Saturday, September 08, 2007

Edwards would invade Pakistan

The Times of India reported Criticizing the Bush administration for its counter-terrorism policies, Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards said he would invade Pakistan to eradicate terror cells if there were actionable intelligence and the US-ally refuses to act.
Go ahead. Do you want a gun, or are you just going to talk them to death. And are you goint to take Obama with you, or will he be busy with visits to the Oprah show.
"I want to be clear about one thing. If we have actionable intelligence about imminent terrorist activity and the Pakistan government refuses to act, we will," Edwards said at a campaign rally at Pace University in New York.... "The recent national intelligence estimate found that Al-Qaida had established a safe haven in the northwest tribal areas of Pakistan," he said, adding we have given Musharraf government billions of dollars of aid in last several years, yet they have done little to get control over these areas.
True and do you think you can do any better?


Our followers ‘must live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad’

Times Online reported One of the world’s most respected Deobandi scholars believes that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims “to establish the supremacy of Islam” worldwide.

If a non Muslim said that he would be branded an Islamophobe, but we see that is really their objective.
Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.
And if Britain is smart it will push them out before they get that strong.
His views explode the myth that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking.

Mr Usmani, 64, sat for 20 years as a Sharia judge in Pakistan’s Supreme Court. He is an adviser to several global financial institutions and a regular visitor to Britain. Polite and softly spoken, he revealed to The Times a detailed knowledge of world events and his words, for the most part, were balanced and considered. He agreed that it was wrong to suggest that the entire nonMuslim world was intent on destroying Islam.
And the converse is also not true, but there certainly is a very vocal part of the Muslim world that is focused on world domination.
Yet this is a man who, in his published work, argues the case for Muslims to wage an expansionist war against nonMuslim lands.

Mr Usmani’s justification for aggressive military jihad as a means of establishing global Islamic supremacy is revealed at the climax of his book, Islam and Modernism. The work is a polemic against Islamic modernists who seek to convert the entire Koran into “a poetic and metaphorical book” because, he says, they have been bewitched by Western culture and ideology.
Whereas he has eebn bewiched by the idea that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Weasel Zippers blogged This fits right in with current dhimmified Europe. Countries like France and Britain, whose indigenous birth rates are negative, while their Muslim population is exploding due to extremely high birth rates and immigration. This raises another question, will we have to bail out Europe again? This time it won't be from German Nazi's, it will be from the Islamic ones...

Marisol blogged His views explode the myth that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking.


Wednesday, September 05, 2007

BBC scraps plans for day-long TV special on climate change

Times Online The BBC is to scrap Planet Relief, a television special about climate change that provoked a revolt from senior executives
maybe they read that There is no consensus on Global Warming
Ricky Gervais and Jonathan Ross had been lined up to star in a day of programmes next year, designed to “raise consciousness” about the environment.

The event would have involved viewers in a mass “switch-off” to save energy. But BBC figures gave warning that the concept could be the latest in a series of campaigns, disguised as entertainment, that breached impartiality guidelines.
Impartial and BBC are mutually exclusive terms.
Advocates of Planet Relief finally relented after viewers said that they wanted intelligent programmes about climate change instead of lectures from hypocritical pop stars and celebrities.
Gee, Brits realize pop stars don't know everything.
The revolt was led by Peter Barron, editor of the BBC Two Newsnightprogramme. He said that it was “not the corporation’s job to save the planet”. He added: “If the BBC is thinking about campaigning on climate change, then that is wrong and not our job.” Peter Horrocks, head of BBC television news, added: We should be giving people information, not leading them.” The BBC has now scrapped the concept. Negative reaction to this summer’s flop Live Earth concert, promoted by Al Gore, was cited as a factor.
That is probably the main reason. Low raithings.
Audience feedback found that viewers wanted serious, informed programmes about the planet’s future.


