Gee,these Talebani Boys HATE PROGRESS don't they?? Even a road raises the ire of 'Holy Warriors. It's time U.S got tough with its ally Pakistan and bombed the Talban supply route back to the border every time there is an attack on Afghan soil.

Posted by: Morgane at February 2, 2006 2:16 PM

The [murdered] soldiers had been providing security for a road construction project

There is a definite pattern of jihadists destroying infrastructure in their countries. Telephone lines, electric powerlines, oil pipelines, refineries, hotels, and now roads (I guess the target list is a little slim in Afghanistan).

Perhaps they don't want to live in the 21st century, with all its vices and corruptions and temptations. They don't need electricity or money or paved roads to sit on a dirt floor in the dark and pray. All the modern conveniences are just a distraction away from Allah. The 6th century somehow feels more comfortable, more traditional, more like "home".

The only good point is that it was not U.S. soldiers who died this time trying to drag the Afghans kicking and screaming into the 21st century. I do feel sorrow for the Afghan soldiers who died, but it is their problem to solve (or not solve, we'll see), not ours.

Posted by: special_guest at February 2, 2006 2:20 PM

How does Infidel money, and how do Infidel lives, expended building roads or hospitals or schools in Afghanistan contribute to Infidel security? Roads that make the passage of Muslims, fanatical and less fanatical alike, do not improve security. The more that "progress" comes to the Muslim world, paid for and built by Infidels, the more advanced the technology available, the less the simple pious villager, whose Islam may consist purely of the five daily prayers, may be subject to the full contents of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, brought closer as that simple villager, and his village, become linked to a larger network. Is this to our advantage? Those schools? What will they teach? Is it certain that schools in Muslim countries will necessarily train up students less likely to carry out the anti-Infidel teachings of Islam -- or are they more likely to have the ability to better carry out those teachings, to be more effective. Much is made of the teaching of girls, but which girls? Leila Khaled, the PLO terrorist? Dr. Germs and Dr. Anthrax, who both took advantage of being able to study science in Great Britain, and returned to serve the pan-Arab fantasies of Saddam Hussein, pan-Arabism being merely a necessary subset, a step on the way, to pan-Islamism?

Those hospitals - what will they do if not increse the already exploding Muslim population, here and there and everywhere? Why should Infidels be building hospitals, or providing medical care to Muslims in the first place, when there will be no lasting gratitude, or nothing that cannot be overcome, and quite quickly, by the attitudes, atmospheris, and specific teachings of Islam?

It was perfectly right to smash Al Qaeda and the Taliban. And now that we are well aware of the danger, the camps of such people can be monitored. But prating, as some in Washington have been doing, about the "freely elected parliament" in Afghanistan, without noting how many of its members are Taliban supporters and sympathizers, and almost no one anything remotely like a true friend or admirer of the Infidel West, is hollow.

This fetish for finding a few Al-Qaeda leaders, which personalizes what is not a mtter of personalities or leaders, but of a doctrine, 1350 years, that is not subject to change, but that can only be contained by containing its followers, and by helping to create the conditions in which Muslims themselfves will have to make the connection between their penchant for political despotism, their failure to create modern economies or anything like work ethic despite the vast sums transferred to them, both from oil and from Infidel-supplied jizyah, the social failures, including the continued mistreatment of non-Muslims and in some cases non-Arab Muslim minorities, as well as all women, the intellectual failures, that are the result of the habit of mental submission and the discouraging, or even punishing, of free and skeptical inquiry -- these are the things that Islam, and not Infidel malevolence, explain, and that is something that Infidels first need to understand, and on every occasion to show comlaining Muslims that they understand this, and eventually, no longer able to continue with the blague and the nonsense, some Muslims will begin to make the connection too.

Posted by: Hugh at February 2, 2006 2:22 PM

Geez, Hugh, you don't have to agree with it but you at least have to get it. The Christian world wasn't much different from the Muslim world prior to the rennaisance. In an effort to spur a Muslim rennaisance, we're bringing them all these modern ideas (Democracy, paved roads, etc.).

Surely you can't advocate the same policy for Afghanistan that you do for Iraq (F**k it up and leave). The Soviets did that with Afghanistan and that's how we got the Taliban, bin Laden, AQ, and 9/11.

There ain't no oil in that country so our best hope is to rebuild it and hope we can get them on an economy that is not poppy-based.

