September 25, 2006
Clinton Spins
I had better things to do over the weekend that listen to Bill Clinton try to defend his record of inaction against al Qaeda, but Patterico took the time to show that once again, Bill Clinton is much more interested in imparting spin to defend his miserable record than accept fault for his failures in defending America from Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network of terrorists.
Chris Wallace asked Bill Clinton a very simple, straightforward question of why he didn't do more to get bin Laden, and in response, Clinton accused Wallace of a "conservative hit job." Mr. Clinton, asking you why you didn't do more is a legitimate question when thousands of people were injured and hundreds killed on attacks against U.S. targets in 1998 and 2000 while you were President. You admitted you failed, Mr. Clinton. You should have stopped there.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:10 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
September 23, 2006
Reuters CEO: All Our Fakes Are Belong to You
He admits to to photo fakery being widespread and almost impossible to detect at this time, which I think is a gutsy thing to do. Allah has the video over at Hot Air.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:25 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Osama Bin Dyin'? (Part XXIVIII)
We've got another rumor that Osama bin Laden may have died. Ace makes a more compelling case that I've heard in a while, but until I see a rotting head on a pike, or at least the results of a DNA test, I won't be fully convinced.
The AP story, again not confirmed, is here.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:12 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
September 22, 2006
Defending Your Life
I've been reading some of the commentary leveled against the deal reached between the Congress and the White House to continue to use coercive interrogation techniques to extract information from certain high-value terrorists we have captured.
I left a version of the following as a comment (not yet posted) at the ABC News Blog The Blotter in response to criticism of the program there, and I think it sums things up nicely: ...the simple fact of the matter, as Brian Ross has stated in other forums, is that the six techniques advocated for by the CIA do work very effectively. Ross has stated that 14 terrorists have been interrogated using these methods, and all 14 have given up useful intelligence that has saved American lives as a result. None of these terrorists have been permanently injured using these techniques. Not one. The White House and Congress have merely asked that these effective techniques be continued, to save the lives of our friends and neighbors. Most Americans have a Jacksonian view of dealing with our nation's enemies. We will afford every right and privilege afforded by the laws of war to an honorable enemy soldier captured on the field of battle. If you fight America honorably, we will treat your honorably, even though you are our enemy. At the same time, if our enemy dismisses the agreed upon common decencies and rights, there are no legal moral or ethical reasons that we should treat them with kidd gloves at the expense of our own lives. If our enemies are dishonorable, attacking innocent men, woman, and children instead of legitimate targets, then our gloves will come of as well, and we have the right to engage you in total war with all the methods at our disposal to defeat you. And yet, the United States has conducted an exceedingly restrained and honorable war against terrorists and the nations that support terrorism. Even though we have the unquestioned capability, we have not launched the large-scale carpet bombing campaigns against cities and civilian populations that we did in the Second World War. We use precision-guided weaponry whenever possible, with protection of even enemy-sympathetic citizenry always at the forefront of our mission planning. Our honored military veterans are fully aware of the great pains we take to minimize civilian casualties, even though the pains we take to ensure the safety of innocents often puts our soldiers lives at risk in exchange. We have without a doubt, and without contradiction, the most lethal and compassionate military force that this planet has ever seen. But even though we are compassionate, we recognize that to survive as this great and compassionate nation, we cannot be weak and cowardly, as many would clearly like us to be. The techniques we use are unpleasant and coercive, but they are not torture, and it is both dishonest and disheartening to see our own media attempting to blur the line in such a way to make all such life-saving intelligence gathering techniques a crime. By their own repeated, long-standing and well-documented series of abuses of basic human rights and dignities, the terrorists we have captured have forfeited any right for human treatment, and yet we consistently treat them better than we do domestic criminals in our prisons and jails. We are clearly on moral ground here, no matter how willing many people in our own nation are willing to give that ground away.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:27 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
German Woman Saves U. S. Navy SEAL
The power of social networking, as practiced by the blogosphere.
Simply awesome.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:30 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Israel: News Agencies May Be Enabling Terrorism
Remember the Reuters news vehicle that was fired upon, but not directly hit by an Israeli helicopter gunship while acting suspiciously near Israeli positions in Gaza?
