“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Why are we so stupid in dealing with Islam?

While the the sword of Islam is launching psychopathic killers against the West, the response from some is puzzling at best. Anyone have a coherent idea that will impress the Islamic world that enough is enough?


MUSLIMS STANDING TRIAL TO HIDE THEIR FACES


Should wearing the veil be banned in court?

Wednesday April 25,2007
By Tom Whitehead The Express

MUSLIM women were yesterday given the full backing of the law to wear veils in court – even if they are standing trial for crimes.
Defendants who are told they must remove their face-covering garment could even be allowed to give evidence in secret so as not to offend them.

Senior judges ruled that religious dress – including the full niqab which leaves only the eyes exposed – should be allowed for anyone involved in a court case unless justice is threatened.

Last year, an immigration tribunal had to be adjourned after a lawyer twice refused to remove her veil despite the judge having difficulty in hearing her.

In the aftermath of that row, the official guidance issued yesterday said any Muslim involved in a court case should be permitted to wear a veil providing it does not interfere with the administration of justice.

It would be left to individual judges to decide on a case by case basis but even where they rule a veil should be removed from a defendant or witness, the court may have to be cleared while they give evidence.

Last night critics said the guidance undermines the most basic of principles – that justice must be seen to be done.
Tory MP Philip Davies said: “People are entitled to see what is going on. All this pussy-footing around, judges have no comprehension of the damage there doing for community cohesion by coming out with this barmy stuff.


48 comments:

  1. Sometimes in sympathy with the left, Mr. Amis doesn't hew to any ideological orthodoxy, but is disturbed by the moral mushiness of some Britons on the subject of Islamist extremism. He has been called Islamophobic, but says "Islamismophobic" would be a better (though still imperfect) term. "It's Islamismophobia. The situation in Britain is ridiculous and contemptible. Some left-wing people--it's a bit insulting to the left to call them that . . . see someone with a grievance who hasn't got white skin and they think, Well, we must have done something really horrible to them. There's this masochistic view that we can't be right about anything. The woozy left has made itself an apologist for a creedal wave that is racist, misogynist, homophobic, totalitarian, imperialist and genocidal. But at least they're not white!
    "The Guardian is a great paper, but they print Osama Bin Laden on the op-ed page with a byline. . . . And I've said Islamismophobia is not the right word, either, because a phobia is an irrational or exaggerated fear and it is neither irrational nor exaggerated to fear a movement that wants you dead and has said it wants you dead. This great gust of irrationality coming from the Middle East, we meet it with another gust of irrationality."

    While Mr. Amis is tough-minded on Islamist extremism, he thinks the War on Terror has been badly bungled, and he has distinctly mixed feelings about President Bush. "I'm not an automatic Bush-hater. . . . There is a vast plurality of people in Europe who thirst for the failure of Iraq just because they hate George Bush. I was against the war, but the minute it started, from the opening salvo of shock and awe, I wanted it to work."

    Mr. Amis, famous son of a famous writer, now talks about Mr. Bush, son of a president, as one might a literary character: "I'm very interested in how his whole persona has changed. Do you remember around 2002 and 2003, his body language was that of someone looking for a fight? Even his walk was very drunk with power. . . . Now his upper lip has stopped working. He can't smile. I'm glad to see it. Think of the difference between Lincoln at the start of the Civil War and Lincoln at the end: this beautiful man, emaciated by war, by the distress and pain of it. And Bush is showing it, in his sinews and his glands. It's taking a very heavy toll on him. And so it should."


    WSJ Editorial Page. Even the Wall Street Journal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Because we're a country that actually discussed Sheryl Crow's suggestion of using one sheet of toilet paper and are still tlaking about Anna Nicole Smith.

    We're no longer a melting pot, we're a "honey pot"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Habu,

    There's a fatal flaw in your logic. The American MSM, the British Judiciary, are not democratic institutions, and they do NOT reflect the attitudes and point of view of their country's majority.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) - Ethiopian troops searched on Wednesday for seven Chinese and Ethiopian workers kidnapped in a rebel attack on an oilfield that killed 74 people in a remote and barren southeastern region.

