September 19, 2006

Runaways

I'm with Bryan all the way on this.

Many countries have been state sponsors of terrorism, but France has just become the first state sponsor of hostages.

Enjoy the Brie, boys.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:29 PM | Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Islamist Who Called For Pope's Execution Was a Drunken Heretic

Gee, what didn't he do?

This week he stood outside Westminster Cathedral in central London to call for the execution of the Pope as punishment for 'insulting Islam'. He fulminated against Pope Benedict XVl, adding: "Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment."

It's a long way from his days as a medical student at Southampton University, where, friends say, he drank, indulged in casual sex, smoked cannabis and even took LSD. He called himself 'Andy' and was famed for his ability to drink a pint of cider in a few seconds.

One former acquaintance said: "At parties, like the rest of us, he was rarely without a joint. The morning after one party, I can remember him getting all the roaches (butts) from the spliffs we had smoked the night before out of the ashtrays, cutting them up and making a new one out of the leftovers.

"He would say he was a Muslim and was proud of his Pakistani heritage, but he did-n't seem to attend any of the mosques in Southampton, and I only knew of him having white girlfriends. He certainly shared a bed with them."

On one occasion, 'Andy' and a friend took LSD together. The friend said: "We took far too much and were hallucinating for 20 hours."

Stoner. Drunk. Acidhead. Islamist.

It appears Mr. Choudary is addicted to all sorts of self-destructive behavior.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:34 AM | Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Gulag University

The U.K. Guardian has obtained a list of seven interrogation techniques that the CIA would like to use to interrogate al Qaeda terror suspects.

They are:

• induced hypothermia
• forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods
• sleep deprivation
• a technique called "the attention grab" where a suspect's shirt is forcefully seized
• the "attention slap" or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage
• the "belly slap"
• sound and light manipulation

Color me unimpressed. Throw in copious amounts of alcohol and some co-eds, and this sounds more like my college years than torture.

Inducted hypothermia
Hundreds of thousands of people expose themselves to this voluntarily every Saturday for three to five hours at a time, once tailgating is included. It's called going to a college football game.

Torture.

Forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods
In college, this period is called "registration."

Torture.

sleep deprivation
This is called "final exams," where sleepless nights are commonplace and stress levels stay very high for days at a time.

Torture.

a technique called "the attention grab" where a suspect's shirt is forcefully seized

We called this "going to bars." Sometimes the grabbing was wanted (where we called this horrific act "flirting"), was innocuous (grabbing a friend by the shirt to drag them to the next bar), or was not wanted (grabbing someone to eject them from a bar). I've done all three as a student and short-term bar manager, and at least at my college, you saw a lot of all three on Halloween, where the holiday was one of the biggest celebrations of the year.

Torture.

the "attention slap" or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage

We have another term for this: male bonding.

It was observed pretty consistently throughout college, and it is also called "horsing around." Fraternities--groups people voluntarily joined of their own free will--generally did things that were a lot worse and often lot more disgusting. I'd rather go through a chest slap than get the "wear a raw egg on your head under a hat all day" treatment one fraternity made their pledges go through when I was in school, and the stuff they did in earlier times to pledges would certainly be a war crime in today's climate.

Torture.

the "belly slap"

See above. Not uncommon where testosterone and alcohol intermingle. Annoying? Check. Torture? If so this blogger (certainly an odd duck by any measure) is the Marquis de Sade reincarnated.

sound and light manipulation
Here in the United States, we don't call that torture, we call it "going to bars and concerts." Again, tens of thousands of college students pay good money for this kind of treatment every night of the week.

Torture.

Admittedly, the environment provided by the CIA to carry out interrogations will not be festive and those being interrogated are not there of their own free will, but that hardly constitutes torture. Some normal prison conditions in the United States expose prisoners to far worse treatment, and most of that comes from other inmates. Some prisons such as the Cook County Jail in Dick "Gulag" Durbin's home district are worse than the conditions of Abu Ghraib.

I don't feel outraged if terrorists are slapped around a little bit, or made cold, or tired, or uncomfortable. Run-of-the-mill prisoners in American jails face the same treatment as those terrorists we've captured, and many face far worse.

Many of the techniques described here are no more violent or degrading than what I've seen fraternity pledges exposed to, and to the best of my knowledge, no members of al Qaeda have been forced to serenade a sorority with "You lost that Lovin' Feelin'" wearing nothing but their "tighty whiteys" and a smile on a cold winter morning.

Perhaps when John McCain is done torturing our intelligence gathering capabilities, he can do to the universities what he has already done to campaign finance reform.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:54 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

September 18, 2006

Apparently Debatable Murder

AFP's caption writer seems to take issue with Israel treating captured members of Hezbollah like criminals:

Israeli soldiers arrest two alleged Hezbollah militants outside the southern Lebanese village of Bint Jbeil in August 2006. Three suspected Hezbollah fighters who were captured during the Lebanon war were charged in Israel with "murder" and belonging to a "terrorist organisation".(AFP/File) Email Photo Print Photo

Apparently, AFP does not believe that Hezbollah is a "terrorist organisation," nor does it think that killing eight Israeli soldiers in an assault inside Israel during a time of relative peace before the recent conflict was "murder."