German Bombers

Yahoo! News reported Three suspected Islamic terrorists from an al-Qaida-influenced group nursing "profound hatred of U.S. citizens"
Does this make it a "Hate Crime"???
were arrested on suspicious of plotting imminent, massive bomb attacks on U.S. facilities in Germany, prosecutors said Wednesday.

German Federal Prosecutor Monika Harms said the three, two of whom were German converts to Islam, had trained at camps in Pakistan run by the Islamic Jihad Union, a group based in Central Asia. They had obtained some 1,500 pounds of hydrogen peroxide for making explosives.
You don't think they just heard that "Blonds have more fun", do you?
... Germany, which did not send troops to Iraq, has been spared terrorist attacks like the train and subway bombings in Madrid and London — although its involvement in the attempt to stabilize Afghanistan has led to fears it might be targeted.
These nut cases don't need an excuse to target a country. As long as it is Dar al-Harb they will target you.
... Chancellor Angela Merkel said in an interview released Wednesday that German troops would remain in Afghanistan for several more years, despite recent setbacks in the region. "To walk away would send the wrong signal,"
Precisely. In fact they only thing they understand is force. They target those they view as weak.
Merkel told N-24 television.


Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Health care in Britain

This is London reported Patients who refuse to change their unhealthy lifestyles should not be treated by the NHS, the Conservatives said today.
This is a good reason to oppose universal (government run) health care, this is another.
In a bid to ease spiralling levels of obesity and other health concerns, a Tory panel said certain treatments should be denied to patients who refuse to co-operate with health professionals and live healthier lifestyles. And those who do manage to improve their general health by losing weight and quitting smoking, for example, would receive "Health Miles" cards. Points earned could then be used to pay for health-related products such as gym membership and fresh vegetables.


Sue 'em

Ynetnews reported A Swedish Muslim group on Tuesday said it plans to sue a local newspaper for publishing a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad with a dog's body. The Nerikes Allehanda newspaper in Orebro printed the cartoon

made by artist Lars Vilks in an August 19 editorial that criticized Swedish art galleries for not displaying Vilks' art.
Maybe they did not display it because it is lousy art.
Mahmoud Aldebe, chairman of the Swedish Muslim Federation, said the group would sue the newspaper for inciting hatred against ethnic groups.
What ethnic group is Islam. I thought it was a religion.
"It ridicules our religion.
If this stupid drawing ridicules your religion, then it is ridiculous.
This is discriminating and insulting... they want to see just how far they are able to go by pushing the boundaries of press freedom," he said. (AP)


It's God's Will

DesMoinesRegister reported God’s will is for Iowa to have the first-in-the-nation caucus, Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson told a crowd here today. “Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord should be the first caucus and primary,”

Bill, I have done a search of both the Constitution and the Bible, and I don't see the Iowa Caucus listed either place
Richardson, New Mexico’s governor said at the Northwest Iowa Labor Council Picnic. “And I want you to know who was the first candidate to sign a pledge not to campaign anywhere if they got ahead of Iowa. It was Bill Richardson.”

Michael van der Galiën blogged Umh. Sure Bill.

CQ blogged It sounds more like the typical politician's attempt to pander to his audience, only doing such a clumsy job that it becomes risibly obvious. And again, let's just think about what the reaction would have been had a Republican said this.

Ben Smith blogged Watch out Florida, here come the locusts.

Ron Chusid blogged Having seen other examples of Richardson’s sense of humor, Richardson’s previous statements on religion, and considering that nobody would think God has any interest in who has the first caucus or primary, I have no doubt that Richardson was joking here.


Souter mulled resignation

Ok City Examiner reported According to Jeffrey Toobin’s new book on the Supreme Court, Justice David Souter nearly resigned in the wake of Bush v. Gore, so distraught was he over the decision that effectively ended the Florida recount and installed George W. Bush as president.
There is still time for him to do the right thing. Resign, and take some of the other libs with you.
In “The Nine,” which goes on sale Sept. 18, Toobin writes that while the other justices tried to put the case behind them, “David Souter alone was shattered,” at times weeping when he thought of the case. “For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice,” Toobin continues. “That the Court met in a city he loathed
We all loathe Washington
made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same.”