Posted by: Big G In TX at February 2, 2006 3:46 PM

"In an effort to spur a Muslim rennaisance, we're bringing them all these modern ideas (Democracy, paved roads..."
-- from a posting above

We should not be doing anything that makes the Islamic world more powerful, or makes the message of Islam easier for dissemination even among Muslims. Radio and television transmitters, for example, that bring in Al-Jazeera and similar networks and channels, are not in the interests of Infidels. Road systems that make the communication between isolated villages easier are not in the interests of Infidels.

By the way, what Islamic "renaissance" are you talking about? Either the texts of Islam will continue to be received literally, or they will not. The very word "renaissance" implies a going back a rebirth, a re-discovery. The Humanists rediscovered classical antiquity, helped in part by the Byzantine scholars, and the manuscripts from classical antiquity, that they brought with them when they fled the Amuraths of the Seljuk Turks, and the Soleimans of the Ottoman Turks. What "renaissance" do you think could come about if we build roads in Afghanistan or provide potable water in Iraq? Don't the Arabs in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E., Oman, Libya, and other places already have all the conceivable money and foreign wage-slaves (so that they need not lift a finger, but could if they wished cultivate their own minds in the divine otium of their oil-funded existence) and leisure (the basis of culture) that they could conceivably need?

What Islamic "renaissance"? Looking back to, or reviving what great period in the past? Do you mean when there was still the presence and fructifying influence of, Christians and Jews in the hundred or two hundred or three hundred years just after the initial Muslm conquest? Yes, but as their numbers and influence dwindled, "High Islamic" (much of it being non-Islamic) civilization declined. Even those who were officiallly Muslims, but were only a generation or two from a non-Islamic culture, had as a consequence much more to offer.

Just as there are no Muslim Spinozas or Encyclopedistes, and no Muslim William Wilberforce, and no Muslim Elizabeth Cady Stanton, there never were, and cannnot be, a Muslim Poggio Bracciolini, or Marsilio Ficino, or Pico della Mirandola.

Islamic Renaissance indeed.

Posted by: Hugh at February 2, 2006 3:58 PM

Big G in IX

Reason 9/11 and al-Qaeda happened is that the Civil war in Afghanistan was allowed to end. Once Soviet occupation ended, the US stopped taking interest. Not bad in itself, but they should have fine tuned the response:

- Keep the Civil War between the different factions alive - Pashtun vs Hazara, Tajik vs Uzbeg, etc.
- WHenever any side looked dominant, arm their enemies until they got reduced, and keep funding the war

Now all this would assume that the US was well aware of what Islam was about. But in reality, who was? Maybe those in Israel, India, Ethiopia, Nigeria, et al worried about Islamic expansion, but certainly not anyone here. Why, even JihadWatch didn't exist before 9/11, so why use the 20/20 hindsight?

The historical habit of the US to compensate its enemies after wars, be it the War of 1812, Spanish-American War, Mexican War, WWII, et al needs to be deliberately overlooked in the case of Islamic countries. Overthrowing Mullah Omar and Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. Rebuilding their countries was not.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 2, 2006 4:20 PM

Big G in TX said:

Surely you can't advocate the same policy for Afghanistan that you do for Iraq (F**k it up and leave).

We overthrew the Taliban, which was terrorizing the nation. We overthrew Saddam Hussein, who was terrorizing the nation. How is that F'ing it Up?

It's not our responsibility if the Afghans want to bring back the Taliban and Baathists. We set them "right", and now leave them to their devices to build a nation as they see fit, which apparently entails a return to a terrorized nation under theocracy and Shar'ia law in both cases, no matter how our leaders try to sugar-coat it for our consumption.

This talk of "rennaisance" makes the assumption that the Islamic nations are just like us, except maybe like us several hundred years ago. No, they do not share our history, our values, our goals. Kabul in 2006 is not equivalent to Florence circa 1500. They are not following in our footsteps, they are making their own path for better or for worse, and I wish our leaders could learn to recognize that fact. They are not just like us, they are not just younger versions of ourselves. This idea of holding them down and jamming a bouquet of freedom-flowers down their throat is getting kind of disgusting.

Posted by: special_guest at February 2, 2006 4:46 PM

o/t
Report: Iran carried out nuke tests
Thu. 02 Feb 2006
CBS News

(CBS) TEHRAN, Iran - Experiments with high explosives, possibly linked to future nuclear weapons tests, were carried out as recently as 2003 in Iran, sources tell CBS News.

International Atomic Energy Agency analysts said they suspect the experiments took place at a huge military complex south of Tehran. Inspectors were permitted only one visit, and saw only part of the site, reports CBS News correspondent Sheila MacVicar.