AFP did not say what they would prefer Hezbollah to be called, nor did they say what, if any, offense should be ascribed to the deaths of eight Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah gunfire.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:33 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Noting the Differences

A British Muslim extremist named Anjem Choudary is stating that Pope Benedict XVI should face execution for quoting from a conversation between 14th Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel II Paleologos and an educated Persian.

The Pope's speech—a lecture on faith and reason—was a call for a reasoned synergy between faith and science to complete the human soul, and a reasoned dialogue between faiths. Islam has responded with riots around the world, the burning of no less than seven churches thus far, and the murder of a Catholic nun. A reasoned call for a lifestyle balancing secular science and theology has been responded to with unreasoning hatred, including calls for Jihad by al Qaeda and "moderate" Muslims alike.

Pope Benedict XVI called for reason and dialogue between faiths, and worldwide, Islam has responded with violence and the threats of violence, a point not lost on the Archbishop of Sydney:

Cardinal George Pell says "the violent reactions in many parts of the Islamic world" to a speech by Pope Benedict justified one of the main fears expressed by the world's Catholic leader.

"They showed the link for many Islamists between religion and violence, their refusal to respond to criticism with rational arguments, but only with demonstrations, threats and actual violence," Cardinal Pell said in a statement yesterday.

Once upon a time, I was under the belief that Islam was a rational faith, and that those that carried out violent attacks in the name of Islam misunderstood their own faith. It was both presumptuous and ignorant for me to make that assumption, as I see it now reflected in response to a call for reason from a man of God.

The violent acts carried out by Islamists—and the near-total silence from what we like to think is a majority of moderate Muslims—has ended the last illusions about Islam for many around the world. Our eyes are opening to see that Muslims seek not dialogue, but domination. Pope Benedict seeks reciprocity and respect between faiths, and Muslims are responding with attempts at intimidation. We see now that these calls for violence are not a minority viewpoint, but a sincere and troubling part of their core beliefs.

Islam means "submission," and one billion people who practice the faith seem intent on making the other five billion people on this plant submit to their views. Their desire for domination of the world by their increasingly irrational faith shows that it is they, not the West, that seeks to engage in a Holy War. They would be wise to reconsider their views.

The original Crusades saw Christian and Muslim armies that were technologically equals. That equality no longer exists today, and the military superiority of the West over the Islamic world is pronounced. To date, Western reason shaped by Judeo-Christian compassion has prevented us from using our military supremacy to forcefully thwart Islamist plans for world domination with our full might, but our decision to hold that power in check is not without limits.

If practitioners of the Muslim faith think that they can exert their will unchecked through the most violent of means without facing an earthly reckoning beyond their comprehension, they are sadly mistaken. Our rational beliefs have had us regarding Islam as a possible threat to be dealt with surgically, but not one yet worth acting against generally with our full military might.

One act of sufficient scope and horror would change the calculus of the equation. Islamists seem to sincerely believe that nations shaped by Judeo-Christian beliefs are soft, and that we will fall quickly if they act with sufficient aggression and callousness against those they see as infidels.

Islamic leaders should reconsider the ramifications of the widespread Jihad they call for against the West. If they provoke us sufficiently, the same reason that has had us hold ourselves in check to date will dictate that that restraint we have practiced is counterproductive to our continued existence, and Islam will not see another century.

We are not weak, but reasoned, and the Muslims of the world crying for violent Jihad against would be wise to note the difference.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:10 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Man Rams Capitol Security Barricade

Not much detail, but CNN reports that he has been arrested and that no one was hurt.

I wonder... has anyone seen Patrick Kennedy lately?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:51 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

September 15, 2006

Lost In Translation

I know that some fanatics certainly seem to get off on it, but is calling jihad "the hump of Islam" really what they meant to convey?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:21 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Party Clown

Sean Penn fails to dazzle us with his philosophical brilliance, quoting from radical Louisiana populist Huey "Kingfish" Long in a taped Larry King Live interview noted by Brent Baker at Newsbusters.

It's amusing to me that Penn chooses to call several Administration officials "party clowns."

Glass houses, buddy.

Here's Penn wearing fake body armor, or rather, what appears to be an empty (and therefore useless) body armor carrier, in an apparent effort to look "movie tough" in his much documented (he brought along a cameraman and a Rolling Stone reporter) and nearly disastrous rescue attempt after Hurricane Katrina.

If you remember the story, Penn is bailing with that red cup because they almost sank the boat on launch. The near-sinking was captured because Penn had several photographers along with him other than the one on the boat. It's all about the photo op.

When it comes to clowns, Penn clearly knows the role.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:44 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Uncomfortable History

Several days ago, Pope Benedict XVI recounted comments made by 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel II Paleologos.

"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."

Predictably, Muslims around the world are upset by the recollection:

Turkey's top Islamic cleric, Religious Affairs Directorate head Ali Bardakoglu, asked Benedict on Thursday to apologize about the remarks and unleashed a string of accusations against Christianity, raising tensions before the pontiff's planned visit to Turkey in November on what would be his first papal pilgrimage in a Muslim country.

Bardakoglu said he was deeply offended and called the remarks "extraordinarily worrying, saddening and unfortunate."

On Thursday, when the pope returned to Italy, Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said, "It certainly wasn't the intention of the pope to carry out a deep examination of jihad (holy war) and on Muslim thought on it, much less to offend the sensibility of Muslim believers."

Lombardi insisted the pontiff respects Islam. Benedict wants to "cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue toward the other religions and cultures, obviously also toward Islam," Lombardi said.

