Tuesday - January 27, 2009

Off to a great start

President Obama told Arab television viewers that “Americans are not your enemy” in an interview aimed at repairing relations with the Muslim world that were damaged under the Bush administration.

Obama’s choice to give his first formal sit-down television interview as president to Al-Arabiya signaled a new American approach in the region. In the interview, broadcast Tuesday, Obama said the U.S. had made mistakes in the past but “that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that.”

The new president also condemned Iran’s threats against Israel, pursuit of nuclear weapons and support of terrorist organizations, but said “it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress.”

Oh brother. But threatening Israel, going for nukes in Tehran, and supporting terrorists is what they’re all about. That’s what they do. So what’s the point of offering the hand of friendship if at the same time you castigate their behavior? That sends a mixed message, from which only two conclusions emerge: this guy is weak, and this guy is a fool. Way to go O.

And this was his FIRST interview. He didn’t do a sit down with our good neighbors to the north in Canada, or meet with the folks down in Mexico, or sit down with our allies in the UK, Israel, or anywhere else. No, he went on A Rab TV. First. Because he wants to “repair the damage” Bush did by telling our enemies that they are our enemies. Even though Bush was ultra specific in telling our enemies that they were only our enemies when they bought into the jihadi crap.

You noticed, right, during his inauguration speech, that he said that America was made up of Christians and Muslims, Jews, and Hindus. In that order, even though the 1st and 3rd groups mentioned outnumber the 2nd and 4th groups by at least 100 to 1. And we went through the whole campaign season with the “Obama is not a muslim, don’t you dare even think that!” meme, and now suddenly he’s playing up his muslim roots. What, to sing out to these people that he’s an apostate, the son of an apostate? Smart move, Mr. Whizbang, when apostasy carries a death sentence in their minds. Real smart.

Obama’s predecessor, former President Bush, launched wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that prompted a massive backlash against the United States in the Muslim world. During his eight years in office, relations between the U.S. and Iran also grew increasingly tense — with the Bush administration often singling out Iran as the most dangerous in the region.

Yes, except that those wars were a reaction to the “massive backlash” that began in Munich in 1972 and continued unabated until September 11, 2001. And relations with Iran? Maybe if they weren’t such aggressive bastards, supporting all kinds of terrorism, lying through their broken teeth, and working as fast as they could to build nuke-u-lur weapons to execute their openly announced plan of wiping Israel off the map, then maybe Bush wouldn’t have to point out the obvious truth that they’re a bunch of dangerous rat bastards. And Obrotha wants to repair that error? What error?
The muzzies are still pissed off about the Crusades, m’kay? From 800 years ago. And they want revenge. How is it that the US is supposed to forget the 444 Days, not even 30 years ago? Surely we owe them a few nukes? That’s only fair, right?

Holy shiite. We are effin doomed. 

Posted by Drew458     on 01/27/2009 at 03:20 PM   
Filed Under: • Middle-East • Obama, The One • RoPMA •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - January 17, 2009

Britain to send warships to Gaza as Israel prepares for ceasefire.(oh damn. and leave hamas alive?)

OK, if there’s a ceasefire and things are quiet for a short time, and then terrorists from Gaza (Hamas) either carry out suicide attacks or else fire rockets into Israel, then maybe just maybe Israel will finally and at long last be able to go in and clean out that rats nest without the rest of the hand wringing world getting in their way.
Stay Tuned on this one.

Britain will send warships to the eastern Mediterranean to prevent arms being smuggled into the Gaza Strip after an Israeli ceasefire.

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent, and Damien McElroy in Jerusalem
Last Updated: 6:57PM GMT 17 Jan 2009

The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown also appeared to suggest that Britain might put people on the ground to help secure the crossings into Gaza.

“Germany, France and Great Britain have just sent a letter to Israel and Egypt to say they will do everything we can to prevent arms trafficking which is at the root of some of the problems,” Mr Brown said. “I believe that will help get a solution to this crisis.”

His declaration came as the Israeli government appeared poised to end its three-week assault on the Palestinian territory by adopting a unilateral ceasefire plan.

Intense fighting marked the closing hours of Operation Cast Lead as Israel sought to entrench its military superiority over the radical Islamic movement Hamas.

The Prime Minister said that he had been in talks with Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and with European leaders over the last few days.

“I believe there is general understanding that the appalling violence and the tragedies that have happened should come to an end as quickly as possible,” he said.

Israel’s defence minister, Ehud Barak, declared the country had achieved its goals for the 22-day conflict as he toured military units involved in the offensive.

“After three weeks of Operation Cast Lead, we are very close to reaching the goals and securing them through diplomatic agreements,” he said. “The defence forces must continue their operation and be ready for any development.”

Israel appeared to have come to its decision after reaching a bilateral agreement with America to establish a tough monitoring regime to stop weapons being smuggled to Hamas through tunnels under Gaza’s border with Egypt.

The Egyptian government has said the tunnels are mainly used for food while most arms are being smuggled into Gaza by sea.

Mr Brown said that if the ceasefire held, Britain would send in extra humanitarian aid. “We’re prepared to help move children, to take them out of the area so they can be treated elsewhere.”

Thousands of people gathered in Britain yesterday to demonstrate against the continuing Israeli attacks on Gaza.

While Israel has conceded that Hamas has not been wiped out by Operation Cast Lead, it is determined to deprive the Islamic group of any attempt to claim a victory.

Israeli officials said their decision to declare a ceasefire unilaterally would make Hamas responsible for any fresh clashes.

“It doesn’t matter what Hamas says now, its what they do,” said Mark Regev, an Israel government spokesman. “The world will see that after this Hamas will be responsible for what happens.”