Liberty Pundit blogged So he, like virtually every other liberal in the nation, went off the deep end when Gore lost. Nice to know we have such stable, nonpartisan people up there on the bench who actually let the laws and the Constitution make their decisions for them, and not some political agenda, isn’t it?

Democrat Soldier commented I’m sure that, with a Pres. Gore, there would be 3000 more Americans alive today as well as 14 highly frustrated terrorists. A Pres. Gore would have listened to the “bin Laden to attack in the US” report, rather than ignoring it like Pres. Bush did.
Or President Clinton / VP Gore did.
kelso commented To this day I can’t understand what gave the court the authority to install our current president. There was no precedent.
Should the Florida Supreme Court have done it?
It’s a disturbing low point in America’s political history.

Ringo commented Yes, and don’t forget that The Great and Powerful Gore would have already cured AIDS, cancer and halitosis…not to mention ending poverty and saving the planet from Global Climate Change. If Gore had become President instead of ChimpskyMcHaliburton, there world peace, two three-day weekends per month and all food products would be 100% organic. And everyone would love us, just like they did when Bill Clinton was President.
Dream on
How did it all go so wrong?

Ret. Col. Jack Ripper blogged Bilbo: “If not stoped….at some point Democrats would be still be RE-COUNTING votes in Florida FOR THE 1459 th time OR until they could have perpetrated a AL Goreilla win.”
Good point
Bullshite. The media consortium report clearly stated that if the entire state had been recounted, Gore would have won under ANY counting standard. The state-wide count would have been complete in just one more week at the time that the Supreme Court ordered a halt to the counting.
Not according to what I read. Gore would have won only under conditions that he had not asked for in the recount.


Bill Clinton 'shocked' Hillary donor was a fugitive

Newsday reported Former President Bill Clinton said he was "shocked" by revelations that a top fundraiser for his wife is a fugitive from justice and claimed he didn't even know what "HillRaiser" Norman Hsu did for a living.
You mean there is gambling, right here in River CIty, in the pool hall.
"You could have knocked me over with a straw, especially when I heard the L.A. people had been allegedly looking for him for 15 years when he was in plain view," he told Newsday while touring a county fair in rural New Hampshire Sunday.
If Bill had known he was a fugitive he would have pardoned him, like all of the other donors he pardoned.
"I never knew how he made a living or anything, but I was shocked," said Clinton of Hsu, who has made millions as an investor in tetxtile and other businesses.


Monday, September 03, 2007

Beaten for refusing to convert to Islam

YONHAP NEWS reported A pastor at the South Korean church whose volunteers were held hostage for six weeks by Afghanistan's Taliban said some of the captives were "severely beaten" by the insurgents when they refused to convert to Islam.

Didn't they know
  • Surah 2:256 – “There is no compulsion in religion…”
  • Surah 16:82 – “Then, if they turn away, your duty (O Muhammad) is only to convey (the Message) in a clear way.”
  • Surah 42:48 – “But if they turn away (from Islam). We have not sent you as a Hafiz (watcher, protector) over them (to take care of their deeds and to recompense them). Your duty is to convey (the Message)…”
  • Surah 88:21-22 – “And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them, your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.”


USF student with explosives

Yahoo! News reported The father of a University of South Florida student accused of transporting explosives across state lines along with another student facing a terrorism-related charge says his son is not a terrorist. "It's killing me," Samir Megahed said Saturday. "We have no charge like this in my family for 400 years. It's killing all my family in Egypt."
That is better than killing people at the military base they were near.
.... "If he was a white man and not from the Middle East, I'm sorry, he would not be here today,"
Because he would not have undertaken jihad.
the father said. He said his son is not a terrorist and authorities "want the stories they have in mind. It's all in their imagination."
Those imaginary explosives can really be dangerous.


