What the??? I can't believe it. The United Nothing actually came down on the side of Israel?

Now look for the predictable exhortations that the UN is under control of the Zionists, has become a puppet of Israel and America, etc.

Posted by: kj at November 24, 2005 11:54 AM

I'm pleasantly surprised. But that raid should be re-classified as pest control.

Posted by: Dumbo at November 24, 2005 12:00 PM

We have Ambassador Bolton to thank for that, I understand.

Posted by: Insomniac at November 24, 2005 12:01 PM

Keith, the US is threatening to pull funding from the UN if they don't start to pull their shit together. Maybe that's why they did this. We fund 22% of their annual budget.

Posted by: DCWatson at November 24, 2005 12:03 PM

The US have been threatening to pull funding for decades so I kinda doubt this is the reason. I'll give my credit to Mr. Bolton who in the near future, will establish himself to be one of the all time superstars in UN.

BOLTON ROCKS!

Posted by: William The Crusader at November 24, 2005 12:21 PM

Bolton may or may not be the ogre to his staff that he was depicted as being. At the moment, that is not the most important thing about him. The most important thing about him is that he has the right views and is doing the right things. He is a U.N. ambassador who is deeply contemptuous of the U.N., which has earned his contempt. He is not likely to be one of those, like Goldberg, or Moynihan, or Buckley, who thought it was only a question of anti-Israel bias. He knows, now, that the U.N.'s main problem is its takeover, in staff and in assumptions and in attitude, by an Islamintern International. It is that, and not merely the outward signs of the Lesser Jihad against Israel, that has to be dealt with. He still needs to learn much more about Islam, but all of his instincts, so far, are right.

One hears that Bolton was among those who thought the American forces should go into Iraq, smash the regime, destroy the major weapons, and promptly leave -- which is what it should have done. One more point in his favor. Not a believer in Grand Schemes, to Bring Democracy or End World Poverty. A husbander, not a squanderer, of resources, which is a good attitude to have at the very beginning of a long, possibly endless, campaign.

As for his moustache -- who among us dares to claim authority as arbiter elegantiarum? Not me.

Posted by: Hugh at November 24, 2005 1:51 PM

When Sharon voluntary gave up Gaza, many assumed he was turning into an appeaser, the minority claiming this was a good move for a more secure border and Sharon was drawing the preverbial line in the sand. Now that Sharon has left Likud and the constraints party membership may have inposed on his policies, the minority position appears to have been prescient.

Sharon rejects territorial concessions

The Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has rejected the "false" concept of "territory for peace", which underpinned Israel's negotiating strategy with the Palestinians up to and including the failed Camp David talks in 2000, one of his top strategists said.

On the first day of Mr Sharon's new breakaway party Eyal Arad, a senior strategic adviser, said he had substituted the idea of "security for independence" as his approach to future talks with the Palestinians.

Posted by: Lisa at November 24, 2005 3:40 PM

"arbiter elegantiarum" (from a post above)

Romans didn't fancy facial/body hair, as i'm sure you know. Thought it was the hallmark of barbarian "style.". Petronius would have turned away in disgust at the sight of Bolton's unsightly moustache. Islamists, with their long beards, would have given him the heebie-jeebies, and a good reason to exit this lowly world.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at November 24, 2005 4:03 PM

Wow, so the UN finally did something right, at least in word? Too little, too late. In a matter of days, the muslims will show them why they shouldn't be pupets of those darn Zionists, and they will fall back to their cowardly dhimmitude. This is just one attempt at trying to reconcile thier already shattered image in the realm of reality. They'll slip back into their "ignorance is bliss" stand, and pretend like the muslims aren't the problem, and that the scary bad things will just go away on their own if they ignore the problem long enough, and that peace and world safety and tolerance will just fall in their lap.

On another note, the early Christians all had beards and moustaches, which is predominantly why I wear mine that way. So did, and do, the Jews. Which is why muslims wear theirs that way, just something else they stole from the Judeo-Christian sphere.

Posted by: pastor_matt023 at November 24, 2005 7:42 PM

Hmm, hard to say if it was Bolton or not, but Hezbollah is obviously trying hard display its Hezbollocks to the Lebanese people because it's afraid to look impotent after the Syrian pullout. Now that Syria's had to pull back, Lebanese politics will take on more of a life of its own, which has Hezbollah worried. They need to thwart any forward movement by Lebanese politics in order to keep themselves relevant and to avoid being marginalized. After all, what good's a revolutionary without a revolution? Hezbollah is living on borrowed time, and they see the clock ticking in front of them.

Posted by: sanman at November 24, 2005 8:11 PM

Levitcus 19:27

Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

Posted by: Lisa at November 24, 2005 8:39 PM

Islamic leaders (in Australia) have released a statement condemning a muslim charity organisation for their supposed "deviant and perverse views" and "creating division and hatred". This could be taken initially as a positive step but the group they are condemning, al-ahbash or ICPA (islamic charitable projects association) has been called 'enemy to muslims, friends to christians' and seems to promote a more pluralistic and modern version of islam (initially based in Lebanon via Ethiopia). This of course is not mentioned in the article. Can anyone confirm the activies or provide resources for this group?

Are they any more groups trying to bring Islam into the current day and age that are being marginalised and condemned by so-called "moderates" without being questioned by the media?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17359816-29277,00.html

Posted by: AngryMuppet at November 24, 2005 9:39 PM

Here's an article from a former Indian intelligence chief on the Taliban's execution of the Indian kidnapee:

http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/nov/24raman.htm

Something to file for future reference - the Taliban's spiritual mentor is a Pakistani mullah/maulana named Fazlur Rehman. The point is that when the militants make trouble, go straight to their mullah. Or, in the case of the Hezbollah, it would probably be better to just knock him off. Fadlallah seems rather old and past his prime, but Nasrallah seems to be a viable target. Rather than respond to Hezbollah's provocative border strikes with further border clashes, I feel the time would be right to strike at the political leadership. And the reason for this is that in the wake of the Syrian withdrawal and the Hariri assassination fiasco, Lebanese politics has a chance to take a corrective course, provided that remaining flunkies like Hezbollah can be kept in check. Hezbollah's border attacks provide the opportunity for legitimate retaliatory decapitory action against Hezbollah leadership. The void in Lebanese politics left by the removal of Hezbollah leaders would allow more mainstream political forces to fill that place.

Posted by: sanman at November 25, 2005 12:36 AM