Despite the lack of access, Sean McCormack, a U.S. State Department spokesman, said, "we are seeing more and more indications" that Iran's enrichment activities have the intended purpose of building a nuclear weapon"
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5596

Posted by: hammerhead at February 2, 2006 5:08 PM

http://i-cias.com/cgi-bin/eo-direct.pl?balfour_d.htm
Armenian Orthodox Church
Christian church of the Middle East, with Armenian members. There are about 1 million members of the church in Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Palestine, Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, with an additional 500,000 living in Western countries like the USA.
In Lebanon the Armenian Orthodox (see article on the term 'Orthodox') live in central parts of the country, in Iraq they mainly live in Baghdad. In Israel most live in Jerusalem. In Palestine, the few Armenian Orthodox live in Bethlehem and Ramallah.
The Armenian Orthodox Church is also called The Armenian Apostolic Church. This name is based upon the belief that Armenia was christianized by the two Apostles, Bartholomew and Thaddeus.
The Armenian Orthodox Church has one of the oldest traditions in the Christian world. It has not developed in a vacuum, there have been close contacts with the Syrian church from which it has received scriptures, liturgy and much of its theology.
The organization of the Armenian Orthodox Church is unusually complex. This is the result of much internal tension, in which opposing groups often founded new institutions and positions.
Today, the highest position is the Katholikos, a sort of archbishop. There are 2 Katholikos, the supreme one in Echmiadzin, Armenia, and the Katholikos of the Middle East, located in Antelias, Lebanon. Then there are 2 patriarchs, one in Istanbul, Turkey, and one in Jerusalem, Israel/Palestine. While the Katholikos of Echmiadzin is officially the head of the church, many believers support the Katholikos in Antelias.
HISTORY
Around 300: Christianity becomes state religion of Armenia, when the king is converted by Gregory the Illuminator. He establishes his headquarters in Echmiadzin (in modern Armenia).
4th century: Breaks from the Eastern Orthodox Church, and keeps close ties with the Syrian church. The Armenian church even uses the Syriac alphabet.
5th century: An Armenian alphabet is invented, and many scriptures are translated into Armenian.
Around 500: The Armenian Church rejects the conclusion of the Council of Chalcedon (in 451) which had defined Jesus as having 2 natures, divine and human, coexisting in one person.
485: The headquarters are moved to Dvin.
506: The Armenian Church adopts the Monophysite doctrine, that Jesus has only one, divine, nature.
7th century: The Georgian branch breaks away from the Armenian Church, and joins the Greek Orthodox Church. The Armenian continues its cooperation with the Coptic Church and Syrian Jacobite churches.
1293: The headquarters are moved to Sis (now Kozan, Turkey).
14th century: The patriarchate of Jerusalem is founded by local Christians.
1441: The headquarters of the church moves to Echmiadzin. Here a new institution was established, the "Katholikos of all Armenians".
1461: An Armenian patriarchate of Constantinople (now Istanbul) is created by sultan Mehmed 2, in order to have a leader of Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire, so that it would be easier to conduct politics towards his Armenian subjects.
1742: A part of the Armenian church breaks off to form the Armenian Catholic Church.
1915-18: The Armenians suffer heavy persecution from the Ottoman regime, when about 1 million are killed.
1930: The Katholikos of Sis moves to Antelias in Lebanon, as a way of seeking refuge from possible future oppression from Muslim rulers.

YEA I SEE IT WAS THE OTTOMAM WHO KILLED MILLIONS??
Then you have to look up who they were??

http://i-cias.com/cgi-bin/eo-direct.pl?balfour_d.htm
Ottoman Empire
Empire based around the Turkish sultan, lasting from 1300 till 1922, and covering at its peak (1683- 99) an area including today's Hungary, Yugoslavia, Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Macedonia, Greece, Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria, southern Ukraine, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia Iraq, Kuwait, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, eastern and western Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, eastern Yemen, Egypt, northern Libya, Tunisia, and northern Algeria.
The Ottoman Empire was not a Turkish empire as such, since Turks did not profit more from the benefits of the state than the peoples in non-Turkish territories. And even though the first sultans were Turkish, they generally married non-Turkish women, so the race of later sultans was not Turkish either.
The empire was through most of its period not a state in the modern sense of the word, but more of a military administration.
While the Ottoman Empire at its death bed had few friends, it still had offered its inhabitants many benefits through most of its existence. For Muslims it was considered as a defence against the non-Muslim world.

it is getting harder to find things that dosen't have the hand or pen of someone who is not afraid to print the truth??