The ceasefire announcement was expected to be made after a meeting of the security cabinet at the end of the Jewish Sabbath holiday.

The government’s key figures - Mr Barak, the prime minister Mr Olmert and foreign minister Tzipi Lipni - presented a united front to push for a cessation of the campaign.

However a top Hamas official vowed the group would continue its attacks on Israeli forces. Osama Hamdan, who is based in Lebanon, said: “If any vision does not achieve these things, then we will continue in the battle on the ground.”

CEASEFIRE

Posted by peiper     on 01/17/2009 at 03:57 PM   
Filed Under: • Israel • Middle-East • Terrorists •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Arab states are unmoved by plight of Hamas: most fear Muslim militancy.

Well, as for the UN commission on human rights, they and the entire UN can drop dead. Puffed up pompous dick heads who most likely can’t hold down a regular job in their own countries. Anyway .. you know they haven’t any brains, right?
I mean lets face it.  If those jerks had brains they’d have been born Americans.  Conservative ones. I only have to see those letters (you en) to see red.

So, is their commission going to try and arrest any Israelis?  Wouldn’t that be a sight to see. 

Red Cross can take a flying leap as well btw.  It’s war. Period. As long as terrorists hide among a civilian population, this is what you’re gonna get.

Why Arab states are unmoved by plight of Hamas: most fear Muslim militancy despite their dislike of Israel
In New York a United Nations human rights chief alleges Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza.

By Tim Butcher in Jerusalem
Last Updated: 6:57PM GMT 17 Jan 2009

In Geneva the normally silent International Committee of the Red Cross goes public to condemn the Jewish state. And in Kensington barriers have to be erected by police to stop protesters reaching the embassy of Israel.

By contrast, the reaction in the Arab world seems almost mute. There are a few rallies in countries such as Syria and Yemen where Israeli flags are burned but that happens after Friday prayers on high days and holidays anyway.

The Arab League splinters over which member state should host an emergency summit on Gaza. Even in the West Bank, just 40 miles from Gaza and home to 2.5 million fellow Palestinians, a call by militants for mass protest rallies dubbed “days of wrath” passes largely unheeded.

Why is it that, as Israel prepared to announce a cessation of offensive operations in Gaza, the Arab Street remained so apparently unmoved by its assault on the tiny territory?

The answer lies in the way many Arab regimes view militant Islam, as represented by Hamas. The West has come to view Muslim militancy as one of its biggest threats in the 21st century but for many Arab countries including Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia the same threat has existed for much longer.

Egypt’s secular, military leaders have been struggling with the Muslim Brotherhood since the 1920s. They have tried arresting leaders, invoked emergency powers to stop popular demonstrations and banned members of “the Brothers” from standing in elections. President Hosni Mubarak’s dictatorship remains in power in Egypt but militant Islam remains one of the most clear and present dangers to his rule.

The links between Hamas and “the Brothers” are strong, deep and long-standing. The Gaza Strip, which is the powerbase of Hamas, abuts Egypt and in the eyes of many the Palestinian movement is little more than the “North Sinai Branch” of the Muslim Brotherhood. So just as Cairo needs to keep “the Brothers” in check, it also has an interest in seeing Hamas weakened.

As Amotz Asa-El, an Israeli commentator, put it: ”Gullible Westerners can delude themselves that a Sharia (Islamic rule) state in Gaza will care only about itself and Israel. Mubarak evidently knows better than that.”

A similar sense of wariness towards mass political parties that invoke militancy in the name of Allah joins other diverse Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia and Syria.

The Saudi royal family might follow the conservative form of Islam known as Wahabism but the real strength of the regime stems from extensive interwoven family ties and their traditional links. Jihadist groups like al-Qa’eda represent as big a threat to this clan-based network of elites as they do to America and while Hamas and al-Qa’eda do not share the same jihadist ideology, the Saudi leadership is acutely wary of a mass movement such as Hamas that is motivated by Islam.

Even Syria, the country that sponsors Hamas and gives a home in Damascus to its politburo led by Khaled Meshaal, has learnt to be wary of militant Islam. Syria might provide Hamas with support today but it only does this as an indirect way of putting pressure on Israel, a country that Syria remains officially at war with and from which Damascus hopes one day to win back the Golan Heights lost to the Jewish state in 1967.

In 1982 Syria’s then president, Hafez al Assad, the father of the current president, Bashar al Assad, showed exactly how tolerant he would be towards his country’s Muslim Brotherhood. After the movement started to stage guerrilla attacks on Syrian state organs like the police force, he ordered his army to surround Hama, the town where the group had its de facto headquarters, and shell it with artillery. The death toll, mostly civilian, was never definitively established but some estimates put it as high as 20,000.

So while regimes across the Arab world have condemned the huge loss of civilian life caused by Israel’s military assault on Gaza there are few regimes rushing to offer solidarity with Hamas.

Over in the West Bank, the moderate Palestinian leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, the Fatah leader, reacted to the opening shots of operation Cast Lead with a very clear accusation that Hamas had brought the attack upon itself. He has since issued hand-wringing condemnations of incidents where Israel has caused mass loss of civilian life but the sense remains that Fatah is not entirely unhappy at Israel’s weakening of Hamas.

In the independence period when the Arab states were created in the early and mid 20th century on often-heard rallying cry was Pan-Arabism, the ideology that said all Arabs from the Atlantic coast of Morocco in the west to the Omani coastline in the east should unite as one.

If nothing else, the Arab reaction to the Gaza assault should serve as a reminder of the folly of believing in that.