Taliban vows to kidnap, kill more foreigners reported Taliban plan to abduct and kill more nationals from foreign countries whose troops serve under NATO and the US military in the country, a spokesman for the Islamic movement warned today.
Of course. The South Koreans show them it was profitable, ane it is easier work than spending all day in the poppy fields.
The vow comes just days after the Taliban released 19 South Korean hostages after their Government struck a deal that critics said sets a dangerous precedent that could spur more kidnappings and make life even more dangerous for foreigners.

"We consider it (kidnapping) as an arm that can help us in imparting a blow to the enemy," Taliban spokesman Qari Mohammad Yousuf said by telephone from an undisclosed location.
Especially if they are not armed.
"Kidnapping ... and killing of (nationals) of those countries who have come for the annihilation of the nation of Afghanistan, are works which suppress the enemy," he added.
The Taliban are the ones that have come for the annihilation of the nation of Afganistan. The other foreigners are there to help rebuild the country for the Afgans.
Yousuf, one of two Taliban spokesmen, said the group would not target nationals from foreign countries who have no troops in Afghanistan.
It is not that they want to be nice to countries with no troops there, but if they are not there, they can't kidnap them. And they really don't want to target troops, because they have guns and might resist. They prefer innocent Christians who are just there to help.


Mandatory Preventive Care

Forbes reported Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care. "It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK." He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat "the first trace of problem."
Would over weight people be forced to lose weight? What would happen if they do not; would they be sent to prison? What about smokers? Would they be forced to stop smoking?
Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread. Edwards said his mandatory health care plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans.
Would mental health doctors send Republications to reeducation camps? Would people that don't floss enough be penalized by their dentists?
"The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death," he said.

mljones blogged What is being lost here is the tradition of freedom. Or maybe the illusion of it. The idea that a government will make doctor visits MANDATORY is absurd. I know, I know; it’s to save me from myself. My own negligence will no longer be tolerated by the state. Because the state loves me more than I love myself.

Following Edwards’ logic, will women still continue to have that “right to choose?” This is not to debate the abortion issue. It is to point out that one’s right to choose has been a public mantra for decades now. Rather than argue for or against it, I place it next to this mandatory aspect of the Edwards’ plan.

Mandatory means that someone else is making a decision for YOU. The only “choice” remaining is whether to comply or suffer the consequences.

The road to an authoritarian state is paved with good but grandiose intentions.

Senator Edwards, with all due respect, let me die a sick and neglected man, but let me die with a smidgen of freedom. I know that’s too much too ask.

But so is asking for my vote.

Betsy Newmark blogged What's the penalty for not going in for your checkup? And how will the government know if you've gone or haven't gone? Will our doctors have to file reports on their patients' pattern of visits?

Yes, we can all agree that regular preventative checkups are a good thing. But should the government really be in the business of requiring everything that is good for us?

Dr. Steven Taylor blogged I guess Edwards is looking to put the “big” back into “big government.”

On the one hand, there is little doubt that it is good medicine to engage in preventive care. Yes, women of a certain age should get mammograms every years, and men of certain ages should get prostate exams and so forth. However, to say that it will mandated that everyone will have to do X, Y or Z is a substantial increase in governmental power over the lives of the citizenry.

For that matter, there are some practicalities to be considered here If one doesn’t go to one’s annual whatever, will there be a fine? Will the CDC dispatch agents to your house to force the tests on you? Will there be reminders and free transportation to make sure everyone remembers and gets to their appointments? What if someone managed to avoid their preventative care and then they get sick, will they then be denied care? For example, what if a woman avoids the mammograms and then gets breast cancer, how will the system deal with such a person?

TinyElvis blogged The irony here is the fact that Democrats are usually the ones up front screaming freedom of expression, freedom of speech, stay out of our bedroom, etc. However, they feel no shame in inviting the government into their colons and vaginal canals.