On Friday, Salih Kapusuz, a deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's party, said Benedict's remarks were either "the result of pitiful ignorance" about Islam and its prophet, or worse, a deliberate distortion of the truths.

"He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world," Kapusuz blurted out in comments made to the state-owned Anatolia news agency. "It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades."

Would Salih Kapusuz really like to look at the history of the spread of Islam before saying the remarks were "the result of pitiful ignorance?"

I strongly suspect not.

Mohammed himself spread the religion he created by the sword from the Battle of Badr onward. The faith was installed throughout the Middle East, Asia, and Europe by the strength of the sword as much as conversion. From Saudi Arabia through the Hindu Kush ( Kush comes from the Arab root "kushar", or slaughter, literally meaning "slaughter of the Hindus") to Andalusia in what is now modern day Spain, violent jihad in the name of Allah has been the constant companion to the spread of Islam. Islamic violence still marks every corner of the world touched by the amusingly titled "Religion of Peace."

Islam remains the only major world religion that has a primary prophet that advocated and practiced violence to spread his faith. Mohammed led campaigns from Badr to Uhud to the Battle of the Trench and beyond, establishing a long tradition of nearly 1,400 years of violent jihad.

Kapusuz can make reference to the Dark Ages if he would like, but Christian Europe slowly emerged from the Dark Ages through the Renaissance and Reformation; five hundred years later, Islam has yet to emerge from barbarity, a fact revealed every day in newspapers in every nation around the world, as they print stories of Muslims killing "infidels" and subjugating their own people to draconian rule in societies that have been in cultural stasis for over a millennia.

Muslims are of course free to follow their own beliefs, but it is quite telling that they are unwilling or unable to come to grips with the reality of their own history.

Muslims can cry "foul" all they want, but the simple truth of the matter is that the observations of Islam from a man who died 581 years ago still ring true.

How have Muslims responded to Pope Benedict's retelling of Emperor Manuel II Paleologos's 14th century observation?

They've responded with demands for an apology, predictable threats of violence, and perhaps the bombing of a church in Gaza.

It remains to see how many people may die as Islam proves how peaceful it is.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:44 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

A Question of Literacy at Think Progress

Poor Faiz.

He seems to have problems with the simplest of concepts:

Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes appeared on Fox this morning to discuss his recent meeting with President Bush in the Oval Office. The key takeaway for Barnes was that "bin Laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism." Barnes said that Bush told him capturing bin Laden is "not a top priority use of American resources." Watch it.

[snip]

Bush's priorities have always been skewed. Just months after declaring he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive," Bush said, "I truly am not that concerned about him." Turning his attention away from bin Laden, Bush trained his focus on Iraq — a country he now admits had "nothing" to do with 9/11.
Capturing bin Laden, as Rep. Nancy Pelosi recently pointed out, will not necessarily make America safer because it would come five years too late. Yet, capturing or killing the man responsible for 9/11 should remain a high priority.

Bush said he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive" less than a week after 9/11, and in March of 2002 said that he was "not that concerned about him" in the following context after the Taliban and al Qaeda has been driven from power in Afghanistan.

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.

Faiz, of course, took a single-line comment out of a much larger comment, completely out of context. Sadly, Faiz shows he just didn't understand what Bush was saying here. If he did, he couldn't logically disagree with the President's point.

How did Bush begin his response, back in 2002? With a concept Faiz and most other Democrats can't apparently grasp four years later:

Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

Let's slow it down and break it into tiny little chunks for our liberal friends to comprehend.

Osama bin Laden, in September 2001, was the undisputed leader of al Qaeda in all capacities. By March 2002 when the President made this comment, we were not sure if Osama was even still alive, or if he had been killed on chaotic Afghan battlefields.

Bush is showing her that he understands terrorist organizations do not have a rigid top-down hierarchy. Taking out Osama, while a great public relations victory for the United States and a temporary psychological blow to his followers, would have very little effect on the overall distributed network of cells. The invasion of Afghanistan drove Osama completely out of tactical and operational control of al Qaeda, and thoroughly isolated him. He is still a nice trophy if we happen to catch him, but as a current planner and plotter of terrorism, he is of very little importance, and our top resources should go towards fighting those that still have an active role.

That is what Bush meant over four years ago when he said that:

…focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Bush was precisely right in March of 2002. Even with four years to think about it, Democrats such as Faiz can't seem to grasp a concept so simple it can be explained in less than 30 seconds.

Perhaps he needs another example, one that is a little simpler. Let's use baseball.

A major league batter facing Nolan Ryan at the top of his game was going against one of the greatest pitchers of all time. A hypothetical major league batter facing Nolan Ryan four years after he retired would be facing much less of a threat.

As a nation fighting a global war against Islamic terrorists and the nation-states that support them, we have a lot of high priorities.

Finding a way to decrease sectarian violence and dismantle the insurgency in Iraq. Defeating the Taliban and finding a way to destroy the opium crop that supports it Afghanistan that financially supports it would be another. Finding a way to stop nuclear weapons development and terrorist support in Iran, a nation led by a sect that believes in their ability to force the return of their savior through a burning of the world is another. Dismantling active terrorist cells and the attacks they are attempting is yet another high priority.

Dedicating a large amount of men and resources to track down and kill a single figurehead that lives in remote isolation and who is not thought to play a direct role in planning or executing attacks for over four years is not a high priority, nor should it be. Osama bin Laden, other than sporadically appearing in cheerleading videos, has been taken out of the picture.