In more direct terms, Israel is saying that the Reuters news vehicle was not being operated by newsmen, but terrorists using the vehicle as a sort of "Trojan horse." The press office is directly stating that those injured were not newsmen, but likely terrorists. As one of the injured non-journalists was a Iranian, we have to ask if this could be considered as an act of war by Iran against Israel. My gut says "yes." Mein darm also says Israel won't take direct action against Iran. What hangs in the air as an interesting possibility is the very much implied threat that Israel might very well yank licenses for armored vehicles from news services for violation of the terms of their licenses. Allowing the vehicles to be used for terrorist transportation and attacks would obviously constitute a serious breach of contract. We've long suspected that international news agencies have been sympathetic to the cause of terrorism. The Israeli Government Press Office is now stating publicly that they believe it as well. Update: photos added. Thanks to reader "yet to use" for the tip.
Armored vehicles that were given to foreign news agencies operating in the country with the authorization of the State of Israel, may be used by hostile groups to carry out terror attacks against Israel, Director of the Government Press Office Danny Seaman warned in a letter addressed to Shin Bet Head Yuval Diskin. On August 27 an Israel Defense Forces helicopter hit an armored vehicle that belonged to the Reuters news agency in Gaza. According to
Seaman, the incident illustrated the failures in overseeing the use of armored vehicles granted to the foreign media agencies with the permission of the State.
The vehicle's presence in Gaza in itself constituted a violation of its license terms, and moreover, the jeep was carrying only Palestinians – one with links to Hamas who was not a Reuters employee.
Licenses for armored vehicles are granted by the State to foreign news agencies in Israel for the purpose of carrying out journalistic missions in the West Bank and Gaza. The State has even agreed to extend the permits for more than the one year stipulated by the law, on the condition that the license holder is a foreign national and that he alone will drive the car.
"To the best of our knowledge, all of the vehicles' owners have been violating the conditions for a long time now, despite our requests. This is not the first time we are warning that these vehicles will be used by hostile agents to carry out a terror attack against Israel. The recent incident in Gaza only illustrates the danger," Seaman wrote the Shin Bet chief.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
September 21, 2006
LL Cool A
Liberals Love Cool Ahmadinejad:
I left the following response in his comments:
I keep talking about this with people in real life, but it deserves a blog mention as well -- Mahmoun Ahmadinejad has a pretty sweet hipster style. It all starts with a beard not unlike the one I and many of my twentysomething male friends sport. But it goes deeper. The man went without a tie to address the UN General Assembly. And I was in a bar where the TV was showing his interview with Anderson Cooper (it's DC, these things happen) and while there was no sound, he certainly looked witty and charming. There was also this clip of him walking down some hallway shooting the shit with Kofi Annan. It's like diplomacy! Bush should try it. One gets the sense that he's getting his stody red tie-wearing ass kicked this session by sundry third world goons and it's really not a proud moment for the United States
We want to stop him from commiting genocide. They look to him for fashion tips. Security moms, please take note.
Matt, There are plenty of fools shuffling down the streets of New York with scruffy beard thinking they know the will of God, it's just that most of them are either homeless or tenured, and none are worth the fawning adoration you bestow on a man that denies the holocaust while advocating its return.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:37 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Iranian President Caught in a Lie
This is what he says:
This is what they do:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted Thursday that Tehran's nuclear program is peaceful and said he is "at a loss" about what more he can do to provide guarantees. "The bottom line is we do not need a bomb," he said at a news conference on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly. "The time for nuclear bombs has ended," he added.
MIRVs--multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles--were developed in the 1960s with one goal in mind, the delivery of multiple nuclear warheads from an intercontinental ballistic missile. Only recently has the United States become the first nation to consider converting MIRVs into non-nuclear weapons systems. The Fajr-3 mentioned in the article above is designed and tested with a MIRV that carries three warheads. Israel can be effectively "wiped off the map" as Ahmadinejad has promised, with just two nuclear warheads. Iran says it does not want nuclear weapons, yet it develops and tests nuclear-capable missile systems while continuing to try to hide its nuclear program. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the apocalyptic, holocaust-denying "pocket Hitler" of Tehran, has been caught lying again.
Iran successfully test-fired a missile that can avoid radar and hit several targets simultaneously using multiple warheads, the military said Friday. The Fajr-3, which means "Victory" in Farsi, can reach Israel and US bases in the Middle East, state Iranian media indicated - causing alarm in the United States and Israel. The announcement also is likely to stoke regional tensions and feed suspicion about Tehran's military intentions and nuclear ambitions.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:27 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Why the Delay?
