating him like an undersized right winger. Once the jersey's over the head, the poor fellow is at the mercy of the thugs who've dropped the gloves with him.
Posted by: Brian J. at February 21, 2006 04:44 PM (V04ml)
2
Notice how he conveniently puts that paper over his manliness? I guess he forgot to stuff the cucumber this morning......
Posted by: Rusty at February 21, 2006 04:46 PM (JQjhA)
3
How many more sleeper cells are there? Maybe CAIR would know.
This is crazy.
Posted by: Leatherneck at February 21, 2006 05:20 PM (D2g/j)
- When your busted in Ohio with two co-terrorists by the FBI because they knew everything that you were up to.
Posted by: Fred Fry at February 21, 2006 06:21 PM (HJnrm)
7
Every day I want to kill muslims just a little bit more than the day before.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 21, 2006 06:27 PM (0yYS2)
8
Boy this warrior sure put up a fight...who took him the AARP??? No wonder they have to hide behind women and children...what could this perfect example of a Muslim fighter do against a 22 yr. old USMC killing machine??? Not a Damn thing 'cept die like the p%$@y he is! I get it now! What option do you have when your Alah is so weak and so are you??? Too bad Gradpa Munster dies, we coulda' sent him over for his last week and set him lose on 100 of 'em...
Posted by: Bob at February 21, 2006 06:30 PM (EKMxC)
9
From a fan in Ohio: thanks to the gang that caught these nuts! I'm sure there are plenty more people like this in places all across the heartland, biding their time . . .
Posted by: Phil at February 21, 2006 06:42 PM (cNAbl)
Posted by: hondo at February 21, 2006 07:30 PM (fyKFC)
11
Dirka, Dirka Muhammed Jihad.
Wonder what the percentage of radicals is like in Dearborn?
Posted by: dave at February 21, 2006 08:03 PM (CcXvt)
12
The boys in the pokey will get a goooooood
look at his face......most likely his ass
too!
M.W.
Posted by: Mighty Whitey at February 21, 2006 08:11 PM (LxONe)
13
Makes me think of the Wack a Mole game at Chuck E Cheezes.
Posted by: Ariya at February 21, 2006 09:41 PM (uxW3N)
14
A few white people play Hitler dress-up and Ohio is thrown into turmoil for days. Muslims are caught planning terrorism, and it's DICK CHENEY SHOT A LAWYER!!! The media will have to be purged.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 22, 2006 05:29 AM (0yYS2)
15
No good coward hides his face what a yellow lowlife whats his game is he afraid his releitives will find out and have him hung?
Posted by: sandpiper at February 22, 2006 10:06 AM (n7v4a)
1
I like that Sentry gun, kind of reminds me of the one they had in "Aliens" placed in the corridor, monitor-ing and waiting to fire on anything that moved.
I have to wonder if this has some sort of 'friend or foe' recognition systems (not that it would be discussed obviously) due to the fact you wouldn't want to light up the friendlies.
Your comment could not be submitted due to questionable content: t-oring a
--retarded. (hyphened to submit)
Posted by: dave at February 21, 2006 10:30 AM (CcXvt)
If the Gallup Independent gets a fatwa and we don't, I am going down there with a full load of cinderblock in my truck.
And just who do they think it is, the local Rotarians?
However, no evidence has been recovered proving the incident was in retaliation for the publication of the cartoons or was done by a member of the local Arab community.
Whoever did it, we all know it's really George Bush's fault.
1
I would say something, but I don't want to upset anyone. Nothing to see here, move along.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 18, 2006 07:39 AM (0yYS2)
2
>>>However, no evidence has been recovered proving the incident was in retaliation for the publication of the cartoons or was done by a member of the local Arab community.
No, absolutely none at all if you're a member of the "reality-based community."
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 18, 2006 07:43 AM (M3nr/)
Goodbye F-14 Tomcat, RIP
The F-14 Tomcat has been officially retired from the Navy's service. And except for that brief Top Gun fiasco in 1986, the Tomcat has served our country with distinction. What? Are you still suffering under the delusion that Tom Cruise is straight?
Pssst--I hear that the new F-22 Raptor refuses to let any Scientologist--including jet pilot John Travolta--come near it.