Bush knew that in 2002. Four years later, Think Progress and other liberals have yet to understand that basic concept.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:36 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

September 14, 2006

They Call Themselves Peace Activists

I know very little about the credibility of the writer or the veracity of his claims, but if he is correct, it appears than one liberal "peace movement" organization may be very close to crossing the line into becoming open terrorist sympathizers (h/t Michelle Malkin):

As a front group for Palestinian terrorists, the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) sends young people from all over the world to the training fields of the West Bank and Gaza to learn from terrorists and to aid them logistically. Stop the ISM has now obtained photographs of ISM leaders and organizers holding AK-47 assault rifles. The images show some of the ISM women disguised as Jews living in the West Bank and in the company of an Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade terrorist.

One of our volunteers in the United Kingdom for Stop the ISM managed to infiltrate the ISM late last June in the Holy Land where the ISM operates in direct support of terrorists. Our volunteer (who prefers to remain anonymous to avoid retaliatory attacks) has had prior experience going undercover for the police in the UK. The photos and intelligence he brought back are proving invaluable to intelligence agencies watching the ISM and have been in official hands for over a month prior to this publication.

Unfortunately, neither U.S. Homeland Security nor the Israeli security agencies have to date regarded the ISM as a serious threat. Some of these ISM people in these photos managed to escape; nevertheless, arrests have been made, and more are forthcoming.

If the ISM sounds vaguely familiar, perhaps a picture will help you remember.

That's ISM activist Rachel Corrie burning a hand-drawn American flag in front of Palestinian school children. Corrie was a far left activist that joined the ISM her senior year at Evergreen State College in Washington. She was killed in 2003 by an Israeli bulldozer as she attempted to protect a network of tunnels being used to smuggle weapons from Egypt into Gaza for Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

It doesn't look like things have changed much, unless you want to consider the possibility that ISM activists are making their long-suspected support for terrorists a little more "hands on" than it once was.

The caption for this photo reads in part:

Gabi laughs it up while Alan, the other ISM volunteer who works at the Faisal Youth Hostel, smiles with his machine gun. To the far right is the al Aksa Martyrs Brigade terrorist overseeing the festivities. Real “peace activists” don't pose with machine guns in the company of terrorists, but the ISM does.

What else is there to say?

From getting run over defending terrorist's weapons tunnels to proudly displaying them in Palestinian prisons, we've got only one thing to say to the leftists of the ISM: You've come a long way, baby.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:27 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Loser Control

A pathetic excuse for a human being named Kimbeer Vill shot 20 people at Dawson College in Montreal, Canada yesterday. One of those people later died as a result of her wounds, and six other remain in critical condition, two of them are barely clinging to life. I pray that the injured pull through and are able to get on with their lives with a minimum of physical pain and psychological trauma.

As for Gill, I hope he doesn't mind the smell of roasting meat in a fire that burns, but does not consume. I guess I'm not that compassionate a conservative.

Gill seems cut from the same cloth as his apparent idols, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the psychopathic killers of Columbine that were also into the gothic vampire loser fantasy world of real and imagined death that some people retreat into when they can't cope with reality.

Predictably, the debate about gun control is heating up in Canada, and I'm certain calls will ripple down across our northern border as well.

But this isn't an issue of gun control. This is an issue of loser control.

This is Kimbeer Vill. He is a caricature in many ways, the stereotypical Goth-loving, vampire wannabe with no friends and an anti-social attitude. He is, was, quite simply a loser, and he shot 20 people to prove just how much of a loser he could be.

The gun he carries in the photo above is the Beretta CX4 Storm. Ironically, the CX4 and similar designs were developed largely with the law enforcement community in mind, being developed as longer-ranged companions to police sidearms that still used the officer's pistol ammunition and magazines.

While I cannot claim to have a knowledge of Canadian firearms laws and will leave the details to those more familiar with their provisions, I do know that in the United States, gun dealers do have available to them a certain amount of "loser control" built into firearms laws. I know this firsthand, because one of the many hats I wear is as a part-time gun dealer working behind the gun counter of a sporting goods store.

Even if a potential firearms purchaser has all the appropriate documentation and is cleared by the BATF background check, I still have the right as the seller to deny a suspect purchaser a sale for any reason, or no reason at all.

Most reasons are concrete, but a lot of it is intuition and nuance that boil down to the fact that the dealer doesn't like the way a customer looks or acts or answers a question. It is de facto loser control, a latitude given to dealers to use their experience and judgement to weed out potentially dangerous people who we feel should not be armed.

There is or course no way to know if Kimbeer Vill displayed the kind of behavior that might have caused a dealer to have second thoughts, but as Vill had a penchant from dressing "Goth," in going for the vampire look, and according to what his blog reveals, for reveling in thoughts of death and dying, he seems like he would have been easy enough to red flag. Another dealer I know recently turned down a perspective purchaser based upon very similar reasons.

Gun control as policy very rarely if ever works, but loser control can be surprisingly effective.

It's too bad it was not more effective here.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:58 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Revising History

Captain's Quarters (h/t Insty) notes this morning that there appears to be some revisionism occurring in the wake of the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah. Arab states and much of the world media originally trumpeted that the war was a undisputed victory for Hezbollah.