I can't understand why Israel has delayed its withdrawal in the wake of a 34-day war instigated by Hezbollah.
After all, UNIFL (the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) did promise they would keep the peace by acting as a buffer between Hezbollah and Israel, and they are certainly doing a spectacular job thus far. Here are French tanks under UNIFL in peacekeeping duties. That parking lot is certainly well-defended. No Hezbollah activity there.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:39 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Lying About Body Armor
We saw the availability of modern body for our troops raised several times by both parties as an issue in the 2004 elections, and Factcheck.org shows that the half-truths and lies are being raised once more, particularly by a 501(c) PAC called VoteVets.org, that claims to represent military veterans. These veterans should know about the body armor they are issued, and therefore is almost certainly lying on purpose, not from a position of ignorance. Interestingly and perhaps tellingly, the candidates supported by VoteVets.org seem to take stands on issues that would identify them as Democrats, and the one stated Republican candidate is the only one with an active web site to which the VoteVets have not activated the link. Make of that what you will.
Factcheck.org provides the content of the ad in sidebar:The problem is that Granato is categorically lying. The vest in question is not left over from the Vietnam War, but was of the PASGAT type issued from the 1980s until the Army began phasing in in the next-generation Interceptor body armor—the first wide-spread issue of military body armor designed to stop bullets, not just shrapnel—in 1999. I advise you to read the entire Factcheck.org article to educate yourself on the body armor issue in general, and the very dishonest ad being promoted by Votevets.org in specific. This new group should be closely watched. I'd like to point out that blogs on both ends of the political spectrum are pointing out the lies being spread by VoteVets.org. TPMMuckraker played the issue honestly, even though voteVets seems to be functioning as a Democratic front group. On the other hand, some folks will never let a little thing like facts get in their way.
VoteVets Ad: "Armor" Granato: AK-47, the rifle of choice for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is a vest left over from the Vietnam War. It's the protection we were given when we deployed to Iraq. (Granato shoots AK-47 at vest) Granato: This is modern body armor, made for today's weapons. (Granato shoots AK-47 at vest) Granato: The difference is life or death. (Mannequins underneath show that modern vest stops bullets but Vietnam-era vest does not.) Granato: Senator George Allen voted against giving our troops this. Now it's time for us to vote against him. On Screen: Source: Vote #116, 108th Congress, 1st Session. Announcer: Vote Vets is responsible for the content of this advertisement.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:41 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
The Devil's Recipe
The suspect in a horrific murder in Colorado—where a woman was tied by her neck to a tow-rope and dragged along an interstate highway and surface streets for over a mile to her death—has been arrested. Jose Luis Rubi-Nava is being held without bail yesterday on first-degree murder charges. He is thought to be an illegal immigrant from Mexico.
This, of course, is far from the first death committed in the United States by an illegal alien and it assuredly will not be the last. One can also make the argument that this same crime could have just as easily occurred on the other side of the Rio Grande, and they would be correct. But this murder happened here, in our country, and a plausible argument can be made that it may never have occurred if Rubi-Nava had not found it so easy, like millions of others, to spill northward across our largely undefended borders. President Bush has not aggressively defended our borders, something that we expect from a President in a time of peace, much less the current climate of war. This as-yet-unknown woman can credit the White House with allowing her murderer into this country. Sadly, Jose Rubi-Nava is far from being the only unstable "dangerous material" the current administration has let across our border. I wonder how many more Americans will have to die from solitary acts, gang crimes or dirty bombs before President Bush realizes than an open border policy such as the one he practices is a devil's recipe inviting murder.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:27 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Hussein Staged Photos with Posed Bodies?
Dan Riehl makes the stunning accusation that Associate Press photographer Bilal Hussein, a liberal and MSM cause de jour over the last week, staged photos of posed bodies with Iraqi children on January 25, 2005 in Ramadi, Iraq.
Dan is correct in charging that a body has been clearly moved in the photo about 3-4 feet, and in fact dragged over the top of another body between the first and third photos on his site. I, however, have some problems with the photos used as examples. (WARNING: graphic photos follow)Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:57 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
ABC News: Torture Works
Apparently, even harsh critics in the CIA say it is an extremely effective (a perfect 14 for 14) and accurate intelligence gathering technique that has proven effective and saved American lives without a single terrorist suffering permament damage.