1
Jetfighter IV had the F14. Fa-18 and F-22. Good game try it.
Posted by: Howie at February 17, 2006 12:56 PM (v4Rl/)
2
The F-14 Tomcat will always be one bad-ass piece of Cold War hardware.
A true icon of American military power!
Posted by: JohnMc at February 17, 2006 02:00 PM (y+I+a)
3
a sign of the times, like western union no longer sending telegraphs... sure, time marches on and all that jazz, but still, kinda sad.
Posted by: KG at February 17, 2006 03:08 PM (7SapW)
4
Man, I love the F-14 Tomcat, and know that this plane has done all that was ever asked of it, and more. It was a one-of-a-kind plane, that's for sure. I'll miss seeing it in film and photo's, and thought it might just play one more role in this fuss with Iran.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 17, 2006 03:18 PM (rUyw4)
5
They became my favorites when 2 Tomcats shot down 2 Lybian Migs and I began to have hope again for American resolve, and a real President. The fighters we produced in the early to mid '70s were awesome for their time.
Posted by: Javapuke at February 17, 2006 03:20 PM (ikNyr)
6
The F-22 may not look as impressive, but it will dominate the skies.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 17, 2006 04:49 PM (0yYS2)
7
I have to say, I dislike the F-14, cause I liked the F4 more than any other plane (almost got killed by one too, flying really low!!)
It will take years to replace the F-14, and they will still be used, if the need arises (cough *iran* cough).
Posted by: PeaB0dy at February 17, 2006 05:13 PM (ZlMXh)
Meanwhile, I have done my duty as a good Jawa correspondent and found more pictures of Iraqi prisoners being abused. Graphic images below the fold.
more...
The top photo is of an Iraqi murdered by terrorists.
The second photo is of Nick Berg.
The third photo is of one of the contractors murdered in Falluja.
The fourth and fifth photos are of Kurds murdered by Saddam with gas.
BTW, nice of you to provide proof of your claim.
Posted by: Vinnie at February 17, 2006 06:42 PM (f289O)
4
In response to Alpha blaming the beheading of Nick Berg and the gassing of Iraqi Kurdish citizens on U.S. Forces:
Over 2,000 coalition troops have died to maintain Alpha's right to shit on their graves. She should have the respect to get her facts straight before commenting. I've been serving for 17 years, and my patience with candyass college kids thinking they're worldly knowledgeable is wearing thin.
She should work for Salom.com. They express their right to free speech to spread sedition just as she does. I assume she's from Australia, so I don't understand why she would encourage the destruction of the Western world also. I encourage her to stand up and join the fight. It doesn't matter which side, but when she chooses the side of the terrorists don't be surprised when she's beheaded by her own team and non-U.S. folks like her will be downloading videos of her demise from Yahoo (the U.S. email
service she uses even though she encourage thes U.S. destruction).
Posted by: Kevin at February 17, 2006 08:49 PM (pQZi1)
5
and people still want to believe that
muslims are so innocent. Dont these pictures show that
islam is not a religion of peace and understanding.Look how they flew those airliners into the towers, look how they bombed oklohoma, look how they bombed the news cafe in Cape Town, look how they bombed London.There are many other cases in other countries which is all islam related.there is an attack on the western world.In the Quran it states that islam is the one true religion and is going to take over the world.We need
to wake up and smell the truth.Islam is
a religion of hate and is inconsiderate to other religions and race.Theres a saying that goes "most muslims are not terrorists, but most terrosrists are muslim"
Posted by: shaylene at February 20, 2006 02:45 AM (fY+Sn)
6
u those iraqi terrosrists dont u people asham to say u are muslim. beheade people who given u the permisson.are u doing allah job. no reapect for islam whole world hate muslim people all over the world because of your brutal behave did our nabi teach u to do so. u people make shame to islam n to our nabi muhammed
Posted by: akbar at March 06, 2006 10:32 AM (SzaXA)
The first two examples come from Malaysia and Yemen, hardly bastions of press freedom to begin with.
The rest are either socialist countries, or former Communist countries. And the U.N. And the E.U.
I am to going finally place the last brick into the wall that keeps me in the bowels of the blogosphere dungeon by disagreeing with Michelle Malkin.
I will believe that the Cartoon Jihadists are winning when they finally prevent me from posting offending images of Mohammed.