Now, those most directly affected seem to think otherwise:

The war stripped more than a few masks from the players in the region. Nasrallah now has to contend with the fallout from his impatient attack on Israel, from the Lebanese and also from the Iranians who had wanted Hezbollah and their rockets as a threat to be feared, not an attack to be weathered and then discounted. His image as the protector of Lebanon has been shattered, and the Lebanese now see him as a threat instead of a savior. After years of Syrian control, they now have to recognize that a large portion of their country is under de facto Iranian occupation, and they're not happy about it.

This has eroded the veneer of victory that Nasrallah placed on the cease-fire. Western commentators and no shortage of Israeli pundits pointed to Nasrallah's claims to have prevailed as a devastating propaganda offensive that would make Israel and the West look weaker than ever. Arabs have taken a more realistic view of the war's results, including the fact that Nasrallah has to make those claims from undisclosed locations to this day. They scoff at his bravado, noting that Nasrallah's vaunted rocket attacks killed more Israeli Arabs than anyone else and proved singularly ineffective as a deterrent to the Israeli incursion.

I've noted on several occasions almost a month ago that the war went far worse for Hezbollah than the world media was willing to admit.

Hezbollah suffered 500-600+ confirmed fatalities at the hands of the IDF, and another 800-1200 are estimated to have been killed in Israeli air strikes. As Hezbollah's active fighters were estimated to number 1,000 or less with 3,000-5,000 more available before this most recent conflict began, it seems that many more such "victories" will see Hezbollah's military wing wiped from the face of the earth.

In addition to Hezbollah's combat loses, the damage to the infrastructure that they brought upon southern Lebanon is quite severe, and will take years of reconstruction and billions of dollars to repair.

But Hezbollah is not by any stretch the only loser in this war, as the world media, and Arab journalists and photojournalists in particular, have suffered tremendous blows to their credibility.

Early on, Hezbollah attempted to recycle the white phosphorus/WMD claims made in the invasion of Fallujah, and the media willing lapped it up without properly investigating the claims. When those claims were conclusively debunked by chemical analysis of tissue samples take from the victims, the media brushed it aside, and took a hit to their credibility as a result.

Shortly thereafter, an Israeli air strike a mile outside the village of Qana was blamed for the death of nearly 60 family members, most of them children. Mostly Arab photojournalists flocked to the scene and flooded the world press with photo after gruesome photo of dead children, and bloggers began questioning whether or not the photos were staged by Hezbollah for the benefit of the press. The media vehemently denied the claims of staging, even after video evidence of a rescue worker dubbed "Green Helmet" was caught on video directing stretcher bearers to remove the body from an ambulance so that it could be re-shot by an assembled throng of photographers.

Time and again, photojournalists took questionable photograph after questionable photograph after questionable photograph, causing increasing scrutiny of photos coming out of Lebanon, where bloggers wondered if scenes were being posed and manipulated.

The came concrete proof that one prolific photographer has been manipulating images in photo-editing software on his computer before releasing them to publication. He was fired. When a second accusation of fraud was leveled at his work, his entire body of work--over 900 photos--was deleted.

The Israeli-Hezbollah war showed the weaknesses of a news-gathering system where story framing and composition is based as much on marketability as it is factuality, and blatant control by Hezbollah was tacitly agreed to and under-reported by those who had their scenes and stories often chosen and manipulated for them by Hezbollah minders.

Time may indeed show that there were actually three losers in the Israeli-Hezbollah War. Israel lost the political battle, Hezbollah lost the military war, and the media lost its most cherished asset, credibility.

Of all of these losses, the media may have the toughest time recovering.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:40 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

September 13, 2006

Err America on the Ropes

And just who do they think they're kidding?

Air America Radio will announce a major restructuring on Friday, which is expected to include a bankruptcy filing, three independent sources have told ThinkProgress.

Air America could remain on the air under the deal, but significant personnel changes are already in the works. Sources say five Air America employees were laid off yesterday and were told there would be no severance without capital infusion or bankruptcy. Also, Air America has ended its relationship with host Jerry Springer.

The right wing is sure to seize on Air America's financial woes as a sign that progressive talk radio is unpopular. In fact, Air America succeeded at creating something that didn't exist: the progressive talk radio format. That format is now established and strong and will continue with or without Air America. Indeed, many of the country's most successful and widely-syndicated progressive talk hosts — Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, for instance — aren't even associated with Air America.

While I'm sure Think Progress might even believe what they say is true, facts point us towards the opposite conclusion.

Progressive talk radio at least as voiced on Air America, is unpopular; that is the reason Air America is going bankrupt. The math isn't very hard: very few people listen to them, advertisers know this and won't pay them enough to keep them on the air, and so Air America is in big trouble.

Trying to give them for credit for things that don't exist--"the progressive talk radio format," which is in no appreciable way different than any other talk radio format--is a particularly sad attempt to salvage something from nothing.

I wish Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller all the best with their progressive radio adventures, and wish them successful career. Liberals need something to listen to, even if they have to buy a satellite radio to tune in many markets. Apparently Shultz and Miller have something all the "big names" on Air America lacked.

Talent.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:10 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

A Failure of Initiative

This is simply unbelievable:

Taliban terror leaders who had gathered for a funeral - and were secretly being watched by an eye-in-the-sky American drone - dodged assassination because U.S. rules of engagement bar attacks in cemeteries, according to a shocking report.