    The Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF), ethnic Somalis fighting for independence since 1984, claimed responsibility for the pre-dawn raid on the Chinese-run field that was one of the worst attacks to date on Beijing's growing interests in Africa.

    The rebels have repeatedly warned energy companies they will not allow oil and gas exploration in the area as long as the Ogaden people are "denied their rights to self-determination".

    "The Ethiopian government will hunt down the perpetrators and bring them to justice," Bereket Simon, special adviser to Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, told Reuters.

    "We have assigned an appropriate force for the task."

    Ethiopian officials said gunmen killed 65 Ethiopians and nine Chinese as they slept at the oilfield about 100 km (60 miles) south of the regional capital Jijiga.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ahh, but mat, the Presidenct andthe Congress do, directly, represent the majority.

    The Oval Office position is quite clear on the matter, Islam a Religion of Peace.

    Not a Congressman nor Sentator, are in public dispute with that Administration position.

    Congressman Tom Tancredo once mention a strategy of counter striking Muslin holy sites and was shouted down, for expressing such a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mətušélaḥ

    There is a fatal flaw in your reading.

    I said Because we're a country that actually discussed

    You PROJECTED into my statement the MSM and the British Judiciary, neither one of which I mentioned. The operative word I used was discussed.

    You might as well have thrown in conversations at Starbucks, inside private livingrooms, on airplanes and trains...you get the picture.

    discussed , Sir, discussed

    5x5?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "ahh, but mat, the Presidenct andthe Congress do, directly, represent the majority."

    No they DO NOT.

    The President does NOT represent the majority. And as for Congress, they only represent money. I would think that much already has been made obvious, especially to you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Habu,

    You said 'the country'. I corrected you and said 'the MSM'. So which is the correct statement?

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Executive is the only branch of the three branches that is voted on by ALL THE PEOPLE. That singularity makes it unique in it's ability and only that branches ability to speak for the entire nation.
    The Legislative branch represents states in the Senate and districts in the House of Representatives.Neither one has the authority to speak for THE NATION as a whole. Only the Executive has that right and responsibility.

    There is no serious dicussion among political scientist and historians that this is the way it is. ALL the supporting notes and documents from the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers confirm this.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The President does not represent the majority. The President represents his particular party through a contest called The Primaries. The choice is rigged from the start. And it is rigged again, by forcing the electorate into making a binary choice, which often times is no choice at all, since it is money that really controls the whole show. Just because some people like it that way, does not mean that that's not the reality of it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I suppose the first step might be to invade Kurdistan and Turkey simultaneously.

    ReplyDelete
  12. IOW, so long as we have a forward deployed international strategy (and our political class as a whole desires that), we have to work with anyone who even pretends to help or like us, and it doesn't pay to voluntarily widen your circle of enemies (since we do have some Islamic "allies"). Islam is also not the lowest common denominator of our enemies. It isn't the fluffy pacifist and multicultural wonder that many people would have us believe, but it probably it is an enabler, identity, and vehicle for Middle Eastern aggression, but probably not the ultimate source (pride, xenophobia, desire for power, etc).

    Then there's the local interest argument, so long as we've got a now indigenous population, relatively open borders and an undistinguishing immigration policy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Of course, that's probably the complex answer.

    There's also those who don't even have a clue and would prefer not to even think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mətušélaḥ,
    Come on man. I said the country not the MSM or the Brits. Then I went futher to give examples of places like Starbucks etc...are you intentionally trying to be obtuse?

    As for the Executive. For those of you wishing to swim up stream, yes, sometimes we have Presidents elected by less than 50%.
    But the salient facts I have already presented hold, I didn't invent them, it's the way it is, and instead of trying to rewrite the functions and responsibilities of the various branches of government pick up the phone, call the local JC or college poly sci department and ask a PhD which is the singular branch of government that speaks for ALL the people.
    Repeat there is only ONE office that ALL registered voters vote for.