Why we are choosing to die upon the hill of whether or not what MSM outlets publish these pictures makes me want to pull out the duct tape for head wrappage again.
If the blogosphere truly wants to be the new media, then we have got to stop worrying about what the MSM does or doesn't do.
Who gives a flying blank at a rolling donut if the L.A. Times didn't publish the photos? I've posted them numerous times, and so have others. So many that the google searches for these caricatures far outstrip the daily readership of any newspaper in the world.
That is what free press is. And that's why I disagree that the Cartoon Jihadists are winning.
And this is why I should resign myself to being a bottom-feeding blogger. Forever and ever.
1
The "free press" isn't doing anything different that they don't always do. They've been censoring much of the the truth for how long now? No, we're not losing. Europe will be if they enact more censorship laws.
As I heard someone say one day, "You can have my keyboard when you pry it from my cold, dead, cheeto-stained fingers."
Bottom feeders of the world, UNTIE!
Posted by: Oyster at February 10, 2006 03:42 AM (YudAC)
2
The jihadotards are definitely winning against the chickenshit liberals, who fall all over themselves to surrender to America's enemies every chance they get, and try to undermine any efforts to resist the evil du jour. Liberals are not quite as useful as tits on a bull, and should all be shot and ground up for fertilizer or something so that they can at least contribute to society in some small measure.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 10, 2006 05:06 AM (0yYS2)
3
The Fascist Muslims have been winning in America for 30 years. The courts have repeatedly attacked anything that relates to, or supports, Judeo-Chriatian values. Most recently here in SoCal the Trial Lawyers forced the County of LA, and Cities of San Diego and Redlands to spend $hundreds of millions to change their logos, letterheads and emblems to delete things that may reference Judeo-Christian values. LA County is on the verge of bankruptcy because of this and has had to cut back on many other programs; including the Sherriff's Dept.
But the Trial Lawyers and the courts have supported the FascistMuslims. I Refer to cases forcing governments and companies to give paid time off to employees to face Mecca and pray during the Call to Prayers.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at February 10, 2006 06:23 AM (lwdxR)
4
hey let's publish the cartoons AND the abu Ghraib photos together !! That should make for some fine dancing in the streets
Posted by: john ryan at February 10, 2006 01:37 PM (TcoRJ)
5
Right on. Could not agree more. But are you concerned about the big service providers or hosting services giving in? I don't know if you saw it, but what Google is doing with study of Revenge and in China with regard to certain subjects is pretty worrying. http://thestudyofrevenge.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Stuart Fullerton at February 10, 2006 11:55 PM (0D12r)
Lies, And The Lying Liar Muslims Who Tell Them
My very dear friend Beth sent the remaining two brain cells in my head to furiously rubbing against each other in order to create a spark by reminding me of the Islamic practice of taqqiya.
And the comments she refers to, I've seen them as well, I have no choice, they show up in my inbox now on a daily basis.
taqiyya: Dissimulation; lying for the sake of ones religion; concealing ones true religious beliefs for strategic reasons. Taqiyya is a lie by commission, rather than by omission, as in kitman. The concept of al-taqiyya is one historically associated with Shia Islam. This is because Sunni Muslims, who believe that Shiites are heretics, would impel them to denounce their faith, thinking this would expose them as mushrikeen when they refused to. In response, the Shia would do so, but hold true to their faith in their hearts, thus preserving their faith and their lives. Taqiyya is now used by all Muslims as a means of deceiving infidels about Islam's aims, practices, and aspirations.
Let's revisit Beth, she's on to something here...
I’m tired of reading the same line in damn near every thread related to the cartoons, where the liars say Islam “respects all religions.†Exactly who do these people think they’re kidding? Maybe they can peddle that bunch of hogwash to the blind dhimmis on the Left, but that’s not flying here. As far as I’m concerned, ANYONE who claims that Islam “respects all religions†has showed their true colors–that they are exactly the kind of Islamofascist with whom the civilized world is at war.
...because, like I said, I've been on the receiving end of these comments.
So the question begs, is Islam tolerant of other religions? Another meme I've noticed is one that basically goes "Muslims don't defame the other prophets, like Jesus, and Moses, how dare you!"