TELEGRAPH

Posted by peiper     on 01/17/2009 at 03:31 PM   
Filed Under: • Middle-East • Paleswine • Terrorists •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - January 03, 2009

Honourable way Britain dealt with Irish terrorism.  Israel needs to do the same? This guy thinks so

British lesson about terrorism
By Peter Oborne
Daily Mail

Defenders of the Israeli government have spent the past week claiming that Britain would behave just as ruthlessly if it came under attack from, say, a neighbouring territory in the same way that Israel has been targeted by militants in Gaza.

This analogy is utterly false. As we all know, Britain was attacked over a period of 30 years by the IRA, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of innocent people and the near annihilation of the Cabinet.

But ministers never ordered the bombing of the Falls Road in Belfast, the town of Dundalk or any of the other Republican strongholds. The one exception, when indiscriminate deaths resulted during the events of Bloody Sunday in 1969, has been the subject of a public inquiry. On the contrary, the British reaction to terrorist attacks on our own soil has focused on sensible policing and the opening up of lines of communication with the enemy. The eventual outcome was a peaceful end to a terrible conflict.

Israel has a great deal to learn from the honourable way Britain dealt with Irish terrorism.

OBORNE

Well this was short sweet and to the point. I also think he’s nuts.  Brits finally talked to who? Or is that whom?
Murderous thugs who wantonly killed and maimed with bombs thrown into public places?  Killing ppl who did no more then question tactics of murder?
I’m a bit thick on this subject.  Hamas has a goal. It’s Jew killing, period.  Only my opinion but I really believe that if Israel caved in on everything Hamas says it wants, that still would not be enough. 

Would like to hear from Brits on the subject.  Lyndon? Chris? Anyone else?

Posted by peiper     on 01/03/2009 at 01:57 PM   
Filed Under: • Israel • Middle-East • Miscellaneous • Terrorists •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - October 21, 2008

One Hell of a Rumor

A bit of an update on that pirated Iranian freighter, the MV Deyanat. The one with the mystery cargo that somehow killed a whole bunch of pirates. And they all showed signs of massive radiation poisoning.

Once again I’m a week late to the party with this story. But by being late, I’ve had the time to think things through a little bit. And this story leads me to think that an awful large part of the story is not being told. And I don’t know why. Actually I do know why. If this rumor is true, it’s one of the largest casus bellis that ever was. But we aren’t geared up to fight such a war right now, and 7 years into the Global War On Terror we’ve done absolutely nothing to even start those gears turning. NOTHING. This ship may have been an act of attempted terrorism on a scale many times greater than 9/11. And for some unknown reason, such attempts - big or small - are always denied and swept under the rug. Nothing to see here, move along. I have to call this one a rumor because not one of the many blogs covering the story have a source link or even a name for the Russian person or agency that is quoted. And that makes me wonder.

The MV Iran Deyanat was brought to Eyl, a sleepy fishing village in northeastern Somalia, and was secured by a larger gang of pirates - 50 onboard and 50 onshore. The Somali pirates attempted to inspect the ship’s seven cargo containers but the containers were locked. The crew claimed that they did not have the “access codes” and could not open them. Pirates have stated they were unable to open the hold without causing extensive damage to the ship, and threatened to blow it up. The Iranian ship’s captain and the engineer were contacted by cell phone and demanded to disclose the actual nature of the mysterious “powdered cargo” but the captain and his officers were very evasive. Initially they said that the cargo contained “crude oil” but then claimed it contained “minerals.” Following this initial rebuff, the pirates broke open one of the containers and discovered it to be filled with packets of what they said was “a powdery fine sandy soil” ....

Within a period of three days, those pirates who had boarded the ship and opened the cargo container with its gritty sand-like contents, all developed strange health complications, to include serious skin burns and loss of hair. And within two weeks, sixteen of the pirates subsequently died, either on the ship or on shore.

News about the illness and the toxic cargo quickly reached Garowe, seat of the government for the autonomous region of Puntland. Angered over the wave of piracy and suspicious about the Iranian ship, authorities dispatched a delegation led by Minister of Minerals and Oil Hassan Allore Osman to investigate the situation on September 4. and they witnessed some of the deaths due to exposure to ‘something on that ship.’

Although American intelligence and government sources are maintaining a strictly observed silence, the same does not apply to the Russians and so it is that we learn the real story of the MV Iran Deyanat. She was an enormous floating dirty bomb, intended to detonate after exiting the Suez Canal at the eastern end of the Mediterranean and in proximity to the coastal cities of Israel. The entire cargo of radioactive sand, obtained by Iran from China (the latter buys desperately needed oil from the former) and sealed in containers which, when the charges on the ship are set off after the crew took to the boats, will be blasted high into the air where prevailing winds will push the highly dangerous and radioactive cloud ashore.

Given the large number of deaths from the questing Somali pirates, it should be obvious that when the contents of the ship’s locked cargo containers finally descended onto the land, the death toll would be enormous. This ship was nothing more nor less than the long-anticipated Iranian attack on Israel. Not the expected rocket attacks (which could be intercepted by the Israelis) but an even more deadly and unexpected attack by sea.. It is very interesting to note that the Israeli government has in the past few weeks, been loudly demanding that the United States establish a naval blockade of Iran.

Ok, so somebody had some inside info, and somebody else put one and one together and came up with the largest Number Two in recent history. And the grim humor here is that one bunch of pisslamic loonies screwed up the plans of another bunch of pisslamic loonies. But like self-detonating Achmed, falling down the stairs while wearing his suicide vest (BOOM!), we’ve seen this Three Stooges routine many times before. Nothing new there either.

Now comes the really scary part.