    Is it?
    A. Congress, the House and Senate?
    B. The Judiciary, the Supreme Court
    C. The Executive, the President.
    The correct answer is "C"

    If you chose "A" you are wrong because only the citizens of the various states may vote for their Senators and Representatives. ie.
    A person from Alabama may not vote for Nancy Pelosi because she is from......California.

    If you chose "B" you are also wrong. The citizenry does not vote for the Supreme Court members.

    Those of you who chose "C" are correct. ALL registered citizens of the United States of America, and selected territories or designated districts may vote for the President. ie. No matter which state you live in you may vote for the person of your choice who has quallified to be on the ballot, or not, (write-ins)for the Presidency.
    It is that Office that represents the United States on the international stage and sets it's agenda for the country, which is debated by Congress.

    Those of you who wish to parse the meaning of the word "is" please feel free. Freedom of speech is a guaranteed right under the constitution.

    The question of the day is:
    Why are we so stupid in dealing with Islam?

    It would appear another great question might be:

    Why doesn't a good portion of the American citizenry understand how our government works?

    You know I read some of this shit and it just makes me cry as to how ill informed some are in this matter.

    Like I said. Don't believe me, go take a course on government or call the state university or the library of Congress, but please don't try to reinvent the way our government works.

    ReplyDelete
  15. There are many, in the Government that disagree, not on the Presidency being the only truely National Election. That is a far gone conclusion.

    But that the majorities in the Congress, both House and Senate, represent the peoples' will as well. As the System was designed.

    Not being a Constitutional lawyer and not even playing on the web, it would seem reasonable that the electoral bodies that are empowered to "Declare War" are just as capable of "Declaring Peace".

    ReplyDelete
  16. At a minimum it would require 60 Senators to agree to vote against the Presidents' position.
    Then it would take 65 to overide a veto.

    If that point is reached ...

    ReplyDelete
  17. DR,

    The intent of the individual states was to each act as incubators for new ideas on ways to move the country forward.
    The Senators and Reps would bring from their states ideas on amendments needed, laws needed, etc. However the Founding Fathers realized that what was good for one state might not be good for another.
    An example was the 55mph national speed limit imposed during the early 1970's. The high density areas liked the idea. Most services were within a reasonable radius. The living in Wyoming and Montana where in a two hour car trip you might see 30-40 other cars it made no sense. The part you needed for you tractor might be 100 miles away, so speeds of 55mph did them a great diservice.
    So these state incubators via their Reps would jaw jaw in session and come up with new ideas.

    It was never intended that the states should speak for anyone but themselves and there constituents.
    That is not to say that states could not make trips to Korea,China,Jaapan and attempt to gain business for their states through incentives on state taxes etc,as long as it did not come into conflict with existing commerce law or national security, but it was never intended for the states to each have it's own independent foreign policy. That is the perview of the Executive branch to negotiate and then, with the Senate (if it is a Treaty) formalize the nation to nation relationship.

    Just to round it out a bit the Founders did not forsee everything as withnessed by the election of 1800 but more particularly the now established fact of judicial review. It is still debated today as to the constitutionality of having a co-equal branch of government, the Judiciary, be able to void laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President. It would appear on the face of it that it would make the Judicial Branch a Supra-Co-Equal branch if 5 of the 9 can void what the other two branches have passed.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Desert Rat:

    At a minimum it would require 60 Senators to agree to vote against the Presidents' position.
    Then it would take 65 to overide a veto. If that point is reached ...


    In my country, it only takes 51 Senators to enact a bill "against the President's position". If the President chooses to vetoes this $124 billion supplemental, then I suppose he could try again and ask for another supplemental if he really didn't want the war to end on his watch due to lack of funding.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I believe it's call a "Living Constitution" by some.

    Growing and adapting to the times.
    But still guided by precedent, except when it's not.

    Senators were to represent the States' locally elected Government, the Representitives sent to the House, to represent the people, directly.

    The direct election of Senators has led to a diminishing of the State Governments' collective and individual influence, at the Federal level. Another check & balance that we "grew" away from.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well, Ms T, that Bill is only allowed to come to the floor, for the vote, of 51, if 60 Senators agree to allow it to.