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM AMEN

PS
Almost forgot??

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/breaking_news/13754785.htm
Posted on Tue, Jan. 31, 2006
6:40 am | Smelly milk probed at 2 S.C. schools
From Wire Reports
COLUMBIA -- Reports of smelly milk have launched an investigation into the milk cartons being used at two elementary schools in a South Carolina county south of Columbia.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control spokesman Thom Berry said the bad smell might have been caused by traces of gasoline and a chemical used in moth balls.
However, it appears as if no children drank the milk or got sick.
"It was so strong and distinct -- nobody wanted to drink it," Berry said.
A preliminary investigation has ruled out problems at the Coburg dairy in Charleston, where the milk was produced, or at a transfer point or on the delivery truck.

PSS
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183426,00.html
Avalanches Kill 36 in Afghanistan, Tajikistan
Wednesday, February 01, 2006

KABUL, Afghanistan — Avalanches in northeast Afghanistan have killed at least 18 people and destroyed dozens of homes in the past week, a provincial governor said Wednesday.
In neighboring Tajikistan, rescuers Wednesday recovered the bodies of six more avalanche victims, raising the death toll there to 18, an official said.
Afghan rescue teams have been unable to reach the villages in Badakhshan province because regional roads have been blocked by snow, Gov. Abdul Majid said.

AND HE FORGOT TO REMIND PEOPLE OF THE ISLAMIC TERRORIST TOO??

Heard one was dressed like a woman and when the Afgani soldier came to the car he[islamic terrorist dressed like a woman]blew himself up killing others NOW THAT JUST AINT RIGHT??

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE AGAINST THESE ISLAMIC MONSTERS WHO DRESS LIKE WOMEN TO KILL THEMSELVES AND OTHERS SAD SAD FOR THE MULSUM WORLD TO BE LED BY SUCH MONSTERS??

Oh but we are seeing the face of islam and it is ugly and just kills others and holds women hostage and makes them cry shame shame will they ever change or are they all like this I am beginging to think so!!

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=3&issue=20060131
Issues & Insights
A Political Icy-Hot Patch
Posted 1/31/2006
Leadership: The annual gathering of world bigwigs at Davos's World Economic Forum is known for its trendy forecasting. So naturally you wouldn't expect Bill Clinton to warn them of the coming ice age.
Ice age? Yup. Ice age.

YEP A NUT!!

Posted by: Catherine at February 2, 2006 6:09 PM

Somtimes It is tempting to give up..

To just say screw it let all the muslims kill each other....

This is why I have to admit that president Bush is a far greater man than i would ever be...

He realizes that only by improving the lives of the muslims (Muslims Lives Which by the way) other muslim nations dont care about ...

That only by giving people hope can there ever be a lasting peace....

You also notice the sheer lunacy of the Is,ao Faschist arguments...

They dont want the people to be able to choose..
So therefore they must
Destroy the Roads
Destroy the Schools
Destroy the Infidel who is spreading lies..

Even if that means a billion muslims will die that is a small consequence to pay to ensure Islam is not challenged...

What a sick and twisted religion Islam is..
To ensure its survival...
It will kill off its followers...

Posted by: jingoist at February 2, 2006 6:32 PM

Another $120 billion is to be requested for the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, in the Great State of the Union Speech, we were informed that while "we are addicted to oil" (this got big play everywhere) in the fine print we discover nothing about mass transit, nothing about railroads, nothing about mandatory fuel standards, nothing about increasing, incrementally, taxes on gasoline, nothing about putting a discriminatory tax on Saudi and other oil from Muslim lands so as to reflect the real cost of such oil to Infidels, a cost that should reflect, by incorporating in the final price, the cost of defending against the Jihad funded by those OPEC oil and gas revenues. Given that the oil market is large and fungible, it may not work to try to tax Saudi oil but, for example, exempt oil that is expensive to produce but comes from friendly producers -- i.e. the oil from the tar sands of Alberta. But there may be ways to enforce this, at least among all the oil-consuming nations, and those they trade heaviy with and can influence, in the Western and possibly even the non-Western world.

Total cost of Iraq and Afghanistan through this year: $400-450 billion. Like that figure? Think it has been good to cut back on aid to education, all those unnecessary scholarships that use up a few billion, or Social Security rises, that use up a few billion more, or those bridges that need repairing, or that reconstruction in Louisiana and Mississippi, or better and cheaper medical care -- why, put it all together and you might have some tens of billions. My god, what an expense.