U.S. intelligence officers in Afghanistan are still fuming about the recent lost opportunity for an easy kill of Taliban honchos packed in tight formation for the burial, NBC News reported.
The unmanned airplane, circling undetected high overhead, fed a continuous satellite feed of the juicy target to officers on the ground.

"We were so excited. I came rushing in with the picture," one U.S. Army officer told NBC.
But that excitement quickly turned to gut-wrenching frustration because the rules of engagement on the ground in Afghanistan blocked the U.S. from mounting a missile or bomb strike in a cemetery, according to the report.

Pentagon officials declined comment and referred The Post to Central Command officers in Afghanistan, who did not respond to a request for comment or explanation.

We had a high concentration of enemy officers exposed with little or no cover, and did not fire upon them because they were in a cemetary?

Was it like this one in a battle in Najaf, Iraq, that was so well known they made a video game out of it?

This is the single most mind-numbingly stupid "shoot/no shoot" determinations I have heard of in this entire war. This was not a situation where that was significant risk of there being collateral damage to nearby civilians. The only people present were Taliban leaders that we want dead, and those in the cemetery that were already dead.

If this story is accurate and there are no mitigating circumstances we are unaware of, then we're looking at two levels of incompetence.

The higher level incompetence of placing cemeteries off limits in the rules of engagement was most likely the decision of senior military officers, perhaps with State Department input. Whoever made such a determination should be stripped of these duties. War is not to be fought politely, and the enemy should not be give a "timeout" from the war unless civilian lives are at risk.

On the direct tactical level, the officer directly in charge of this flight should have taken the initiative and made the determination that attacking such a concentration of Taliban leaders was more important to the success of the mission that was "going by the book."

A constant advantage for U.S. military forces throughout our nation's history has been the ability of individual small unit leaders to deviate from the battle plan when necessary to accomplish the mission on a fast-changing battlefield. Battle to battle, war to war, the decision was made to train our soldiers, from boot camp onward to seize the initiative to complete the mission.

That initiative was lost here.

The officer in charge of this flight certainly followed the rules, but he failed in his larger duty. The military's primary job is to protect the nation by killing its enemies. He unwilling to take the initiative needed to ignore an arbitrary decision, and enemy leaders walked away unscathed to plot death once more.

Update Footage of an estimated 190 massed Taliban from the Hellfire-armed Predator drone (via Fox News):

Based upon how tightly they are grouped, the single drone's Hellfire missiles would have likely have terminated the terrorism careers of every single Talib in this photo.

This military is investigating the leaking of the photo to the Post (h/t Michelle Malkin).

The U.S. military said Wednesday it is looking into the unauthorized release of a photo purportedly taken by an American drone aircraft showing scores of Taliban militants at a funeral in Afghanistan.

NBC News claimed U.S. Army officers wanted to attack the ceremony with missiles carried by the Predator drone, but were prevented under rules of battlefield engagement that bar attacks on cemeteries.

I have no problem with the investigation. A leak, even one that points out such obvious incompetence, is still a leak, no matter what the motive, and needs to be dealt with.

I do hope, however, that the Army spends as much time finding out why an absurd order not to fire upon massed terrorists simply becuase of their location in a cemetery was written. I'd also like them to investigate why that order was not quickly superceded by operational imperatives once the target was clearly identified for the large concentration of enemy forces that it was.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:19 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

With A Large Pinch of Salt

The ABC News blog The Blotter has a reputation for having good sources within the U.S. intelligence community, so when they take the time to write about known al Qaeda terrorist Adnan El' Shukrijumah not once, but twice in a two-week time span, it is something worth keeping on your radar.

The radar signal got stronger when journalist Hamid Mir said that his contacts in al Qaeda indicate that Shukrijumah might be plotting to detonate a nuclear device in the United States during the Muslim holiday of Ramadan later this month.

Allahpundit notes that this is a probably a false alarm, and I think he is more than likely correct. That said, the first Blotter link above notes that "virtually every" FBI field office is hunting Shukrijumah, so he is deemed a credible threat, if not necessarily a present one.

I first read all the links above when I got home from work late last night, but wanted to sleep on it before commenting.

It seems unlikely to me that Shukrijumah or other al Qaeda operatives would be able to easily obtain a nuclear warhead, and even if they were able to obtain such a device, the chance of successfully smuggling it across an ocean to the United States seems exceedingly remote.

It is far more likely that toxic radioactive substances, however, could be smuggled in or stolen, and combined with homemade explosives (such as TATP, a terrorist favorite) to create a radiological "dirty bomb."

Such a weapon uses the blast effect of high explosives to spread radiation over a local area that would likely affect both the local blast area and locations downwind, perhaps encompassing several square miles in some degree of radiation. The probably destructive capability of a dirty bomb is not that much more significant than that of a conventional high explosive blast, but those in the area contaminated area would face radiation dangers in addition to normal blast effects. There would probably be a higher fatality and injury rate as a result, but nothing approaching the level of even the smallest tactical nuclear warhead.

The primary benefit of such a detonation to terrorists is the fear that will spread. If detonated in a densely populated urban area, the panic such a weapon could instill in the population could possibly cause casualties and disrupt life for a significant length of time, but the area can be decontaminated and returned to use.