Somali pirates release Iranian ship

(source: Iranian news agency) Somali pirates have released an Iranian ship, Dianat, two months after being hijacked in the notorious Gulf of Aden, Iran’s shipping company says.

On August 21, the pirates seized the Iranian bulk carrier, carrying 42,500 tons of minerals and industrial products.

“The ship Dianat was released on Friday morning after seven weeks of negotiations with Somali pirates and all 29 members of the crew are safe,” Said public relations office of the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line (IRISL).

The ship is sailing towards international waters, IRISL added.

And no word at all from anyone that this ship has been seized, searched, boarded, scanned, or anything by western naval forces which are in the area in strength. We just let them go on their merry way? To where? Something doe not add up here. Not at all.

A bit of an update, just as disquieting:

The ship was released by Somali pirates on October 10, after a $250,000 cash bribe was paid by the U.S. Navy for her release. The MV Iran Denyant was taken into immediate custody of a joint naval taskforce present, to include Russian and French ships. Crew members had all been interrogated and all of them, deemed “uninformed of the ship’s course or cargo” were duly released to their diplomatic representatives. The ship was boarded, occupied and thoroughly searched by U.S. Navy specialists but a subsequent report on the suspicious cargo containers has been heavily classified.(‘Top Secret- Galactic’)

Russian sources indicate that the ship was carrying a “highly radioactive” cargo in specially built” containers and that this cargo was falsely listed in the ship’s manifest.

A “ransom” of $250,000 was eventually paid by the U.S., the ship boarded by the Navy, her cargo secured and the crew interrogated and eventually released and the ship was moved, under her own power and with an American crew, to the Muscat port where the U.S. Navy has docking rights. Her manifest was entirely false. The ship was not going to Rotterdam and there was no “German businessman” to take charge of the fictional cargo.

The entire matter has been shut up and you will never see any mention of it in any mainstream media. The matter is now considered closed. There still remain a number of questions that need to be answered. Both Israel, and at her behest, from Washington, there has been a great outpouring of animosity directed at Tehran, and many threats; for economic sanctions by the United States and overt attacks by Israel. In light of this past behavior, the most important question is why this incident, with its horrifying implications, has been studiously ignored, even shut down, by both countries.

I know that Iran is the enemy. You know that Iran is the enemy. We all know it. Why does our country hide from this reality? Ok fine. We buy their oil on the international market. So what? If the US comes right out and says Iran is an enemy nation, then we can’t do that? Fine. Send in the Dutch to get the oil, then we’ll buy their oil from the Dutch. It’s all the same thing. And it’s not like the US isn’t internationally forever guilty of hypocrisy anyway. So what’s one more charge of it, even if this time it turns out to be mostly true. We’d just be being practical, like the fwench.

Did the US actually seize and search this vessel, find a radioactive cargo and evidence of it being rigged as a bomb, and then let the ship go, either armed or disarmed? And then not tell us? Horry Clap. Like I said at the top, this is one hell of a rumor. The author of the above linked post claims to have a copy of the ship’s manifest. Publish it then. But really, what good would that do? How could it be accepted, since it’s a copy (whatever that means). A lying media and Fake But Accurate destroyed any faith in any information source. Truthiness or not - no document can ever again be believed to be real.

Posted by Drew458     on 10/21/2008 at 10:31 AM   
Filed Under: • Africa • Iran • Middle-East • Military • Pirates, aarrgh! • War On Terror •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - July 31, 2008

Allah Is Angry! No bread for you!

Syria resorted to the international wheat market last week for the first time in 15 years to compensate for one of its smallest harvests on record.
A commodities official told newswire al-Reuters the harvest would fall to around two million tonnes this year compared with an earlier estimate of three million tonnes and 4.1 million tonnes last year. It would be even less than the 2.5 million tonnes produced in 1999.

As a result, the government’s cereal division has issued a tender to buy 120,000 tonnes of soft wheat of any origin.
...
Syria resorted to the international wheat market last week for the first time in 15 years to compensate for one of its smallest harvests on record.  Drought and unstable weather hit Syria’s harvests in the last two years, undermining the country’s role as a food and farm commodities player in the Middle East.

Syria touts food security as a major achievement and the agriculture minister told government newspapers that Syria’s strategic wheat stocks would last until 2010.  But the country’s new import needs underline the economic challenges faced by the Baathist government, which has been under sanctions from Washington since 2004 for supporting anti-US groups in the Middle East.

The sanctions, which were expanded this year, do not ban US agricultural exports to Syria.

The wheat harvest is in across Syria and the Middle East and the situation looks grim. The most recent Syrian estimates place the harvest at 2 million metric tons - less than half the 4.1 million ton harvest of 2007, and the 2007 harvest was almost 1 million tons below a peak harvest.

The culprit is a devastating drought that has left soil dry and dusty. The early stages of the drought affected the 2007 harvest and it has now intensified and decimated the 2008 Syrian harvest. The strength of the drought increases eastward towards the Iraqi border. Everywhere here precipitation has been less than 50 % of normal. Even weeds are sparse in dry empty fields.

The drought is also affecting pasture lands putting pressure on the Bedouin and their sheep. In Syria both shepherds and farmers face an uncertain future. Irrigation has helped in some cases, but less that 50% of fields are irrigated and irrigation water often disappears in the dry winds. In addition, groundwater and reservoir supplies are under pressure, some reservoirs are now mere puddles compared to their former capacity. Even the mighty Euphrates is not immune to the drought, discharge has decreased and pumps run incessantly drawing water from the river. Syria has promised to aid Iraqi farmers with releases of water, but by the time the flow reaches the border the salt content has doubled.