We need that money to make sure that the wonderful people in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, have new schools, well-equipped hospitals, potable water everywhere, and of course a political system that is a thriving democracy, where everyone gets along and manages, in the space of just a few years, and despite the tenets, attitudes, atmospherics of Islam, the central theme, main guide, overwhelming presence in every aspect of their existence, to be the proud possessors of a thriving modern advanced democracy.

Like what you see? Think it's an inteligent application of men, money, materiel, attention? Do you?

What if that $400 billion had been entirely spent on nuclear energy plants, on solar and wind energy projects, on new kinds of cars that would run on less gasoline, on training people in installing solar collectors, in funding research on every possible new technology? What would have been the results if the government, instead of the extra $5 million that is to be expended on wind energy, had spent, say, $5 billion on installing wind farms? Or $20 billion on mass transit systems? Or $100 billion on building nuclear power plants, so that we could, like France, the eternal whipping-boy, receive 70% of our electricity from nuclear plants?

And what if those technological advances had then been distributed far and wide, to India and to China, so that they too could cut down on unwittingly supporting the Jihad through oil and gas purchases?

And what would have been the effect, with all this energy derived from nuclear plants, and solar collectors, and wind farms, on the danger of a possibly irreversible change in the earth's climate? Might we not, in saving ourselves from the menace of Jihad, by cutting the Saudis and the others down to size, and permanently, also have -- as a bonus mind you -- have helped to save the earth, and our posterity?

Not a bad thing to have done. But we didn't do it. And we are not doing it. Because our government is now run by people who never studied or thought much either about Islam or about Iraq -- or for that matter about the sources, complex nature, and slow gestation required to achieve real, as opposed to a gimcrack version, of democracy -- and even then, given the esssential opposition of the principle of Islam which unalterably opposes Believers to the idea that the sources of a government's legitimacy can be located in a vote, any vote, by mere humans, rather than in the immmutable word, the uncreated word, of Allah, set down forever in Qur'an, and supplemented, by the equally important sayings and deeds of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil.

We are being led by obstinate, ignorant squanderers. And no one dares to stop them. And those who oppose them do so on all the wrong matters (the business of electronic intercepts, that are largely unobjectionable), instead of on the right one -- the fiasco, the tarbaby, the sheer waste of the continuing ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Stop them. Deny them the money. Stand up and be counted. Democrats, Republicans -- just turn the damn spout off. The people in this country are sick of this waste. They know better than Bush and Rice the real menace of Islam, and they want funds directed at what will be most effective in weakening Islam, and a strategy that will work to weaken, divide, demoralize the forces of Islam, and to unify the West, including Europe which is now so obviously threatened by islamization that one would have to be quite remarkably unaware, quite remarkably focussed on the trivial, not to have noticed. Unfortunately, several of our most important leaders appear to have been equal to that task.

So ignore their prescriptions and their grand plans and their airy assumptions that "all people want freedom" and "democracy" will somehow heal Iraq, and in healing Iraq, diminish the threat of Islam. Not by one single bit. The only way to exploit the situation in Iraq to the Infidel advantage is to leave it, promptly. Don't leave equipment, don't promise money. Just get out. And let the sectarian and ethnic divisions work themselves out -- they were not caused by, nor exacerbated by, anything the Americans did, unless you count the overthrow of a Sunni Arab dictator. Yes, in that sense the overthrow of Saddam Hussein necessarily led to the loss of Sunni power, and its transfer to the Shi'a who make up 60% of the population, and also permitted the Kurds to reinforce their hard-won autonomy, that had been created by them, with help from an American air umbrella that protected them from Arab attack for a dozen years.

That's it.

It's now up to Congress. Not to Democrats, who have focussed on all the wrong questions and matters, and ignored the right questions and the important matters. But by all those, in either party, who at long last can no longer contain themselves, and must vote against continuing this incredible misallocation of resources.

The tarbaby is Iraq. Most of us are no longer quite so willing to continue in the role of Brer Bear. Not because we fail to understand the full scope of the menace from those engaged, actively or passively, in the Jihad, using all the instruments of that Jihad that go far beyond mere "terrorism" or even qital, combat. And some of us never were willing, even for a second, to play that role of Brer Bear.

No, some of us never were.

Posted by: Hugh at February 2, 2006 8:12 PM

Hugh is the voice of sanity in the desert of confusion!

Any help from Infidels to Mohammedan countries makes us weaker and them stronger. This is the coin that needs to drop in the western world, the trigger for the disengagement and the reversal of infiltration. We have to build up our militaries, we have to advance our technologies and we have to do whatever it takes to keep the Mohammedan hordes at arms length. Islam is what they want, let them have it!