    Filibuster is the term most often used, although the techniques of its' deployment have grown, too.

    ReplyDelete
  21. If the GOP Senators had real cajones, if they had had faith, they'd not have stood apart from the President. They could have held the Senate version of the Bill to the Presidents' standard.

    Had the confrontation a month ago, not having to drag it out over Spring Break.

    The Senators passed, not qualifying for a Chapter in the next issue of "Profiles in Courage"

    ReplyDelete
  22. Desert Rat: Well, Ms T, that Bill is only allowed to come to the floor, for the vote, of 51, if 60 Senators agree to allow it to.

    Filibuster is the term most often used, although the techniques of its' deployment have grown, too.


    So much the better. The GOP can muster 40 Senators to filibuster the supplemental for weeks if they want to. That will mean by the time Bush gets his appropriation on his desk to veto, the troops will pretty much be confined to base due to lack of gasoline and bullets. The Democrats will throw up their hands all innocent-like and say, "Don't look at us."

    ReplyDelete
  23. Here's a 2007 piece from Princeton University on judicial review, of which there is no mention in the Constitution at all.

    Judicial Review

    ReplyDelete
  24. It's easy enough to say, 'G-damn Marbury v Madison'--...yet sometimes...
    xxxx
    I'm not certain whether I want the Supreme Court to review the 2nd Amendment, or not. Maybe they will continue to kick the can down the road. It's an 'explosive' issue, for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Plays either way.

    Mr Bush vetos what GOP Senators helped to send him.

    The Senate debates again,
    passes another "unacceptable" Bill with GOP Senators signing off, again.

    Few more weeks of fractured Leadership. Turmoil and erosion.
    Mr Bush needs to take decisive action, NOW!, not in weeks or months.

    It can only be a political move.
    One that changes the story, target dates, but not deadlines. They'd morph together regardless, over time, but the Iraqi appreciate deadlines.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Seems they have a "Bob" problem in Iraq that is, well, funny and gruesome...there's no way to sum it up so here..from Washington Post

    Bob in Iraq

    ReplyDelete
  27. Habu, Nancy is FROM MARYLAND.
    Jeez, even that makes it bad enough for us natives to deal with.
    ---
    Sex with dead people now illegal in California
    Sex with dead people now illegal in California Having sex with corpses is now officially illegal in California after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

    ReplyDelete
  28. Be careful what you write, Habu:
    Bobl Harb might start gettin Ideas of takin up Shark Fishin w/Bob.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I think they missed the float, I mean boat, by not bring in Sheryl Crow on this ass ignment and let her ass ess the problem and come up with the solution.

    ReplyDelete
  30. You know she'd wipe out.
    Here's what I'd do:
    Bring in a big ass back-hoe, dig a proper grave for Bob and his body at the far reaches of the ho's (sic) ability, then pivot that sucker around 180%, scoop out Bob, Scoop out Bob's body, and lay them and any assorted pieces to Rest in Peace.
    The End.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Actually the end comes after covering Bob and Co. up respectfully so he and assorted pieces can Rest in Peace, and then finish with a flourish on the Septic Tank.
    Hi "Ho" Spaghetti O!
    Nappy Time.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Doug,
    'twas thank'n da same way. Use uppa ho...maybe even a castnet for the smaller stuff...

    say does that new Calif dead no sex law mean after the body is cold or do warmies count too?

    ReplyDelete
  33. I don't know,
    but a Blue Ho
    is definitely
    OUT.

    ReplyDelete
  34. If it was 'Rat bobbin down there, it'd be a Gristly Problem, instead of Grisly.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Haditha Bull Shit Case Falls


    Convincing evidence that corroborates NewsMax.com's accounts of the Haditha insurgent ambush has compelled the prosecution to take extraordinary steps to bolster their crumbling case.

    The stunning announcement that all charges are being dropped against Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz, formerly accused of murder in the Haditha incident where 24 Iraqis were killed during an insurgent ambush against the Marines, is indication that the prosecutors have a very weak case against all the defendants, lawyers for the some of the accused say.