The answer, of course, is no. Islam is not tolerant of other religions. Not only is Islam intolerant, it spits in the face of the very religion it claims to be the one true extension of. Jew hating aside, if Islam respects and doesn't defame the prophets that came before Mohammed, then how then do they rationalize the concept of taqqiya? Or the practice I noted in the post below, the muta'a?
Their hypocrisy is exposed by what was written in stone, thousands of years ago, and brought to the world by a prophet supposedly revered in Islam, Moses:
14 “You shall not commit adultery. (muta'a)
16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. (al-taqqiya)
Then we proceed with the obvious:
13 “You shall not murder. (duh, applies to every other major, or minor for that matter, religion on Earth)
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.†(just who invaded Spain, anyway?)
For a group that proclaims religious superiority over the rest of us, you would think this would present a problem.
1
Outstanding catch, only in need of one addendum. God wrote down the ten commandments, is it blasphemy to reject the word of God? Breaking the individual commandments is bad in so far as they're concerned but what happens when they reject the commandments outright? I would make sure that those 72 virgins got a medical checkup if I were smart.
Posted by: Mike H. at February 06, 2006 09:14 PM (DGg0m)
2
I’m tired of reading the same line in damn near every thread related to the cartoons, where the liars say Islam “respects all religions.â€
What religion "respects all other religions?" Name one that respects any other religion, for that matter. The whole point of sectarianism is not that the sects "respect" one another, but that none is able to get such a stranglehold on the state that it can use the state's resources to crush the others. I'm not sure whether Islam is less tolerant, but suppose that depends on the sect of Islam we're talking about.
I'm not sure how far one can get with this religion-bashing thing. But as a practical matter shouldn't we try to differentiate between sects that at least tolerate the idea of religious diversity and those that don't? Not that they "honor it" mind you. Just that they're willing to put up with it.
But anyway, you guys are proving my point. There is large-scale willingness to just consign the entire Muslim world to the dust bin, because of the reaction against a few cartoons. Listen Muslims, can you just imagine what this would be like were any of your holy warriors successful enough to destroy an American city, or even a neighborhood? Still think it's a good idea to get the bomb?
The only reason things don't look worse for you in the West is that your holy warriors just haven't been very successful. And for that you can thank Allah and George Bush, not to mention a few apostate Muslims.
Posted by: Demosophist at February 06, 2006 09:36 PM (GHzDS)
3
Demosophist, we're not consigning them to the dustbin, they're doing it all themselves. That post smacked of apologetics.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 06, 2006 10:15 PM (0yYS2)
4
Thank you for reminding me of this. I reread all of the Chronicles of Narnia, and you might be interested in reading "The Last Battle". It might take you a day, and you will be surprised by its common day relevance especially where taqiyya is concerned. C.S. Lewis knew this was coming and how it would come long before I was even born...
Posted by: RepJ at February 06, 2006 10:19 PM (ZKVg+)
does that mean you can't covet your Kuwaiti neighbour's oil, cars, tvs, gold...
Posted by: Matthew at February 06, 2006 10:20 PM (/LA+Y)
6
Why don't you go over to Beth's site and debate it with her, Demosophist? I didn't write that, she did.
But anyway, you guys are proving my point. There is large-scale willingness to just consign the entire Muslim world to the dust bin, because of the reaction against a few cartoons.
Sorry, but I don't know how old you are, but I clearly remember Munich in 1972, the oil embargo of 1973, and the hostage crisis of 1979.
My perspective on Islam goes alot farther back than just this current cartoon issue, Demosophist.
Finally, it's not "religion bashing." It's "getting out the facts."
Posted by: Vinnie at February 06, 2006 10:20 PM (f289O)
7
abu hamza convicted by british court for incitement to murder! woohoo!
Posted by: ian uk at February 07, 2006 07:26 AM (GhCfc)
8
I'm going to do a little "religion bashing" here.
This is just my own opinion, but Mohammed was just an egomaniac with control issues. And he was smart too. I mean "real" genious. He coupled his ability to imagine some pretty advanced ideas about the universe and mathematics (even though his math doesn't add up when disbursing inheritances among the family - and in other instances) with his own perversities and personality defects to create an unquestionable self-made existence. He proclaimed himself a prophet by playing on the superstitions that were prevalent at the time. He proceeded to destroy knowledge gained by others so that his Koran was the only word. The destruction of books, scrolls and other sources of knowledge were routinely destroyed by him and his followers for centuries after.