Brennan blogged Hear that ladies? You want to get an abortion? That’s up to you. You want to decide not to go to the doctor? He’ll force ya to. Oh the freedom! How much is this craptastic, freedom-sucking, socialist medical plan going to cost Americans each year? According to Edwards, who lives in his own world, over $120 billion a year. How will he pay for this? Why, by ending Bush’s tax cuts, of course!

Jon Henke blogged Which one of John Edwards' two Americas gets a freedom of choice and privacy that extends beyond the uterus?


Sunday, September 02, 2007

Democrats signed a pledge

WaPo reported The Democratic candidates have signed a pledge that would forbid them from campaigning in states such as Michigan and Florida that have sought to move their presidential primaries into January 2008.
And they will keep that pledge until a poll is published that shows they are losing ground in one of those states, at which time their pledge will be as worthless as other promises they make.
The move ended weeks-long jockeying over which states get to hold early primaries. Democratic leaders in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, the four states that had been designated by the Democratic National Committee to hold early primaries, demanded in letters Friday that the candidates not participate in the early primaries of other states. The candidates either had to sign the pledge or risk annoying officials in those key states.
What about annoying voters in the other states.
Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.), along with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, signed the pledge within hours on Friday.
None of whom stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination.
By yesterday, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, had joined them.

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," Clinton's campaign said in a statement.
What is that role? An extremely white state, a small state that demands physical presence in living rooms and coffee shops, a state with a lot of gambling, and one state where blacks might have a say.
"And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role."


Bomb Iran

Michael van der Galiën blogged The liberal part of the blogosphere has its panties up in a bunch, because more and more people report that the US is preparing for war (against Iran). Maccabee writes at Daily Kos that (s)he had a conversation with a friend - a friend who “is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz.”
That is what they should be doing, rattling sabers and making Iran think they might attack. But the command to actually do so will come a lot higher in the chain of command than an LSO.
.... According to Barnett, the White House planned a major PR offensive right after Labor Day, after which the US will act.
It sounds like the PR offensive has already started. And no bombs have been dropped.
Now, I understand that this is fascinating for political analysts (to think about), but once again it seems to me that all these people are doing right now is ringing the alarm bells, saying ’stop the war’ without offering a valid alternative. Once again it seems that they are more busy opposing Bush than thinking about possible solutions for the problem with Iran.
Which is what they usually do.
The problem surrounding Iran has escalated today: Ahmadinejad announced that Iran now has 3,000 centrifuges. In other words, Iran is now able to enrich uranium on a fairly big scale. Meanwhile, one should also not forget - as Jason Steck often reminds me - that the Pentagon makes plans for attacks all the time. Not having a plan ready, especially in this situation, would be ludicrous.
Precisely. And the command to implement will not go to an LSO.
The plan in itself sounds perfectly sensible to me: it will not be a ground invasion. Instead, it will be a major air operation, aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities, military infrastructure, governmental buildings and the army itself. The idea is basically to destroy Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities in a few days time. From a military perspective, this makes sense. For one thing, the US doesn’t have the forces to go into Iran. If something happens, it has to be done by airpower (sounds like a Rumsfeld war).

Having said that, it seems to me that the time has not yet come to use force against the Mullahs. There are, at this point in time, other ways to get Iran to give up its nuclear program.
Like getting the left side of the blogosphere to rattle Iran's cages.
The West can still opt for more severe economical measures. We have to make sure that Iran does not get any money anymore. Furthermore, Iran has to be actively opposed in Iraq and the US should try to isolate Hamas and make sure that it does not get much financial and military support from Tehran.