    Crumbling Case



    "Dela Cruz provided several sworn statements to the government," Mark Zaid said. Zaid is one of the attorneys representing defendant Sgt. Frank Wuterich adding that as part of its obligations the government turned over statements to Wuterich's defense team.

    "Unless there's something new that he is suddenly going to come forward with, it's not entirely clear that it's damaging to my client at all," Mark Zaid, one of the attorney's representing Sgt. defendant Frank Wuterich, told NewsMax.com.


    Story Continues Below




    "Those statements were available for the government to use, and we found that there are numerous conflicting statements within his own statements."

    The announcement of the deal with Dela Cruz is further evidence that the cases against the Kilo Company Marines and several of their superior officers are in deep trouble. It comes on the heels of postponements of Article 32 hearings slated for Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, the battalion commander and two of the enlisted men charged with murdering civilians in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005.

    Baseless Charges

    Although the prosecutors said they needed more time to prepare their cases, there is much more to the story than that NewsMax.com has learned, and it paints a shocking picture of a prosecution that should never have been pursued.

    In a nutshell, the case exploded when an intelligence officer dropped a bombshell on prosecutors during a pre-hearing interview when he revealed the existence of exculpatory evidence that appears to have been obtained by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and withheld from the prosecutors.



    Lose 20 lbs w/ the Hoodia Diet Patch-Get 1 week Free
    How To Reverse 50 Years Of Artery Plaque
    Orexis® Is Proven To Work Immediately For All Men
    Are Pheromones a Secret Weapon for Dating?
    Oil $62+ a barrel, Stock Coverage Initiated RENG
    Ride the Zinc Train Straight to Money Town
    Retire In 2007 ... and Make a Six Figure Income
    Kerry Says He Might Run for President


    This officer, described by senior Marine Corps superiors as one of the best and most dedicated intelligence officers in the entire Marine Corps, was in possession of evidence which provided a minute-by-minute narrative of the entire day's action — material which he had amassed while monitoring the day's action in his capacity as the battalion's intelligence officer. That material, he says, was also in the hands of the NCIS.

    Much of that evidence remains classified, but it includes videos of the entire day's action, including airstrikes against insurgent safe houses. Also included was all of the radio traffic describing the ongoing action between the men on the ground and battalion headquarters, and proof that the Marines were aware that the insurgents conducting the ambush of the Kilo Company troops were videotaping the action — the same video that after editing ended up in the hands of a gullible anti-war correspondent for Time magazine.

    When asked by the prosecution team to give his copies of the evidence to the prosecution, he told NewsMax.com that he was reluctant to do so, fearing it would again be suppressed or misused, but later relented when ordered by his commanding general to do so.

    Confronted by the massive mounds of evidence that Marine Corps sources tell NewsMax proves conclusively that the cases against the Haditha Marines are baseless, the prosecutors were forced to postpone the Article 31 against Lt. Col. Chessani and two of the enlisted men in an attempt to regroup.

    By granting immunity to the officer on the scene of the house-clearing effort, the prosecution, lawyers say, has further weakened its case.

    Because the intelligence officer was slated to return to Iraq for another tour of duty, arrangements were made prior to his departure to videotape his testimony for use in the hearings which would take place after his departure.

    Those familiar with his testimony, which included masses of classified material, insist that the narratives of the day's events disclosed by NewsMax.com in a long series of stories about Haditha were accurate presentations of the true facts and a total repudiation of all the slanderous material leaked by the Pentagon to the media.

    Thanks to this officer's testimony, the defense team was able to present over one hundred classified exhibits, including video.

    Lawyers for some of the accused told NewsMax that the officer's eight hour-long deposition will be made available to the defense in all the cases for use at the various Article 32 hearings which begin with Lt. Col. Chessani in May. Because most of it remains classified, it will be reviewed in private by the hearing officers and not revealed in the open hearings.