And look at some of the most ridiculous proclamations he made:
* Angels won't visit a house with a dog in it?
* Jews were turned into rats? His proof? Rats don't drink camel's milk and neither did Jews.
* The devil resides in your nose while you sleep?
(there are many, many more)
And this "word" is eternal and must never be questioned?
And to this whole issue about not allowing any depiction of Mohammed; this was NOT Allah's word. This rule was made up by other men after Mohammed died.
Funny how God's edicts always benefitted Mohammed over everyone else. Even his followers. He got the pick of women after their husband's were killed. He got a full fifth of all the booty from conquests. He claimed to speak for God yet, changed the rules regularly to suit himself, and after he died it was proclaimed that Muslims live their lives patterned after his.
And there you have it.
Posted by: Oyster at February 07, 2006 07:37 AM (YudAC)
"House of War"
Histories and commentaries about Islam often mention the ironic labels that Muslims place on the two "houses" that define the two parts of humanity, as they see them. In this cosmology the realm of the infidels is referred to as the "House of War" while the sphere of Islam is called the "Ummah" (roughly, the community of the virtuous and faithful). The implication is that the West is condemned by their failure to "submit to the will of Allah" to a process of internecine struggle. This has been a useful fiction for the Ummah because not only does it provide a sense of moral superiority, but serves as a figleaf to hide the Ummah's private shame. The term "House of War" manages to convey the notion that the long struggle for justice, freedom and responsible government in the West was the mere pathology of an inferior and faithless people. But the current "cartoon crisis" informs the confused that what the Ummah has really been in submission to for these many centuries is not Allah's will, but a long tradition of tyranny that oppresses in the name of Allah. Avoidance by the Ummah of the kind of struggle that, for centuries, plunged the House of War into a bloody-but-purifying crucible has left the "House of Mankind" contaminated with dross.
And threatens to plunge us all, this time, again into the crucible.
1
There's a problem with dividing the world in that manner. The division implies that fighting must continue until only one "house", the ummah survives. However given Islam's inclination to always place blame on someone else for any problem, however small, that will never happen. Even if they got their wish and everyone were to be a muslim, it will never stop. Someone will have to become the infidel in order for blame to be placed somewhere. So muslim sects (as occurs today)will turn on one another until one, say the Wahabbists are left. Then it starts all over all again once a problem arises. As long as massive changes in the beliefs and practices of Islam won't occur, the world will be stuck with this violence.
Posted by: Graeme at February 04, 2006 12:08 PM (mrMBC)
Good point. It's basically the same with all forms of totalitarianism. Parapharising Paul Berman, from Terror and Liberalism: "While the stated prize is the realization of the "Ur-myth" of a perfected society the "consolation prize" is always murder on a massive scale."
Posted by: Demosophist at February 04, 2006 01:22 PM (i9wGf)
3
Er, "parapharising" is a form of parasailing for upwardly mobile Pharisees. Heh.
Posted by: Demosophist at February 04, 2006 01:34 PM (i9wGf)
While the debate rages, an important point has been overlooked: despite the Islamic prohibition against depicting Mohammed under any circumstances, hundreds of paintings, drawings and other images of Mohammed have been created over the centuries, with nary a word of complaint from the Muslim world. The recent cartoons in Jyllands-Posten are nothing new; it's just that no other images of Mohammed have ever been so widely publicized.
Note the images purchased off the street in Iran.
In 1999.
Man, wait 'til the Islamofascists see this. It'll be boycott city, baby!
2
Whaaaaaaaaat? Hypocrisy in the Islamic world? I sir, am shocked.
Posted by: Graeme at January 31, 2006 05:37 AM (6EzAY)
3
I have to say it is impressive how the 'slamotards have managed to internalize and institutionalize hypocrisy to the point that it's actually a cornerstone of their religious doctrine. They've taken "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" to a whole new level.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 31, 2006 09:51 AM (0yYS2)
(Jerusalem) In the aftermath of the Gulf War, Israel embarked on a project to develop a first-line missile defense system. The result is the Arrow 2.