Why should we build them roads, schools, hospitals? Unless they come to their senses and agree to build anything at all themselves it is not for us to built it and give it to them at the expense of our people.

They will blow it up again and again and again and blame us for 'interfering' with the 'laws of Allah'...

Remember Churchill: "You have them either at your feet or at your throat"- he would turn in his grave if he knew about the foolishness of England's politicians today.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 2, 2006 9:05 PM

Well Hugh it was the Democrats and the RINOs in the Senate who blocked drilling in ANWAR just before Christmas if I remember right?

And some have moved forward on the Wind thing some Farmers now have the big turbines just churning away and they get a little money for their efforts I heard 400$ for each one? But agin if I remember right some like Kennedy in Nantucket didn't want them of in the water would block their view or something?

India has built some new apartments that are useing solar power and at the end of the Year if any power is left will get some money?

These things you are talking about were in the Presidents plan which was given in 2002 1/2 and rejected by the Senate Democrats!

Me I can see useing some of the money for some of the things you talk about but it will not happen until it hurts Look at how even after last fall the price went up on fuel and the People demanded something be done but still the Senate LOL and voted against drilling in ANWAR

I was hopeing that the President could some how bypass the Senate and sign an EX Order and Drill away!!

I have heard the President for the last 4 yrs say we need to get off of Forgien oil!

I see that the Car manufactors have not been keepping up but now are producing dule fuel cars do you have one Hugh??

Untill it becomes painful like last fall people wont change last fall they did conserve and drive smaller cars and car pool but once gas came down they got back in their boats and big cars.

It is not only our polis fault it is the Peoples fault too!!!

But not making it easier to get off forgien oil is the Fault of the Senat Democrats and the RINOS!!

This ship does not turn on a dime but it does turn.

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM GIVE THE WORLD COURAGE TO STAND TOGETHER TO DESTROY THEM ONCE AND FOR ALL AMEN

PS
The oil thing sounds good ,but this war will not be won without a few bullets because the enemy has declared war.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=12117
Bush Offers Conservatives a Reminder
by Chuck Muth
Posted Feb 01, 2006
If nothing else, this year's State of the Union speech, known inside the beltway as SOTU, served as a reminder to many conservatives why they are so darned displeased with much of President Bush's domestic agenda, but also why they had absolutely no choice but assure his re-election over Sen. John F. Kerry in 2004.

Fear is a powerful motivator. And unhappy conservatives in 2004 harbored a double-dose it as they trudged to the ballot box. Fear that John Kerry would be in charge of the war on terrorists. And fear that John Kerry would get to appoint Supreme Court justices. Their fears were well-founded and their decision was affirmed in President Bush's speech Tuesday night.

First, the easy part: SCOTUS. Which is Washington-speak for Supreme Court of the United States. The nation's two newest justices were featured and highlighted during the speech. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are clearly superior, well-qualified selections who will not be inclined to "legislate from the bench."

Had John Kerry been elected president in 2004, nothing close to these intellectual and philosophical judges would have been allowed within 200 miles of Democrat's short-list. We need no other evidence of this than the fact that John Kerry declared a filibuster on Sam Alito -- from, as a White House spokesman noted with tongue planted firmly in cheek, a five-star ski resort in Switzerland. Because of George W's re-election, the Supreme Court has now decidedly moved a large step in the "right" direction. That alone was probably worth the vote in 2004.

But more importantly, there's the war on terrorists. After 9-11, there was a very real danger that the American public, absent any immediate or further attacks, would be lulled back into a sense of complacency about terrorism. And it has. Fortunately, the president and his administration have NOT. It would be very easy for George Bush, faced with both public apathy and public opposition, to "go wobbly" on the war on terrorists. To his great credit, he hasn't. And he doesn't apologize for it either. That's the primary reason conservatives sucked it up and cast their ballot for him in 2004. And it was the right decision.

Can you just imagine John Kerry saying the following things in his State of the Union address had he been elected POTUS, which is Washington-speak for President of the United States?

"If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone."

"There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat."

"Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning."

"The road to victory is the road that will take our troops home."

"(Decision to) decrease our troop levels (in Iraq)...will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, DC."

"Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy."

".(O)ur nation has only one option: We must keep our word, defeat our enemies, and stand behind the American military in its vital mission."

"If there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaeda, we want to know about it -- because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again."