Syria with its growing and increasingly urbanized population has only months of emergency wheat stores left and for the first time in 15 years is resorting to purchases on the international market - a market that is becoming increasingly expensive.

Similar declining harvests due to drought in Turkey, Lebanon, Iran are driving those countries to purchases on the international market, In Syria and throughout the Middle East, an old enemy, drought, is again challenging an ancient and troubled region.

SYRIA: Wheat Production in 2008/09 Declines Owing to Season-Long Drought

Syria, like its neighbor Iraq, has been experiencing a serious drought during the past 8 months. Drought stress in 2008/09, which was exacerbated by abnormally hot spring temperatures, is expected to cause significant losses to the nation’s winter grain crops. Wheat production is expected to decline 38 percent compared to last year, to the lowest level in the past seventeen years. As the chart at the right illustrates, wheat is the single most important food grain grown in Syria, and this year’s projected shortfall could lead to a significant drawdown in domestic stocks unless the country increases imports or the government raises procurement prices high enough to capture a larger proportion of the domestic crop this year.

Extremely low rainfall conditions have affected much of Syria during the 2008/09 winter grain growing period, with drought conditions increasing in severity as the season progressed. Total rainfall accumulations averaged between 15-30 percent of normal for most of the primary wheat producing areas, with the exception of western coastal regions (minor producing areas) which received more beneficial winter rains. This amounts to an average of about 2 inches or less total rainfall during the 8 months between September 2007 and April 2008 in the major wheat producing provinces.

As in Iraq, there was little to no measurable rainfall this year in the planting period from October-December in the primary wheat producing regions of northeastern Syria (see charts below). The governorates of Al Hasakah, Ar Raqqah, and Aleppo, which together account for 73 percent of total national wheat area and 65 percent of total production, were particularly affected by extremely low rainfall and poor planting conditions.

Posted by Drew458     on 07/31/2008 at 08:40 PM   
Filed Under: • Middle-East • War On Terror •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - June 28, 2008

MOST SENIOR BRIT POLITICALLY CORRECT COP, NAILED BY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ?

The MET, (metropolitian police, or Scotland Yard to us Ynks) is under fire and being accused of ,,, the BIG ‘ISM.’

This is funny too because this policeman, the top guy at the MET, prides himself on being Politically Correct.  I don’t say that, he does. Those are his words.
He has actually bragged in the past about just how politically correct he is.  And no surprise of course, it’s reflected a lot in his dept.

Meanwhile, and I’ll post the whole story if I can re-locate same, it is being seriously proposed that the law on equality needs some fine tuning here to make non whites and women a bit more equal. I could not make that up.  Two ppl looking for the same job, if both equal but one is minority or female and the other white,
screw the whitey and hire the minority.

Stay Tuned.

Sir Ian Blair and the civil war at the MetBy Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent

Page 1 of 3Last Updated: 11:16PM BST 27/06/2008

As a keen historian and Oxford academic, it would not surprise Britain’s most senior policeman, Sir Ian Blair, to find that his enemies are those he should be able to trust most.

And surely it is the ultimate irony that the man so often derided for what is perceived to be his excessive political correctness, should be embroiled in a new leadership crisis after being accused of racial discrimination by two Asian colleagues.

On Monday, a Commander with 20 years service at the Met said that the Commissioner had sidelined black and Asian detectives in order to surround himself with a “golden circle” of handpicked favourites.

Shabir Hussain told an employment tribunal that Sir Ian used his “very significant influence” to earmark his chosen officers for promotion at the cost of other candidates.

Two days later, Scotland Yard was sent into a panic when Tarique Ghaffur, the country’s most senior Asian officer and effectively Sir Ian’s “No.3”, quite unexpectedly became the latest and most powerful thorn in his side.

At a time when unity, loyalty and a common purpose with the chief are needed more than ever, there is civil war at the top of the Met, and the historical analogy holds.

When Brutus betrayed Julius Caesar, the conspirators attacked him in such numbers that they even wounded one another.

As one senior source revealed: “We are not sure if this is about race, so much as another battle of personalities. Sir Ian is a champion of diversity and yet here he is accused of racial discrimination - it just does not add up. But it does ask questions again about his leadership over a dysfunctional set of top officers, and how years of infighting have undermined the world’s most respected police force.”

In Sir Ian’s time as Commissioner, London has faced up to its most severe threat of terrorism since the days of the IRA, and a new epidemic of teenage gun and knife murders has blighted otherwise significant achievements on the streets of the capital. But it is the personal rivalries that most mark his reign as the country’s top policeman.

As the evidence has gathered against him, Sir Ian, who describes himself as a “bit of a limpet”, has become ever more determined to hang on.

But ominously, within some parts of Scotland Yard and beyond, there is no longer a rush to defend their embattled Commissioner. Instead, as in the last days of Tony Blair’s premiership, the focus now is on positioning for who comes next - and when.

At the start of the week, it was all looking rather good for the thin blue line as the country’s chief constables gathered in Liverpool for an annual conference involving high level discussions and long, late dinners.

On Wednesday morning, the news was all about new successes to root out teenage al-Qa’eda-inspired terrorists.

That afternoon, Scotland Yard issued a ‘feelgood’ news story about an east London shopkeeper who had handed in his entire stock of 300 lock-knives to police in a stand against knife crime.

Meanwhile at the Old Bailey, a Met murder team saw their hard work in solving a complicated domestic murder rewarded as the killers were sentenced to 20 years each.

(Meanwhile, a young mother is raped,strangled and finally stabbed to death by a miserable no good rotten “£!*^%!!, who was OUT ON BAIL for a previous murder and a looong record of violent crime.  Which pissed off the cops big time because the prosecution, they said, dropped the ball.)