Anger Back Home

NYT reported When 19 South Koreans return home on Sunday after six weeks in Taliban captivity, they will face a nation relieved that the hostage ordeal is finally over, but also increasingly angry at their decision to travel to Afghanistan despite government warnings and at what many here consider overzealous proselytizing by Korean churches.
Where is "here"? Seoul, New York, or Afganistan?
Until their release, criticism of the 19 Koreans, all from Saemmul Presbyterian Church, had been tempered by fears that they might be killed. Now that they are free, a negative reaction is building, with people demanding an accounting of who is to blame for the crisis that some feel damaged South Korea’s reputation.
The Taliban is to blame.
“I expect cannonballs of criticism flying at churches for causing such a disturbance, for squandering national energy and money,” said the Rev. Kim Myung-hyuk, president of the Korea Evangelical Fellowship. “This is a good opportunity for Christian-bashing in a society that has been frowning upon churches.”
So you have the same problem with secularists that we have.
The criticism of the hostages, and of missionary work in Islamic countries, including Afghanistan, has been especially vitriolic on the Web, but newspapers’ editorial pages have also expressed the feeling that the entire country has been, in a sense, held hostage since Taliban insurgents on July 19 kidnapped 23 South Koreans — the 19 just freed and four others. The nation was bombarded for weeks by frightening news reports about repeated Taliban promises to kill everyone and about their eventual killing of two. Two other hostages were released Aug. 13.

Critics seem especially outraged that their government was put in what they believe was a no-win situation, forced to enter talks with a terrorist group despite international objections. Debate on that issue is likely to intensify now that the Taliban is alleging South Korea paid them more than $20 million, which they said would be used for more suicide attacks, according to Reuters.
It certainly will mean more kidnappings, because South Korea just showed it was a good way to make money.
The Korean government has denied such a deal. “How much national resources have been spent on these 23 crazy people?” said one typical posting on the popular Internet site “Proselytizing in an Islamic country?
Jesus said Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.. He did not say except in Islamic countries.
They prayed for their own death.
Actually they prayed for Afgan souls.
I wonder why the government negotiated for their sake to begin with.” And Shin Yong-gug, secretary general of the nonprofit group People’s Association of Religion Critics, said, “Most consider this a man-made disaster sown by Korean churches’ indiscriminate zeal to proselytize and their disregard for safety.”
be they feel their souls, and those they might save, are more important.
MaySouth Korea — which is about 30 percent Christian — has become the second-largest exporter of missionaries, after the United States, with almost 17,000 in 170 countries.

Although concerns about missionary work in Muslim countries have been especially pronounced since the remaining hostages were released this week, questions about Korean churches’ zeal to spread their faith in such places have been quietly growing in recent years. Critics have feared that trying to spread Christianity among Muslims shows a disrespect for local culture.
And we certainly would not want to disrespect that.
The Korea Times, an English-language daily in Seoul, said in an editorial in its weekend edition: “The Protestant churches need to stop their hitherto egocentric and unilateral missionary style of pushing for their own religion, without respecting the specific different beliefs and cultural characteristics of those whom they intend to convert.”
They should take those factors into consideration in forming their message, but they still should provide the message.
Saemmul Presbyterian Church and the South Korean government insisted that the hostages had not been proselytizing, just providing aid. But many religious experts here consider such a distinction meaningless, because Korean churches provide aid in order to gain converts.
So they should not help people who need help?
South Koreans have generally had warm feelings about missionary work — or at least the work of missionaries here. Although Koreans generally bristle at reminders of the many years their country was controlled by or under the sway of foreigners, American evangelists who came here in the late 1800s are remembered for their contributions. They built some of the country’s oldest hospitals and universities, and Christian pastors fought for democracy during past dictatorships.

Still, as South Korea’s Christians have become more focused on spreading their faith, there has been growing discomfort in this country, whose roots are Confucian and Buddhist. These days, church vans mounted with loudspeakers sometimes race through the streets of Seoul, broadcasting their message, and sign-carrying proselytizers often weave through subway crowds yelling, “If you don’t believe in Jesus Christ, you will go to hell.”
I hope they did not do that in Afganistan.
All major church groups have apologized for the Afghan crisis and vowed to rethink their way of proselytizing. And as part of the deal to release the hostages, the South Korean government promised the Taliban that it would prevent missionaries from traveling to Afghanistan.