    NewsMax, however, can reveal that the facts of what happened early that November morning clearly show that the incident was part of a planned ambush by insurgent forces, that the civilians tragically killed in the were used as human shields by the insurgents, and that despite claims by Rep. John Murtha, there was indeed an ongoing firefight between the Marines and the enemy.

    In short, what the intelligence officer provided, was a fully backed up account that puts the listener at the scene of the action and takes him though the entire day's action. All of this information was made available to senior officers up the command ladder including the Battalion commander Lt. Col. Chessani.

    It was so complete it eliminated any need for further investigation.


    Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who questioned the officer, told NewsMax in a statement, "The intelligence officer is a crucial witness in this case. During his testimony, he effectively described the enemy situation prior to, during, and after the November 19 terrorist attack, providing the necessary context for the decisions that were made as a result. His testimony shows the complexity of the attack this day, the callousness of the terrorists toward the local civilians, whom they use to their advantage, and the error of viewing this incident in a vacuum.

    "The officer also showed how the insurgents used allegations of wrongdoing by Marines as propaganda to support their cause. In fact, another witness, who was the assistant intelligence officer during the attack and is now the current intelligence officer for the battalion, testified that since the Haditha incident received so much negative attention, terrorist propaganda alleging law of war violations against American servicemen in Iraq has ‘ballooned.'"

    Addressing this point, Richard Thompson, the president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center said, "The government's politicized quest to find wrongdoing in this case will ultimately harm the war effort, and it has already resulted in an incredible expenditure of time, money, and scarce resources, which could be better used fighting the terrorists.


    "Our job is to allow the facts of November 19, 2005 and beyond to be presented to the investigating officer rather than the scurrilous and unfounded accusations from anti-war politicians and media who rely on insurgent sources for their stories about our decent and hard fighting men in uniform."


    In the past few days, as an apparent part of the prosecution's damage control effort, some Pentagon officials leaked the once classified 130-page report, by Maj. Gen. Eldon A. Bargewell of the Army, to the New York Times and The Washington Post. That report, however, failed to conclude that any officers covered up evidence or committed a crime — the basis of the charges against Lt. Col. Chessani and the other officers charged.

    In previous attempt to stir up animosity to the defendants, some people in the Pentagon leaked information allegedly compiled by the NCIS to the Washington Post.

    As NewsMax demonstrated, that information was false.

    Biased Media Weighs In

    A shocking example of the sort of slanderous material being leaked to the media was this story broadcast by WKRN in Nashville, Tenn., which reported that military prosecutors said marines went on "a killing rampage in November 2005 in Haditha, Iraq, after their Humvee was destroyed by a roadside bomb killing one marine and injuring two others."

    According to the WKRN report, "The surviving marines went on a killing spree shooting two dozen Iraqi civilians including unarmed men in the street and men, women, and children in their homes."

    They went on to quote one Gen. Jack Keane, rescribed as an ABC News consultant, who said that "at that point, there was a fundamental . . . breakdown in the chain of command. They became more like a gang than a military unit. The order and the discipline fundamentally broke down and they were seeking revenge."

    The Pentagon report, WKRN admitted, "did not find specific evidence of a cover-up but concludes that nobody was interested in investigating the allegations."

    The facts show that these reports are blatantly false, and typical of the shamefully distorted media coverage of the Haditha killings.

    On April 3, the prosecution granted immunity to talk to prosecutors to Lt. Max Frank, who arrived at the scene after the IED blast of the explosion. The grant was made as part of an order to "cooperate and truthfully answer all questions posed by investigators."

    He has not been charged in the case.

    According to Muise and Brian Rooney of the Thomas Moore Law Center both former Marine officers now representing Lt. Col. Chessani, Frank, who personally witnessed the scene of the attack shortly after the fighting and assisted with removing the civilian bodies from the insurgent-occupied homes, insisted that there was no evidence of "executions" and that he saw no evidence of misconduct.

    Muise observed that Frank was testifying under a grant of immunity by the government, which he said added further credibility to his testimony.