But these positive headlines were soon overtaken; Sir Ian was back on the front pages, sending shock waves throughout Scotland Yard and beyond. Mr Ghaffur, it emerged, had drawn up legal documents claiming he has been humiliated, undermined and subjugated by the Metropolitan Police.

Lots more to this story here > http://tinyurl.com/3r7nww

Posted by Drew458     on 06/28/2008 at 07:35 AM   
Filed Under: • Middle-East •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - June 24, 2008

That Didn’t Take Very Long

Like you really expected anything different? Ha!

JERUSALEM - Police say three Palestinian rockets have hit southern Israel and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s office says the cease-fire that took effect last week has been broken.
Islamic Jihad militants in the Gaza Strip says they carried out the attack to avenge an Israeli military raid that killed one of their fighters in the West Bank early Tuesday. Israel’s national rescue service says two people were lightly wounded in the rocket barrage. The West Bank is not formally part of the truce. But Islamic Jihad says it “cannot keep its hands tied” when its “brothers” in the West Bank are being targeted.

However, the Gaza Strip’s ruling Hamas group says it remains committed to the truce.

The salvoes followed Israel’s killing overnight of two Palestinians, including an Islamic Jihad commander, in the West Bank city of Nablus.

It was the first fatal raid since a ceasefire took hold in the Gaza Strip last Thursday. Similar West Bank operations and Palestinian rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip led to the break down of previous truce deals.

Islamic Jihad had threatened to launch attacks inside Israel to avenge the death in Nablus of Tarek Juma Abu Ghali, whom the militant group described as one of its most senior commanders in the northern West Bank.

A second Palestinian, affiliated with the Islamist militant group Hamas, was also killed in the raid in Nablus.

“Calm in Gaza does not mean that we will sit in our seats waiting to be slaughtered one by one,” Islamic Jihad said in a statement. “This crime will not pass without punishment and the coming days will be a witness to that.”

Hamas, which claimed responsibility for a shooting attack that wounded three Israeli hikers near a West Bank settlement on Friday, also called on Palestinian groups in the West Bank to retaliate for the killings.

Why do they even bother anymore? What’s the point? These two tribes are dead set on killing each other; one out of hatred and jealousy, the other out of aggressive self defense. Why not just cut the BS and have at it, until only one side is left? Winner take all, and then shut the hell up. This has been going on longer than I’ve been alive. It never stops, it never ends. 

Posted by Drew458     on 06/24/2008 at 10:10 AM   
Filed Under: • Middle-East •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - March 02, 2008

Not worth blogging about

I want to link and post and discuss, but I won’t. It just isn’t worth it anymore.

• Hamas goons shoot dozens of Kasaam rockets into Israel every day for months, Israel does nothing
• Finally, the izzy’s get tired of this and open up some counter battery artillery on the rocket shooters, blowing the crap out of a bunch of them.  Since shooting off rockets into Israel is apparently some kind of Paleo-swinian block party event, several “innocent” bystanders get smeared. (um, how do you tell who the civilians are over there, when nobody wears a uniform and the whole damn bunch of them voted for a terrorist government which they all strongly believe in?)
• Finding out that war sucks when the other guy actually bothers to shoot back, the paleos scream “genocide”, “evil joooos”, “Bushhitler Rovian conspiracy”!!
• Palis take a detour on the “roadmap to peace” by suspending talks with Israel. They can talk all day when it’s just them keeping the fight going, but they get their noses in a twist when they get shot at. Go figure.
• UN members wear out their Nikes running to Turtle Bay to crank out yet another angry Post-It note condemning Isreal for “unequal force” retaliation
• Condi Rice wastes no time joining in

How many times can I run this story? It’s a darn broken record. Sure, just like all the beauty pagent queens at dinner time, I want “whirled peas” too, but it ain’t never gonna happen over there. In that case, I’ll get behind Israel 247.6%, and say “Bombs Away guys, whenever you want”. After all, “you’re either with us, or with the terrorists” and the palis are unquestionably terrorists. So fry ‘em.

Posted by Drew458     on 03/02/2008 at 07:13 PM   
Filed Under: • Middle-East • Terrorists •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - January 31, 2008

best job in the world

You get paid, you get free clothes, food, shelter, medical care. You get the most amazing high tech gee whiz toys to play with ... and sometimes you get to push the little red button:

via Yahoo News

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - A missile from a U.S. Predator drone struck a suspected terrorist safehouse in Pakistan and killed a top al-Qaida commander believed responsible for a brazen bomb attack during a visit last year by Vice President Dick Cheney to Afghanistan, a U.S. official said Thursday.

The strike that killed Abu Laith al-Libi was conducted Monday night or early Tuesday against a facility in Pakistan’s north Waziristan region, the lawless tribal area bordering Afghanistan, the official said on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the strike publicly.

An estimated 12 people were killed in the strike, including Arabs, Turkman from central Asia and local Taliban members, according to an intelligence official in the area who spoke on condition of anonymity. He said the bodies of those killed were badly mangled by the force of the explosion and it was difficult to identify them.

Achmed, pass me the tweezers, I’ve got another one! Um, I think.

The U.S. says al-Libi — whose name means “the Libyan” in Arabic — was likely behind the February 2007 bombing at the U.S. base at Bagram in Afghanistan during a visit by Cheney. The attack killed 23 people but Cheney was deep inside the sprawling base and was not hurt.

The Libyan? But, but I thought old Mohmar was sitting this one out? But I did hear a rumor last week that one of his sons was “going native”. Do ya think ...?