The long-term political effects of deploying such a weapon are as yet known, but we can speculate. What will almost immediately occur is that the people of the United States will once again realize that the War on Terrorism does not occur just "over there." Terrorism should be thought of not only as an international issue but a local one as well, and images and stories of American civilians being killed and injured at home is likely to create a cry for the Legislative and Executive branches to take a far more aggressive role in combating terrorism both domestically and overseas.

If it was determined that such a weapon was smuggled into the country, or that those who detonated the weapon came across a border (particularly the Mexican border) to do so, then the politics of border security would radically change in a very short amount of time. I think that an immediate and total crackdown on illegal immigration would occur very quickly, and that Congress would be forced to implement a full border wall, with increased staffing and detection equipment, more lenient chase and capture guidelines for Border Patrol agents, and far harsher penalties for attempted illegal immigration. I do not think it likely that illegal immigrants already in America will be rounded up in massive sweeps, but the public could possibly force lawmakers to consider that possibility. There are simply too many variables in this equation to comment beyond that.

If such a strike were to occur, I think that the White House is almost certain to receive massive complaints from Congressional Conservatives (particularly in the House) because of current lax border security policies, and Democrats would seize upon the opportunity to indicate that the Administration is failing to be effective in the War on Terror. I think this is a double-edged sword, however, as Democrats have been far more lax in regards to border security and illegal immigration than even the White House, so it is unlikely to be a winning issue for them.

The overseas intelligence intercept program that the media and Democrats have tired to spin as "domestic spying" will finally be understood for what it really is, and will no longer be thought of as an encroachment on freedoms, but as the rational extension of intelligence gathering capabilities that it always has been.

Overseas, I think you would see an increased political and diplomatic effort to convince Pakistan to allow Coalition military forces to penetrate deep into the tribal areas of its western border region with Afghanistan so that al Qaeda and Taliban staging and training areas can be forcefully struck. Also in Afghanistan, I think you will see a much more concerted effort to eradicate the poppy crop, the Taliban's single most important funding source. Neither bodes well for al Qaeda's ally.

Next door in Iran, I think that a much more muscular diplomatic response to Iran's nuclear ambitions would be forced by the United States in the wake of a dirty bomb attack on America. Recent radiological destruction would make it impossible for us to allow Iran to continue down the road toward weapons development. Harsh sanctions and a blockade enforced by U.S. military assets would force Iranian leaders to either back down from their nuclear aims, or force them to engage us in a regional conflict in which their mostly conscripted military, primarily armed with obsolete weapons, could not hope to prevail.

If a blockade or conflict in the region with Iran is imminent, you might also expect forces to be built up in Iraq to guard against a cross-border attack by Iran that some intelligence sources say might occur. Once the Iranian threat de-escalates, it seems plausible that the additional Army and Marine units brought in to deal with the Iranian threat might be sent to Iraq to dismantle Shia militias that would suddenly be without their primary supporters, and to al Anbar to take on Sunni insurgents that we do not seem to presently have the manpower to pacify.

These sudden shifts in the region, if they occur, could put Syria in a very unstable position. I will not speculate as the whether or not his Baathist regime would fall without the support of Iran, but it would make Syrian support of terrorism a front-burner topic, perhaps forcing it to finally withdraw support of Islamic terror groups such as Hezbollah.

This is all extremely speculative, of course.

There is presently no way of knowing when a terror attack involving a radiological weapon could occur, nor if it will ever occur, and trying to predict what may happen is admittedly roaming far into speculative territory on a very high, very thin wire.

But there are some things we know for certain.

We do know al Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations have tried to direct attacks on the U.S. mainland before and after 9/11, and to date, all of those other attacks have failed. We know they or other Islamic terrorists will try to attack again. We also know that at some point they are likely to be successful.

What will be our response when that day arrives?

That may largely depend on which political party happens to be in power when and if such an attack occurs.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:45 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

They Support the Troops

They just won't talk to them. Or make eye contact. Or listen.

But they support the troops.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:05 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

September 12, 2006

The End of the World As We Know It...

Mary Katherine Ham admits to watching The View.

She was going to be on the panel after mine at Carolina FreedomNet 2006, but now... I dunno.

It might be time to talk about finding a replacement.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:45 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Redefining Winning

According to Richard Cohen, the War on Terror is over, and Osama won:

I hear bin Laden laughing. I heard him all day on Sunday and Monday as the mass murder of Sept. 11, 2001, was memorialized at the Pentagon and in that field in Pennsylvania and, especially, here where the most people died and where countless cameras recorded it all for posterity and an abiding, everlasting, anger. He laughs, the madman does, whenever George Bush says, as he has over and over, that America is "winning this war on terror.'' Osama bin Laden knows better. He has already won.

It is not merely that bin Laden has not been captured or killed and that videotapes keep coming out of his hideout like taunts, it is rather that his initial strategy has borne fruit. It was always his intention to draw America into Afghanistan where, as had been done to the Soviets, they could be mauled by the fierce mujaheddin. He tried and failed when he blew up the USS Cole off Aden at 11:15 a.m. on Oct. 12, 2000, killing 17 sailors and crippling the ship. But he succeeded beyond his wildest expectations when the U.S. responded to the Sept. 11 attacks by invading Afghanistan and, in a beat, then going to war in Iraq. It remains mired in both countries to this day.

To Cohen I pose the question, "What price, victory?"