It's time we get this out the hands out of unsanitary back-alley torturers. Torture. Let's keep it safe and legal. Update: Olbermann. Proved a fool again.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
September 20, 2006
Amazon's Tool Time
I was looking through Amazon.com last night and ran across of interesting tools they've developed to help sell merchandise through associated web sites and blogs that seem interesting.
One is the concept of a easily configurable, associate-built e-store that Amazon, being Amazon, had to call an aStore. I put together a quick but functioning aStore; test it out, and let me know what you think about the functionality. As a techie with web usability experience, I find this stuff interesting. The other concoction is a new "smart" ad-serving software program called Omakase, which is Japanese for "leave it up to us." I'm not about to start dumping ads in my content, but thought it might be interesting to see what kind of ads that Omakase might dig up for Confederate Yankee.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:31 PM | Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Voting To Kill
In this mail today was a copy of Jim Geraghty's Voting To Kill: How 9/11 Launched the Era of Republican Leadership. Pressed for time, I slipped it into a cargo pocket of my shorts and took my daughter to her beginning tap/ballet class.
After Little One disappeared behind the door of the dance studio, I schlepped back to the waiting area and began to read, interrupted here and there by toddlers toddling and cross-chatter--all moms; the other solo dad bolted within minutes to return when the lesson was over, and not a second before--and the oddest thing occurred. Geraghty's assumptions were put to the test directly before my eyes. The first chapter of the book is called "Post-9/11 America" and it deals, as you might guess, with the emotional impact of 9/11 as it reverberates even today. Among the people discussed were "security moms," suburban mothers who had voted Democratic in 1992 and 1996 and 2000, who radically had their worldviews resculpted as they watched five hundred Americans vaporized on live television. Leading up to the 2004 elections, Democrats seemed to discount the security moms, and they lost. They still discount the security moms, and act as if they never existed. They do exist. I heard them tonight. Yesterday morning, an equipment malfunction shutdown nearby Shearon Harris nuclear power plant, and the plant remained offline under the non-emergency shutdown today. As little girls scuffed tap shoes on hardwood floors in the next room and I buried my nose in Chapter One, these moms were discussing more than just the shutdown. They talked about the shutdown, what they would do in the event of a leak, what they thought might happen if terrorists attack, and what they thought the likelihood of a successful attack was (not good, according to the moms). They discussed other possible area targets as well before the line of conversation ran dry and they switched over to another topic... the up-coming year-round schools, l think. But my point is that while I was reading about the security moms in Voting To Kill that many Democrats seem to think have gone the way of the dinosaurs, there they were--crikey!--all around me, still very much aware and alert and as conversant on matters of nuclear planet security as they are school fundraisers. Security moms are alive and well and now an integral part of the big Who We Are. Democrats will ignore them again in '06, and find new and exciting excuses for why they continue to lose. Class was over for the night. I learned something. It's also apparent in the first chapter of Voting To Kill, that Democrats obviously haven't.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:00 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
FEAR: Why The Press Won't Tell You What Ahmadinejad Said
A striking bit of journalistic malpractice seems to have affected the mainstream media web sites this morning, as news site after news site failed to provide their readers with the transcript of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speech last night to the United Nations.