    Lt. Col. Shelburne, the military defense counsel for Chessani who questioned Kallop, noted, "This officer's testimony is significant. He was on the scene shortly after the attack. He saw the location of the bodies. He personally observed the damage caused by the attack. And yet, he saw nothing that caused him to suspect any wrongdoing on the part of the Marines. Moreover, this officer was given immunity by the government, so the only way he can get in trouble is if he testifies untruthfully."

    ReplyDelete
  36. Yippee.
    Now throw Murtha and the Time reporter down what was once Bob's Hole, and turn all the JAG Officers into IED Bait.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The Lal Masjid showdown

    Countdown to sharia: Pakistan on the precipice of caving to al Qaeda's allies of the Lal Masjid

    The demands of the Taliban and al-Qaeda friendly Lal Masjid clerics Maulana Abdul Aziz and Maulana Abdul Rashid Ghazi for the nationwide application of sharia, the rebuilding of illegal mosques destroyed in Islamabad and resolution of a purported rape case may all be close to being accepted by the Pakistani government. In the latest round of negotiations, Chaudhry Shujaat, the president of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League, has signaled the government is willing to accept all demands issued by Aziz and Ghazi.


    Pakistan, again is reported by Bill Roggio to edge towards Sharia.

    48 nuclear warheads, online, in Pakistan. Or so the "experts" say.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hey, 'Rat:
    Didn't you read my Schippert Links?

    They said it was a done deal.

    Sharia in the Land of Islamic Nukes.

    Islamabomb.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Musharraf Caves to Red Mosque Demands

    Pakistan Muslim League president Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain visited Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) and conveyed to its two leaders that the Pakistani government has accepted all of Lal Masjid’s demands, including the implementation of Sharia Law in Pakistan.
    It is another example of the Musharraf government’s inability to contain the pro-Taliban and pro-al-Qaeda Islamist movement inside Pakistan.
    While ceding real estate to the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance through the various ‘peace accords’ that handed terrorists South Waziristan, North Waziristan and Bajour agencies is troubling in its own right, this latest set of concessions is more troubling still.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Allegations of NCIS Misconduct in Haditha Case: Investigation Demanded

    ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center today announced that it will request the Secretary of Navy to investigate allegations of improper and unconstitutional interrogation methods employed by Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) agents against Marine witnesses. Law Center attorneys obtained the information during interviews of several key Haditha witnesses.

    Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “There are disturbing reports that American servicemen were treated like POWs by their own government. In fact, more concern has been shown toward the treatment of Iraqi prisoners than towards our Marines. An investigation of these allegations is in order.”

    According to Marine witnesses, in some cases interrogations lasted up to 18 hours. During prolonged questioning sessions, Marines were not allowed to eat, drink, or use the bathroom. In some cases, Marines were kept in segregated rooms of an old Iraqi dam that were damp, dark, and “dungeon like.” These interrogation sessions occurred while the Marines were still involved in combat operations in Haditha, a hostile insurgent city.

    Many witnesses reported that the questioning was accusatorial, confrontational, and at times insulting. One officer stated that agents yelled and threw things at him during his questioning. Witnesses believed that the agents had already concluded that there was wrongdoing and were not interested in information that would tend to exonerate the Marines. One witness stated that it was his perception that the NCIS agents had an agenda—they were going after the officers in the battalion.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Bastards had them in Shackles for weeks.
    Corps should have stood up for them against Time and it's traitorous reporter.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Habu,

    Sorry, I don't want to make too much of it (and will be just as happy to drop the whole thing), but I just wanted clarify, that the noise created by the MSM on any particular issue hardly equates to a national interest in that issue, let alone national discussion and debate. Even if we include everyone that consumes their crap as a willing partcipant, the programing, at the best of times, barely reaches higher than 15% of the population.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This editorial makes me doubt your 15%, Mat.
    Hope the Gallup poll is wildly off the mark
    ---
    From another post:
    This is a scary Editorial, particularly wrt Global Warming and the Gallup Poll
    Dumbed-Down Nation, where the Chimp is the Genius.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The LaLaTimes, Doug? The LaLaTimes?!

    ReplyDelete