Contrast those statements with John Kerry's professed belief that the United States should only use military force to protect its interests and citizens if it gets permission from the United Nations. Kerry is the king of "retreat and defeat" crowd. He's the head moonbat. Cut-and-run would have become official U.S. policy. The Kerry doctrine would be, to paraphrase a line by actor Jim Carey in the "Liar, Liar" movie, "Hit me again, bin Laden...and this time put some stank on it!"

So yes, this year's SOTU was a clear reminder of the wisdom of keeping Teresa Heinz's "squeeze" out of the Oval office. But it also reminded conservatives of what is driving them nuts with this White House.

Let's start with immigration.

Or I should say, ILLEGAL immigration. The "illegal" part is the key part. And while President Bush talked tough about tightening our borders, he continued to insist that any such legislation include an amnesty component, though he also continues to insist his "guest worker" program is NOT an amnesty program.

The White House doesn't have a tin ear on this issue; it's DEAF. And it isn't just conservatives who want stricter border control without the amnesty...er, guest worker program. Citizens from sea to shining sea of all political stripes simply won't support any kind of "guest worker" program until they FIRST see serious and dramatic changes in how the nation's immigration laws are enforced. Period. End of story.

READ THE WHOLE THING!!

BUT THE FRIST PART IS GOOD ENOUGH

Posted by: Catherine at February 2, 2006 9:57 PM

what will they do if not increse the already exploding Muslim population, here and there and everywhere? - posted above by Hugh

Indeed. ;)

Posted by: Shinoliite at February 2, 2006 11:45 PM

When I read stories like this it makes me more certain than ever that Islam is from Satan. What possible reason could there be to kill a road crew or blowup day laborers or pensioners in Iraq? That's totally crazy. There's a Bible prophecy in Revelations that says governments will turn on false religion and destroy it just before armaggeddon.I'm confident Islam will be the first religion destroyed.The world will be a better happier place once Islam is gone.

Posted by: Roxane at February 2, 2006 11:49 PM

Re: False religions in Roxane's post--

One of the striking features of Islam is how it provides an avenue whereby all the savage instincts of the human being can be excused and encouraged:

Protect only your own, give into and act on anger, enforce double standards that benefit you, screw everything that moves (made possible by polygamy, easy divorces, and marriages of convenience), and make your mark on the world the easy way: destroy other people's stuff. As long as it's for Islam (and therefore, one's self-aggrandizement, if one is Muslim), the ends justify the means.

Compare the Beatitudes, along with Jesus' own words on marriage and divorce.

Yeah, which one is the high road?

Posted by: Shinoliite at February 3, 2006 12:13 AM

Shinoliite refers to the "already exploding Muslim population" mentioned by Hugh.

(LOL) Thanks for the reminder that Muslims are exploding in more ways than one. If they would just do it by themselves. . .

Posted by: texan at February 3, 2006 2:21 AM

Hugh is a genius.

America gave Afghans 5 billion (I think) to fight the Soviets. I think that's something like $60,000 for every Soviet soldier killed. Which doesn't sound great value for money, personally. And how did the Afghans repay America? With 9/11.

In the 80's America was funding an Islamic uprising against a secular government, and by the early 21st century America was going cap in hand to the former USSR asking their permission to invade Afghanistan in order to depose an Islamist government in favour of a more secular regime.

And what was the launch pad for the invasion? Uzbekistan -part of the former USSR!!!! America was only able to do this with Russian permission.

Ahhhhh, the irony.

Anyway.......

What the hell are you people doing building roads in Afghanistan when your own major cities have no flood protection and there is no proper border fence with Mexico? Don't you have better things to do at home?

America is one great enigma.

Posted by: Timbo at February 3, 2006 5:25 AM

NEWSFLASH - cruise ship has dissapeared in the Red Sea, off the coast of Saudi.

lifeboats detected. no sign of the ship.

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_034052018.html

Posted by: archduke at February 3, 2006 5:35 AM

"There's a Bible prophecy in Revelations that says governments will turn on false religion and destroy it just before armaggeddon"

look, i'm an atheist, but i'm aware of the christian predications of an "anti christ". maybe mohammed actually was the "anti christ"? if so, how come this has been overlooked by christian theologians for hundreds of years?

Posted by: archduke at February 3, 2006 5:56 AM

Archduke - I wouldn't think too much about trying to match present times to Biblical prophecies, the depictions in Revelations have been attributed to the 1st and 2nd world wars, the formation of the EU, the growth of the EU etc - loads of world events. The basic answer is "Christ will come as a thief in the night" - it'll happen when it happens - just be prepared ;)

Posted by: mazztr at February 3, 2006 6:25 AM

Well, Hugh, you and I again are going to have to disagree. I believe radical ideaologies are like mold. If you keep them in the dark, they grow. If you expose them to the light of day, they wither and die.