Al Qaeda has been driven from its training bases in Afghanistan, and can find no more states to openly provide it sanctuary. The Taliban that once supported bin Laden in Afghanistan have been driven from power, and when they emerge, reformed, to attempt to take back their country, they are killed by NATO forces by the hundreds.

Al Qaeda's leaders and specialists, their tacticians and their weapons experts, continue to fall prey to Coalition forces. Some are captured. Many are killed (more than 1,500 to date). More of al Qaeda's leadership circa 9/11 resides in Cuba or in the earth than lives in Afghanistan's frontier or Pakistan's tribal areas. Those that remain skitter from cave to cave knowing that this day may be the day a Hellfire-armed U.S. Air Force drone sends them to Allah, or more likely, some place much more warm and less inviting.

StrategyPage notes that there were eight state sponsors of terrorism on 9/12/01; now the regimes sponsoring terror in Afghanistan and Iraq have been deposed, and Libya, seeing the writing on the wall, has given up without a shot being fired.

I wish more such "victories" for al Qaeda.

If they continue, Islamic terrorism will cease through attrition.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:31 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Running Away Toward Genocide

Via Fox News:

Democrats are blasting President Bush for giving what they call a political prime-time speech on the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

In his address Monday from the Oval Office, Bush tied the anniversary to the War on Terror and the need to continue the war in Iraq.

"Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone," Bush said. "They will not leave us alone. They will follow us. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.

Democrats were quick to fire off statements declaring Bush's words partisan.

"The president should be ashamed of using a national day of mourning to commandeer the airwaves to give a speech that was designed not to unite the country and commemorate the fallen but to seek support for a war in Iraq that he has admitted had nothing to do with 9/11," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a statement. "There will be time to debate this president's policies in Iraq. September 11th is not that time."

While Bush's speech itself was poorly delivered according to those who watched it, the quoted section of his speech above is absolutely accurate.

There have been many mistakes made in Iraq, just as there have been major mistakes made in nearly every war the United States has ever fought, from the Revolutionary War until today. But to give up in Iraq, where the United States has never lost a major engagement, would be seen by the Arab world as a victory for Islamic terrorism.

Abruptly pulling out of Iraq would:

• increase the power and prestige of terrorist groups within the Arab world
• inspire despots to expand funding and military support for terrorist groups as an extension of their foreign policy
• lead to greater sectarian violence
• increase the likelihood of a Balkanized state where a full-scale civil war and mass genocide is more possible
• increase the possibility of a regional war, with Turkey and Iran both striking to crush the Kurdish north of the country

The current sectarian violence in Iraq is bloody enough without us relinquishing the country to be feasted upon by its neighbors and internal factions. If you think the "neo-con" war is expensive in terms of lives and treasure, explore the possibilities of the Democratic "peace."

Thousands are currently dying in Iraq each month in sectarian violence. The al Anbar province is in dire straits. Many voices, particularly those on the left, are calling for the United States to retreat. The one thing these voices utterly refuse to acknowledge is the cost of the unconditional surrender they'd effect.

If we withdraw precipitously before Iraq is stabilized, we run the risk of twin genocides in concurrent civil and regional wars.

Sunni vs Shia
Led for decades by bloody Sunni Baathist regimes, the minority Sunnis have been the core of the insurgency, and still retain strong support among some Sunni civilians, particularly in the al Anbar province where they share some ideological roots and goals with al Qaeda in Iraq. The new Iraqi Army, like the old, is primarily composed of Shia soldiers, and if the United States pulls out before the country can be stabilized, there is much concern that the Shia may overrun their former tormentors, setting the scene for potential genocide.

Kurdistan Regional War
Even within the existing Iraqi government the Kurdish north of Iraq have been pushing strongly for a nearly autonomous region under their specific control. They have long dreamed of an independent Kurdistan, encompassing northern Iraq, as well as significant territory in Turkey, Iran, and Syria (see map). Kurds were promised an independent nation-state in the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, but later wars and treaties kept that from ever coming to pass. Turkey and Iran, who are already engaged in sporadic cross-border conflicts with Kurdish forces today, would likely not hesitate to invade Kurdish Iraq if they feel their own sovereignty may be threatened. The Kurds, known for thousands of years to be ferocious fighters (the word "Kurd" means "warrior" in Kurdish), would likely be able to turn the mountainous areas of Kurdistan to their advantage, with the distinct possibility of making Kurdish and Iranian invasions resemble the bloody Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. The blood the Kurds would draw from the Iranians in the mountains would almost certainly be translated to massive civilian casualties in Kurdish cities dwarfing anything we've seen in the Iraq War so far.

Based upon these scenarios, the precipitous withdrawal called for in the liberal "peace plan" in Iraq has the potential for casualties ranging from the hundreds of thousands to well over a million. If the Leftist "victory" in Southeast Asia (1.7 million), and the abortive Russian efforts in Afghanistan (900,000) provides us with any sort of a useful yardstick to measure the potential cost of failure, the casualties to Iraq could range into the millions, with millions of more civilians being displaced.

And so we seem to have a choice:

We can commit to finding out precisely what we need to do to make Iraq a self-sustaining country with functioning economic, political, and security systems;

-OR-

We can cut and run—"redeploying" to other parts of the world as leading Democrats are calling for—and wash our hands of the country we created as it falls into internal and region wars that will kill or displace millions.

If we do the latter, history will not look upon our nation kindly... nor should it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:44 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.4771 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.4584 seconds, 199 records returned.
Page size 199 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.