As of noon at ABC News, it is as if Ahmadinejad never spoke, as their was no reference to his address in front of the United Nations on their Web site's front page, and is notably absent from the headlines of their political section as well. I had to search Google News to find this report on their site, which did not link to the transcript, nor provide Ahmadinejad's closing remarks. Likewise, Ahmadinejad's speech was not easily found on the CBS News site, and when an article was found buried below the fold of their International news section, their story, as well, did not provide a transcript nor a summation of his closing remarks. The New York Times had Bush's transcript from hours before, but couldn't be troubled to run that of the Iranian President. CNN did likewise. The Boston Globe, Fox News, MSNBC, and most other news organizations also failed to either discuss the apocalyptic overtones of the Iranian President's remarks, or provide a transcript from easily available wire reports. To their credit, the Washington Post at least provided the transcript far down on their World News page, though they provided precious little commentary otherwise. What is the reason the world media was apparently so eager to bury the content what was a highly anticipated speech by Iran's flamboyant President? It was likely his dark conclusion:This same Iranian President spoke in front of the United Nations previously on September 17, 2005, a fact also missing from many news accounts of the last week. Those that did mention Ahmadinejad's September speech uniformly left off the fact that Ahmadinejad claimed that his September speech in Front of the same United Nations chamber was touched by the Divine:
Whether we like it or not, justice, peace and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world, with the will of the almighty God. It is imperative and also desirable that we, too, contribute to the promotion of justice and virtue. The almighty and merciful God, who is the creator of the universe, is also its lord and ruler. Justice is his command. He commands his creatures to support one another in good, virtue, and piety, and not in decadence and corruption. He commands his creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and virtue, and not to sin and transgression. All divine prophets, from the prophet Adam, peace be upon him, to the prophet Moses, to the prophet Jesus Christ, to the prophet Mohammad, have all called humanity to monotheism, justice, brotherhood, love and compassion. Is it not possible to build a better world based on monotheism, justice, love and respect for the rights of human beings and thereby transform animosities into friendship? I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people, with love for all humanity, and, above all, longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet. Oh, almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirst for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and makers among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.
During this same speech, Ahmadinejad called for the near-term reappearance of the 12th Imam, who he feels will redeem the world through an apocalypse he feels his sect has the right and responsibility to create. As I noted in August, the mullahcracy that runs Iran belongs to the apocalyptic Hojjatieh sect, a branch of Shia Islam so radical it was banned in 1983 by Ayatollah Khomeini. Their views are, to put it mildly, are startling:
Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad says that when he delivered his speech at the UN General Assembly in September, he felt there was a light around him and that the attention of the world leaders in the audience was unblinkingly focused upon him. The claim has caused a stir in Iran, as a transcript and video recording of Ahmadinejad's comments have been published on an Iranian website, baztab.com. There are also reports that a CD showing Ahmadinejad making the comments also has been widely distributed in Iran. Is the Iranian president claiming to be divinely inspired? Prague, 29 November 2005 (RFE/RL) -- According the report by baztab.com, President Ahmadinejad made the comments in a meeting with one of Iran's leading clerics, Ayatollah Javadi Amoli. Ahmadinejad said that someone present at the UN told him that a light surrounded him while he was delivering his speech to the General Assembly. The Iranian president added that he also sensed it. "He said when you began with the words 'in the name of God,' I saw that you became surrounded by a light until the end [of the speech]," Ahmadinejad appears to say in the video. "I felt it myself, too. I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there, and for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink." Ahmadinejad adds that he is not exaggerating. "I am not exaggerating when I say they did not blink; it's not an exaggeration, because I was looking," he says. "They were astonished as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic."
Ahmadinejad's speech last night echoed his beliefs last night. When he stated, "Whether we like it or not, justice, peace and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world," sooner is now and later is a point that eerily seems to coincide with when many intelligence experts feel Iran may have the capability to build a functional nuclear weapon, and bring about the man-made Armageddon that the Hojjatieh sect feels is their obligation to Allah. This leads us back full-circle to ask once more why major U.S. and world media outlets have largely refused to issue transcripts of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech last night to the United Nations, and why they chose to embargo his dramatic closing provided above. I submit that if the media covered Ahmadinejad's full remarks including the religious references that they clearly and cleverly omitted, then they would have to confront the scope of the clear and present danger that the Iranian regime presents to the rest of the world. Admitting this danger goes against the carefully crafted narrative that they have led themselves to believe, a narrative that they have passed along to their readers and viewers that the United States and Israel are the root causes of problems in the Middle East. To admit the dangers of the intertwining of Iranian nuclear weapons development with a radical and apocalyptic eschatology is to admit that President George W. Bush is correct in his determination to prevent Iran from developing the ability to effect a religious nuclear war. It is to admit that there are far greater dangers to our freedoms than terrorist surveillance programs and chilled members of al Qaeda. To admit that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad means precisely what he says, and has said time and again, is to admit to larger dangers that neither the press nor the Democratic party they overwhelming support can admit. To admit to the truth—to show what Iran and its leader represent as a threat to the world—is to shatter a carefully crafted illusion they have formulated that most of the problems of the world originate at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. When faced with revealing a truth that would create cognitive dissonance, the media has made the subconscious decision to simply excise, and then ignore, the facts that undercut their "larger truth." They'd rather risk lives than admit the possibility that President Bush's concerns about a nuclear-armed Iran are precisely on target. They aren't scared about the possibility of millions of people dying. That are far more fearful that the President is right, and that the world they've created for themselves is all too wrong.