Pakistani officials denied any knowledge of al-Libi’s death. A Web site that frequently carries announcements from militant groups said al-Libi had been “martyred with a group of his brothers in the land of Muslim Pakistan” but gave no further details.

Residents near the Pakistani town of Mir Ali in North Waziristan said they could hear U.S. Predator drones flying in the area shortly before the explosion, which destroyed the compound.

That’s right raggies ... listen for the faint noise ... you won’t see it, but you’ll know it’s up there ... maybe looking at you right now, day or night ... wondering if you’re worth it. So the question you’ve got to ask yourself is - do I feel lucky today? Well, do ya?

Pakistani security officials said the four top operatives were believed killed in the strike. They included Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, who the U.S. Justice Department called an explosives and poisons expert; Abu Obaidah al-Masri, the al-Qaida chief responsible for attacks on U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan; and Abdul Rehman al-Maghribi, a Moroccan and relative of al-Zawahri, possibly his son-in-law. Some of the officials also said a fourth man, Khalid Habib, the al-Qaida operations chief along the Afghan-Pakistan border, was believed to be dead.

Rosenbach said militants who rise to No. 3 al-Qaida positions, like al-Libi, are often in charge of planning operations, exposing them to capture or death. Others he named included Mohammed Atef, who was killed, and Abu Faraj al-Libbi, who was captured.

”It has to be one of the most dangerous jobs on earth. They generally don’t last longer than a year — mostly because the al-Qaida chief of operations has a large ‘signature’ resulting from planning operations,” he said. ”Our intelligence has done an excellent job in tracking them down.”

Yeah baby, that’s what I’m talking about.

Posted by Drew458     on 01/31/2008 at 10:49 PM   
Filed Under: • Middle-East • Terrorists •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - January 30, 2008

Damn that Global Warming!

An Ultra-Orthodox Jew and Palestinian youths walk in the streets of East Jerusalem during a snow storm, 30 January 2008.

Apparently it snows a couple times during a normal winter in Jerusalem, but not in amounts like this. Here I am sitting in MD about an hour and a half from DC and we’ve only seen a cumulative total of about 2 in of snow so far this winter. NOT FAIR, I tell you! 

Posted by Severa     on 01/30/2008 at 09:16 AM   
Filed Under: • Middle-East •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(1)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - January 09, 2008

Explain this, please?

Hey guys, hope you all had a great holiday break. We went back home to KY/Southern IN. had a good time. Kids are spoiled as always, what else is new?
I’m gonna try to post more when I can come across some interesting stuff.
Today’s example is from the Washington Post (not posting it all, cause I’m not sure what are their excerpting rules) and it’s one of those when I read the headline, then skimmed it over to make doubly sure it didn’t come from the Onion or Scrappleface....

Arun Gandhi (Mahatma Ghandi’s grandson) - Jewish Identity Can’t Depend on Violence

Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust experience—a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends. The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. But, it seems to me the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.

Apparently, in the modern world, so determined to live by the bomb, this is an alien concept. You don’t befriend anyone, you dominate them. We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.

What the hell? Israelites get blown to bits for what, existing, and it’s THEIR fault? I don’t know what’s more of a barf alert on this piece, the content or the source of this crap.

Posted by Severa     on 01/09/2008 at 01:56 PM   
Filed Under: • Middle-East •  
• Comments (10) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - January 04, 2008

Remember the Lancet Study that had a widely disputed High Count of Iraq Casualties?

Data Bomb

By Neil Munro and Carl M. Cannon, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Friday, Jan. 4, 2008

Three weeks before the 2006 midterm elections gave Democrats control of Congress, a shocking study reported on the number of Iraqis who had died in the ongoing war. It bolstered criticism of President Bush and heightened the waves of dread—here and around the world—about the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

Published by The Lancet, a venerable British medical journal, the study [PDF] used previously accepted methods for calculating death rates to estimate the number of “excess” Iraqi deaths after the 2003 invasion at 426,369 to 793,663; the study said the most likely figure was near the middle of that range: 654,965. Almost 92 percent of the dead, the study asserted, were killed by bullets, bombs, or U.S. air strikes. This stunning toll was more than 10 times the number of deaths estimated by the Iraqi or U.S. governments, or by any human-rights group.

In December 2005, Bush had used a figure of 30,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. Iraq’s health ministry calculated that, based on death certificates, 50,000 Iraqis had died in the war through June 2006. A cautiously compiled database of media reports by a London-based anti-war group called Iraq Body Count confirmed at least 45,000 war dead during the same time period. These were all horrific numbers—but the death count in The Lancet’s study differed by an order of magnitude.

Queried in the Rose Garden on October 11, the day the Lancet article came out, Bush dismissed it. “I don’t consider it a credible report,” he replied. The Pentagon and top British government officials also rejected the study’s findings.

Such skepticism would not prove to be the rule.

CBS News called the report a “new and stunning measure of the havoc the American invasion unleashed in Iraq.” CNN began its report this way: “War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis, or more than 500 people a day, since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.” Within a week, the study had been featured in 25 news shows and 188 articles in U.S. newspapers and magazines, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times.

Editorials in many major newspapers cited the Lancet article as further evidence that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea, and the liberal blogosphere ridiculed Bush for his response. Prominent mainstream media outlets quoted various academics who vouched for the study’s methodology, including some who said they had reviewed the data before publication.