I believe information about Islam should be shared with the West and vice versa. That way, the West will see in no uncertain terms exactly what we're dealing with here (this cartoon crap is a perfect example). Moreover, the Muslim world will become familiar with our culture and many will see it as better than theirs.

Also, it is quite apparent that you are more schooled on the rennaisance than I. My point was not that detailed, though. What I am saying is that, at one point in our history, Christianity was much like Islam is today: Entwined with government, actively supressing secular influences, and willing to kill in the name of God (The Inquisition and the "conversion by the sword" that happened in central and south America are a couple of examples). At some point, we grew out of that. We in the West need to drag the Muslims from point A to point B as it were.

Here's where you and I agree, though: If they won't moderate and have that "rennaisance," we need to take them out because back in the days when Christianity was killing in the name of God, they just had swords and sailing ships at their disposal. Today, there are WMDs, aircraft, and ballistic missiles. We can't afford to have someone with a "convert or die" ideaology running around armed with that kind of firepower.

Posted by: Big G In TX at February 3, 2006 9:54 AM

"We in the West need to drag the Muslims from point A to point B as it were."
-- from a posting above

No, we don't. And what's more, we can't. We have first to protect ourselves, and part of that protection is not beguiling ourselves with the idea that all those Muslims already behind enemy lines (as they define them, or have them defined for them by the belief-system of Islam) cannot be "integrated" into Western societies, cannot be "dragged" into Western ways and beliefs, and by deluding ourselves into that pleasant prospect, we delay the day of recognition, and of necessary reckoning.

Let's have as little to do with Dar al-Islam as possible. No aid, no jizyah, no reconstruction, no nothing. Buy the damned oil and gas if you must, and we must, for now, but work feverishly, spend and spend in order to get off that oil and diminish Muslim revenues that are undeserved, unmerited, and that allow Muslims to pursue, through the buying of mosques and madrasas and armies of Western hirelings (not the ordinary prostitutes, of whom there are also plenty being occupied, but rather the other kind -- the ex-diplomats, ex-journalists, all the businessmen angling to do favors so as to keep, or get, contracts that will allow them to "recycle" petrodollars, and all the others.

Demonstrated awareness on the part of the entire Infidel world that many of its inhabitants are now aware of what is contained in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, are aware of the history of Jihad-conquest and the subsequent subjugation of all non-Muslms (those that were permitted to survive, or to escape immediate forced conversion), treated as "dhimmis," a status of permanent degradation, humiliation, and physical insecurity, will do much to force Muslims to rethink their own belief-system, and its nature, and imperviousness to change.

And most important, by leaving the Muslim world to its own devices, by not constantly rescuing it, by not offering it all the fruits of Infidel civilization, including Western medicine, Western higher education, Western technology, and even Western armaments, we allow Muslims to overlook the intellectual disarray, the habit of mental submission, the hostility toward free and skeptical inquiry, that explain that very backwardness, in all areas, that Muslims at present simply manage to buy their way out of, with revenues derived from an accident of geology.

We should reduce contacts, which always will end up in fooling the West and delaying the date, for Muslims, of their own need to locate the source of their despotisms and political hysteria, their inshallah-fatalism that is so inimcable to economic development even of the most modest kind, their mistreatment of all non-Muslims and all women within their societies, their intellectual paralysis that for more than a thousand years -- since the period when non-Muslims, or people a generation or two away from non-Muslim ancestors, continued to fructify what are now called, quite inaccurately, "Islamic" civilizations.

No, no dragging people into this or that realization is possible. That is the mad error of the Iraq Tarbaby. The outward form of democracy, expressed merely as purple-thumbed voting as others tell the inconsequential individuals how to vote (SCIRI or Da'wa) or not to (as with the Sunnis), means much less than Bush and Rice think, but they cannot allow themselves to think too much, for the full fiasco would then become apparent, and this is something they seem incapable of allowing themselves, or permitting others, to realize.

Posted by: Hugh at February 3, 2006 12:21 PM

Dear Hugh
I liked what you said. I was reading a book by some tourist to Iran in the 1930s (By Camel & Car to the Peacock Throne). He reported how some missionary was doing medical work there, but wouldn't preach the gospel because of their hostility to anything Christian.
My thoughts were exactly like yours when I read that.

Posted by: dococ at February 4, 2006 8:31 PM