...rooted in the Shiite ideology of martyrdom and violence, the Hojjatieh sect adds messianic and apocalyptic elements to an already volatile theology. They believe that chaos and bloodshed must precede the return of the 12th Imam, called the Mahdi. But unlike the biblical apocalypse, where the return of Jesus is preceded by waves of divinely decreed natural disasters, the summoning of the Mahdi through chaos and violence is wholly in the realm of human action. The Hojjatieh faith puts inordinate stress on the human ability to direct divinely appointed events. By creating the apocalyptic chaos, the Hojjatiehs believe it is entirely in the power of believers to affect the Mahdi's reappearance, the institution of Islamic government worldwide, and the destruction of all competing faiths.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:59 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Hiding Behind Children
Whether inspired by Hamas and Hezbollah or Sunni and Shiite terror leaders in Iraq, it's hard to see attempts such as these to use children as bait or targets with anything other than abject contempt:
The U.S. military is of course ignoring the attacks thus far. Armored combat vehicles are not threatened by rocks, but it is probably only a matter of time until the same militiamen stoop to an even lower level. As U.S. forces refuse to be baited by children armed with rocks, it is probably only a matter of time before they arm one of these children with a grenade, knowing that a 6 or 7 year old will not be able to throw the one-pound weapons far enough to keep from killing or wounding themselves. The deaths of these children--caused directly by al-Sadr's militiamen--will be blamed upon coalition forces in a "Pallywood" production in an attempt to further inflame tensions in an area where al-Sadr's "Mahdi Army" of rag-tag militiamen and death squads are coming under increasing pressure from U.S. and Iraqi Army forces. There are two ways of resolve this style of cowardly attack before deaths result from the militia's use of children, one military, and one social. Militarily, U.S. and Iraqi forces--especially Iraqi Army forces--must step up the tempo of operations inside the Sadr City slums of Baghdad, arresting and if necessary killing Muqtada al-Sadr and other leaders of the Madhi Army. At the same time, Iraqi police and military units need to go on a public relations offensive in Sadr City, informing mothers and fathers of how al-Sadr's militiamen are using their children as bait. It is quite possible that some parents support the cowardly acts of the al Sadr militiamen, but I suspect many will respond with anger towards the militia and their children's too willing participation as did the one mother mentioned in the article:
Shiite militias are encouraging children — some as young as 6 or 7 — to hurl stones and gasoline bombs at U.S. convoys, hoping to lure American troops into ambushes or provoke them into shooting back, U.S. soldiers say. Gangs of up to 100 children assemble in Sadr City, stronghold of radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia, and in nearby neighborhoods, U.S. officers said in interviews this week. American soldiers have seen young men, their faces covered by bandanas, talking with the children before the rock-throwing attacks begin — and sometimes handing out slingshots so the volleys will be more accurate, the troops said. "It's like a militia operation. They'll mass rocks on the last or second-to-last vehicle" in a U.S. patrol, said Capt. Chris L'Heureux, 30, of Woonsocket, R.I. "There's no doubt in my mind that they're utilizing these kids in a deliberate, thought-out way."
A smart P.R. campaign waged by Shiite soldiers in the Iraqi Army can turn the militia's cowardice and scheming against them, driving a wedge between al Sadr and the people he would use to consolidate his own power. One can only hope that the Iraqi Army is smart enough to realize that this potential for tragedy can be turned into an opportunity to strengthen ties between the Iraqi Army and those they would protect.
After several rocks were thrown at passing U.S. vehicles in Shaab, soldiers followed one child home. When soldiers told his mother what had happened, she slapped her son across the face in front of them.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:17 AM | Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Catalytic Conversion
Last week, Pope Benedict XVI spoke at his former university, and during the course of his talk he made reference to an obscure conversation between a Byzantine Christian Emperor and a man described as "an educated Persian."
The emperor in question, Manuel II Paleologos, noted:In the week since Pope Benedict made reference to Manuel II's comment, Muslims have rioted, burned at least seven churches, murdered a nun, and one Muslim leader has even called for the Pope himself to be executed for insulting Islam. Muslim extremists have committed acts of senseless violence in trying to argue that they are a "religion of peace," and seem quite oblivious to the fact that their behavior only reinforces observations made centuries before. The Pope has issued non-apology apologies thus far, diplomatically stating to Muslims and other critics essentially that, "I'm sorry you aren't smart enough to understand what I meant." The Pope spoke on the subject again today:
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
As others have noted, I doubt very seriously that the Pope chose to use this rather obscure text accidentally, or without understanding on some level that it might sow the seeds of discord in a world Muslim community, that frankly, seems to need very little instigation to become outraged. Other Catholic luminaries, including the current Archbishop of Sydney and the former Archbishop of Canterbury have supported the thrust of the Pope's comments. I'm now starting to wonder if this is part of a designed attempt to lead Islam—particularly the often silent voices that claim to be the "moderate Muslim" supermajority—to look within itself and confront the extremists and fundamentalist sects within it. It seems quite possible that the Pope is very sincere in his respect for Islam as a fellow Abrahamic faith. His choice of words last week may have been chosen as a catalyst, and his stated desire for "promoting together social justice, moral values, peace and freedom for all men," is precisely the goal of the Church. It would be very encouraging if moderate Muslims seize upon this opportunity to look inward, become introspective, and determine that the terror of al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other terror groups are not compatible with a "religion of peace." The Pope seems to have created a situation where moderate Muslims can take back their faith from the warlords who have twisted the word of God to meet their own very human desires for empire. Domineering political forces within Islam are forcing the religion towards a tipping point where the faith will either have to fully embrace a violent Jihad against the rest of the world, or fight an internal Jihad to bring back peace to the religion of peace. It seems odd and at the same time encouraging that a Catholic Pope seems to be offering moderate Muslims a chance to affect their own Reformation. I hope they are wise enough to capitalize on that possibility. The alternative—the increasing isolation, radicalization and militarization of Islam—promises a dire future for the world at large and Islam in particular if the current trend is not reversed.
Pope Benedict XVI has said he has "deep respect" for Islam and hopes that his recent remarks that sparked anger from Muslims lead to dialogue among religions. The pope on Wednesday acknowledged his remarks were open to misinterpretation, but insisted he had not intended to endorse a negative view of Islam. "I hope that in several occasions during the visit ... my deep respect for great religions, in particular for Muslims -- who worship the one God and with whom we are engaged in defending and promoting together social justice, moral values, peace and freedom for all men -- has emerged clearly," Benedict said during his weekly audience at the Vatican. "I trust that after the initial reaction, my words at the university of Regensburg can constitute an impulse and encouragement toward positive, even self-critical dialogue both among religions and between modern reason and Christian faith," the pope told thousands of faithful in St. Peter's Square. Security in the square had been stepped up.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:58 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Former Archbishop: Pope Was Right
So much for collapsing in fear (h/t: PJM):
Lord Carey, seem to know the Islamic faith and culture quite well.
THE former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey of Clifton has issued his own challenge to "violent" Islam in a lecture in which he defends the Pope's "extraordinarily effective and lucid" speech. Lord Carey said that Muslims must address "with great urgency" their religion's association with violence. He made it clear that he believed the "clash of civilisations" endangering the world was not between Islamist extremists and the West, but with Islam as a whole. "We are living in dangerous and potentially cataclysmic times," he said. "There will be no significant material and economic progress [in Muslim communities] until the Muslim mind is allowed to challenge the status quo of Muslim conventions and even their most cherished shibboleths."
As they say, read the whole thing.
Lord Carey, who as Archbishop of Canterbury became a pioneer in Christian-Muslim dialogue, himself quoted a contemporary political scientist, Samuel Huntington, who has said the world is witnessing a "clash of civilisations". Arguing that Huntington's thesis has some "validity", Lord Carey quoted him as saying: "Islam's borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:54 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
September 19, 2006
Wipe the Spittle From Your Face, Frances
In an editorial in today's Washington Post, Eugene Robinson has a charateristic hissyfit in the typical liberal style, i.e., long on hysteria, accusation and emotional appeal, and woefully lacking in intelligence, coherence, or logic.
He shrieks:Mr Robinson begins with quite the stemwinder, but like many liberal arguments, it is based upon hysteria and half-truths, not fact. What the President asked for is a legal clarification of Article Three of the Geneva Convention, which states:
I wish I could turn to cheerier matters, but I just can't get past this torture issue -- the fact that George W. Bush, the president of the United States of America, persists in demanding that Congress give him the right to torture anyone he considers a "high-value" terrorist suspect. The president of the United States. Interrogation by torture. This just can't be happening.
Much of Article Three is readily defined, but certain parts of Article Three are legally murky, with no clear legal definition of what constitutes "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment" nor of what constitutes "cruel treatment and torture." President Bush as asked Congress to pass a federal law legally defining the requirements of the United States as they relate to the Geneva Convention, a goal deemed "helpful" by the Judge Advocate Generals of the U.S. Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy in a signed letter to Sen. John Warner And Rep. Duncan Hunter six days ago. Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army, Judge Advocate General, when questioned about the subject by Sen. Diane Feinstein, stated of Article Three's prohibition on "Outrages upon personal dignity," stated:
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
- Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
- Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
- Taking of hostages;
- Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
- The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
- The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention. The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
For Robinson and other dishonest ideologues, providing a legal operating framework for our military and intelligence communities to operate under—instead of the legally dubious gray area that has existed since 1929—would strip away the ability of critics to shrilly proclaim "torture" whenever the notion suits them. Clearly defining what kind of interrogation procedures are legal, and deciding what behaviors are clearly illegal, will protect our men in women in uniform. Robinson's main complaint seems to be that legal definitions will strip him of his assumed right to excessive hyperbole. He drones on:
"In its current formulation, it's entirely too vague, and it puts - as you mentioned before - our service members at risk, our own service members at risk."
Mincing words have never been a problem for Robinson, and his proclivity for shredded logic and reason are second to none. Robinson seems infuriated that the military and intelligence services of the United States will not provide him with a detailed list of interrogation techniques for him to quickly spill into ink, thus rendering the methods less effective. What evils he suspects from a military he clearly detests he cannot say, and it angers him, as does the a list of uncomfortable and annoying but hardly horrific inducements that he calls torture, but many of us experienced to some degree in college, often of our own free will. Sleep deprivation is a fact of life during final exams. You can't turn on a college or professional football game without an obligatory crowd shot of nimrods in the stands, shirtless, in freezing weather for three hours at a clip. Bombardments of ear-splitting noise describe every dance club or rock concert to which I've ever gone. People willingly pay good money to have variations of these same experiences. To equate these discomforting but minor annoyances to anything resembling legitimate "torture" is the lie, a lie that Mr. Robinson is spreading with very little thought or reason. Blathering forward, and making progressively less sense, Robinson continues:
It's past time to stop mincing words. The Decider, or maybe we should now call him the Inquisitor, sticks to anodyne euphemisms. He speaks of "alternative" questioning techniques, and his umbrella term for the whole shop of horrors is "the program." Of course, he won't fully detail the methods that were used in the secret CIA prisons -- and who knows where else? -- but various sources have said they have included not just the infamous "waterboarding," which the administration apparently will reluctantly forswear, but also sleep deprivation, exposure to cold, bombardment with ear-splitting noise and other assaults that cause not just mental duress but physical agony. That is torture, and to call it anything else is a lie.
I never thought I'd have remind an African-American of this fact, but Mr. Robinson, you are "free at last" because of those very kinds of debates. Civilized nations do debate slavery and genocide, and past sessions of Congress have had to argue against both in this nation. Creating federal laws--defining the legal and the illegal--are the very essence and purpose of the House and Senate. It is a shame that Mr. Robinson can't seem to grasp that this debate over creating standards to comply with Article Three is a bit of legislation that Congress should have debated and passed 77 years ago. Robinson's editorial goes on, but to continue to fisk such poor thinking is pointless. His logic is—after all—tortured.
It is not possible for our elected representatives to hold any sort of honorable "debate" over torture. Bush says he is waging a "struggle for civilization," but civilized nations do not debate slavery or genocide, and they don't debate torture, either. This spectacle insults and dishonors every American.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:11 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.4367 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.4255 seconds, 104 records returned.
Page size 109 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.