Within a few weeks a backlash rose, although the contrarian view of the study generated far less press attention than the Lancet article. In the ensuing year, numerous skeptics have identified various weaknesses with the study’s methodology and conclusions. Political blogs and academic journals have registered and responded to the objections in a debate that has been simultaneously arcane and predictable. The arguments are arcane because that is the nature of statistical analysis. They are predictable because that is the nature of today’s polarized political discourse, with liberals defending the Lancet study and conservatives contesting it.

How to explain the enormous discrepancy between The Lancet’s estimation of Iraqi war deaths and those from studies that used other methodologies? For starters, the authors of the Lancet study followed a model that ensured that even minor components of the data, when extrapolated over the whole population, would yield huge differences in the death toll. Skeptical commentators have highlighted questionable assumptions, implausible data, and ideological leanings among the authors, Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, and Les Roberts.

Some critics go so far as to suggest that the field research on which the study is based may have been performed improperly—or not at all. The key person involved in collecting the data—Lafta, the researcher who assembled the survey teams, deployed them throughout Iraq, and assembled the results—has refused to answer questions about his methods.

Some of these questions could be resolved if other researchers had access to the surveyors’ original field reports and response forms. The authors have released files of collated survey results but not the original survey reports, citing security concerns and the fact that some information was not recorded or preserved in the first place. This was a legitimate problem, and it underscored the difficulty of conducting research in a war zone.

Each death recorded by the Hopkins surveyors in 2006 extrapolated to 2,000 deaths in the Iraqi population.

Over the past several months, National Journal has examined the 2006 Lancet article, and another [PDF] that some of the same authors published in 2004; probed the problems of estimating wartime mortality rates; and interviewed the authors and their critics. NJ has identified potential problems with the research that fall under three broad headings: 1) possible flaws in the design and execution of the study; 2) a lack of transparency in the data, which has raised suspicions of fraud; and 3) political preferences held by the authors and the funders, which include George Soros’s Open Society Institute.

Posted by Infinity     on 01/04/2008 at 09:25 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Iraq • Middle-East • Military • Politics •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - January 02, 2008

Why wasn’t this article written by N.O.W.?

Writer ties Bhutto’s assassination to islam’s inherent sexism. Yeah, no kidding. Front page news in the NY Times? Not hardly. A new position paper put out by the Dems to show their militant drive to export full equality worldwide? Are you kidding? Is it a new viewpoint from all the Womyn’s Groups, like NOW? Put the pipe down Whitney, step away from the crack. That’s whack! No, today’s nicely written bit of awakening comes to us from The Australian, not even from the front pages but from the opinion column. Back to sleep my little sheeple, nothing to see here, move along.

Just to make sure the author hadn’t cribbed this from NOW, I went over to the NOW website, and there was not a single mention of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto that I could find. Not even under one of their main sections called Violence Against Women. Nope, NOW is far more concerned about forcing Wal-Mart to carry “emergency contraception”, boycotting Imus, and demanding “health care” for illegal immigrants and their kids.

Back in 2001 there were quite a number of articles that made the connection between terrorism and repressed sexuality in islamic societies. Other writers pointed out that woman hating was a root cause for the constant anger and frustration, the suicide bombings, the carswarms, etc.; an entire culture chained into an Atwone Fisher nightmare that repeats itself across endless generations. I believe they were all correct. Once again, “Everything I ever really needed to know about Islam I learned by reading Leon Uris’ The Haj more than 20 years ago”.

Today an author in Australia makes the same point, in the case of the Bhutto assassination. Will people ever listen? Will the left, ever so sooo concerned about Human Rights, realize they have just cause to also fight this implacable enemy? After all, it really is for the women, the gays, and The Children^tm.

by Pamela Bone | January 02, 2008

ARE women across the world mourning Benazir Bhutto? They should be.
...
Bhutto was murdered because to her enemies she was Westernised, a traitor to her culture and an American stooge. She was murdered because she had vowed to bring secularism and democracy to Pakistan. She was murdered because she was all these things, and a woman.

“I know I am a symbol of what the so-called jihadists, Taliban and al-Qa’ida, most fear,” she wrote in her autobiography, Daughter of the East. “I am a female political leader fighting to bring modernity, communication, education and technology to Pakistan.”

Yes, fear is the right word. The fear of women, of women’s freedom, and most of all, of women’s sexuality, runs through Islamism. It is a large part of Islamist hatred of the West. “The issue of women is not marginal,” writes the Dutch scholar Ian Buruma. “It lies at the heart of Islamic occidentalism (anti-Westernism).”

It is the “deep, ignored issue”, writes Paul Berman, author of Terror and Liberalism. Why, I wonder, is it mainly men who are making these points?

To call these warriors for God sexually repressed is to absurdly understate it.

f the fact that she was a Western-educated woman seeking power in lands they claim as their own was not reason enough, killing her meant they could disrupt the scheduled elections and maintain instability in Pakistan, which would allow them to continue using that country’s territory to train the increasing numbers of willing martyrs, funded by trillions of dollars from opium sales.

One wonders why the Western powers don’t make a co-ordinated effort to defoliate Afghanistan’s opium fields.

Well, I don’t want to fisk her, but this one is a huge mystery to me. Especially as opium growing was outlawed under the Taliban! Also, recall the story about the soldier and the saffron.

Could the murder of Bhutto be enough to wake up Western women to the fact that the war being waged by the Islamists is very much about them? Could the modern Left be persuaded that the people who killed Bhutto are the ones we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places across the world? Can we, in our niceness, stop telling ourselves they are justified in their hatred of us?

That’s my blog goal for 2008: to spread a nice big cup of WAKE THE HELL UP to as many folks as I can.

Posted by Drew458     on 01/02/2008 at 10:11 PM   
Filed Under: • Middle-East • RoPMA • Terrorists •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner