tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-314562552024-02-03T10:58:18.319-05:00The Anti-Sine[?] ManEvery week I write some additional words to those of the Sine Man. I have no traffic in front of my house. I cannot post a hand-painted sign. No one will read it.antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-35372191990253890382007-02-25T16:45:00.000-05:002007-02-25T16:49:03.519-05:00Interesting Statistics<a href="http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/02/another-grim-milestone-watch-in-war-on.html">Another Grim Milestone</a>...<br /><br /><blockquote>US losses in Iraq and Afghanistan today (3525) are approaching the half way mark (3750) of the military losses during the Clinton years.</blockquote><br /><p>It's quite an expansive post with sources and history. Very worthwhile.</p>antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-65382462239335421832007-02-06T21:56:00.000-05:002007-02-06T21:59:41.805-05:00What? No Outrage from the Editors?<p>John Burns, foreign correpondent for the NYT, offers <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Nzc5YTcxYWIwMmQ1Y2IzY2NlZmU1ZmI5YzZlN2Q0Mjc=" target="_blank">his opinion on Iraq</a>.</p><br /><br /><blockquote>And my guess is that history will say that the forces that we liberated by invading Iraq were so powerful and so uncontrollable that virtually nothing the United States might have done, except to impose its own repressive state with half a million troops, which might have had to last ten years or more, nothing we could have done would have effectively prevented this disintegration that is now occurring.</blockquote><br /><p>No outrage from the editors at the NYT??? I mean, sure, he didn't say the US could win but, he didn't Blame Bush.<br /><br />Previously: <a href="http://antisineman.blogspot.com/2007/02/post-pretense.html" target="_blank">Post-Pretense</a></p>antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-90094762620079049172007-02-05T23:15:00.000-05:002007-02-05T23:17:12.058-05:00NY Post: A Ban on 'Victory'<p>What timing: <a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/02042007/postopinion/editorials/a_ban_on_victory_editorials_.htm" target="_blank">NY Post - A Ban on 'Victory'</a></p><br /><br /><blockquote>Consider correspondent Chris Hedges' infamous 2003 commencement address at Rockford College, where he charged that Americans were becoming "tyrants to others weaker than ourselves," and linked Bush to Vladimir Putin and Ariel Sharon - whom he said were "carrying out acts of gratuitous and senseless violence." <br /><br />Nor, as the Web site Timeswatch.org points out, was there any reprimand of correspondent Neil McFarquhar, who last summer also appeared on Charlie Rose's show and at tacked the Bush administration for "rush ing bombs to this part of the world." <br /><br />"It just erodes and erodes and erodes America's reputation," said McFarquhar - who, unlike Gordon, did not even offer the disclaimer that his was "a purely personal view." <br /><br />From the Times, silence.</blockquote><br /><p>Sigh</p>antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-91553237041741379522007-02-04T21:30:00.000-05:002007-02-04T21:59:01.943-05:00Post-Pretense<p>Some of us have, apparently, moved beyond the pretense of supporting the troops but not the mission.<br /><br />William Arkin (via his WaPo blog):<br /><a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/01/the_troops_also_need_to_suppor.html" target="_blank">The Troops Also Need to Support the American People</a><br /><a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/02/the_arrogant_and_intolerant_sp.html" target="_blank">The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out</a><br /><a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/02/post_11.html" target="_blank">A Note to My Readers on Supporting the Troops</a><br /><br />Arkin, the Greenpeace activist turned Military affairs correspondent claims, among <em>many</em> other things, troops receive "obscene amenities", are mercenaries, and owe us. Anybody who disagrees with him is apparently arrogant and intolerant. And now, in his last post, he didn't really mean it we're to believe.<br /><br />But others, like Kos, buy it "lock, stock, and barrel" so-to-speak.<br /><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/4/94215/72624" target="_blank">Arkin Was Right - We Do Have a Mercenary Army and They Do Owe Us!</a><br /><br />Interestingly, with Arkin expressing what is clearly a personal view...one has to wonder what the folks at WaPo think about all this. Especially in light of recent events over at the NYT regarding Michael Gordon. What that about? <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/opinion/28pubed.html?ex=157680000&en=0ee7fc662e481ca7&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink" target="_blank">Michael Gordon was asked for his opinion</a>. Unlike William Arkin.<br /></p><br /><blockquote>Drawing a Line<br /><br />Times editors have carefully made clear their disapproval of the expression of a personal opinion about Iraq on national television by the paper’s chief military correspondent, Michael Gordon.<br /><br />The rumored military buildup in Iraq was a hot topic on the Jan. 8 “Charlie Rose” show, and the host asked Mr. Gordon if he believed “victory is within our grasp.” The transcript of Mr. Gordon’s response, which he stressed was “purely personal,” includes these comments:<br /><br />“So I think, you know, as a purely personal view, I think it’s worth it [sic] one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we’ve never really tried to win. We’ve simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think that if it’s done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something.” <br /><br />I raised reader concerns about Mr. Gordon’s voicing of personal opinions with top editors, and received a response from Philip Taubman, the Washington bureau chief. After noting that Mr. Gordon has “long been mindful and respectful of the line between analysis and opinion in his television appearances,” Mr. Taubman went on to draw the line in this case.<br /><br />“I would agree with you that he stepped over the line on the ‘Charlie Rose’ show. I have discussed the appearances with Michael and I am satisfied that the comments on the Rose show were an aberration. They were a poorly worded shorthand for some analytical points about the military and political situation in Baghdad that Michael has made in the newspaper in a more nuanced and unopinionated way. He agrees his comments on the show went too far.” <br /><br />It’s a line drawn correctly by Mr. Taubman — and accepted honorably by Mr. Gordon<br /></blockquote><br /><p>I haven't seen anything in the NYT from Gordon since this. Disturbing to say the least.</p>antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-81641432562211954772007-01-31T20:09:00.000-05:002007-01-31T20:18:51.021-05:00random death?Bin Laden's brother-in-law was killed the other day in a supposed robbery/murder. Uh huh.<br /><br />Bill Roggio has some <a href="http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/01/mohammed_jamal_khali.php" target="_blank">detailed information</a> on the man's background. Describing him as 'bin Landen's brother-in-law' is entirely innaccurate. More like 'ranking financial and operational Al Qaeda member'.<br /><br />Along with all the detailed information Mr. Roggio drops a name, <em>Task Force 145</em>. He also highlights the fact that all of Mr. Khalifa's belongings, including his laptop, were taken.<br /><br />And after detailing the failed attempts to imprison Mr. Khalifa in 3 countries, Bill R. concludes by stating, simply, "Khalifa cannot escape the grave."<br /><br />A random death?antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-20490688938321359132007-01-29T18:24:00.000-05:002007-01-29T19:54:05.671-05:00Basic Truths<p>With President Bush announcing 21,500 additional troops being sent to Iraq in a bid to quell violence in Baghdad emotions on both sides of the argument as to whether or not this is a good idea have run high.<br /><br />In a piece in the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/28/AR2007012800922.html" target="_blank">Washington Post today Stephen Hadley</a> speaks a basic truth:</p><br /><blockquote>The Baker-Hamilton report explained that failure in Iraq could have severe consequences for our national interests in a critical region and for our national security here at home.</blockquote><br /><p>For example, for the Arab Mujahideen, led by Bin Laden, who fought the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, their victory was of monumental importance in terms of legitimacy, recruiting, obtaining funding and, other forms of immaterial support. Further, when the USSR began its collaps about a year later, it lent further support to the Arab Mujahideen narrative. Not only did they, with Allah's help, repel the infidel invader, this led, directly, to the collapse of the atheist communist state.<br /><br />This narrative drives much of Al Qaeda's ideology today.<br /><br />Additionally, Mr. Hadley states another basic truth:</p><br /><blockquote>It [the ISG] said: "We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad . . . if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective." Our military commanders, and the president, have determined just that.</blockquote><br /><p>The President's new strategy is in accordance with views espoused by the much touted ISG.<br /><br />Nevertheless, The US Senate, following the lead of some of majority members, has been harranging about a non-binding resolution opposing the strategy. A strategy which, according to the author of the Army/Marine counter-insrugency manual, contributor to the ISG report, and new commander of MNF-Iraq, requires the additional troops to succeed and is undermined by the resolution which would, in Gen. Petraeus' words, "give the enemy some comfort". Gen. Petraeus, was also unanimously confirmed by the same Senate.<br /><br />Go Figure.</p>antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-78325506869215272802007-01-14T17:25:00.000-05:002007-01-14T17:50:47.950-05:00From under a rock<p>It's not all that often that Dick Cheney comes out and speaks about something. So, when he does, the subject is likely important and, what he says is probably worth listening to. The question is, is he right?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/070114185917.d6v75pf8.html" target="_blank">Cheney says critics of new US Iraq plan play into hands of Bin Laden</a> (AFP - 14/01/2007)</p><br /><blockquote>WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Vice-President Dick Cheney accused critics of the administration's new strategy in Iraq of playing into the hands of Osama bin Laden and global terrorism.</blockquote><br /><p>Oh my, this is going to be a fun article.</p><br /><blockquote>Cheney said withdrawing forces from Iraq rather than the troop "surge" announced this week by President George W. Bush would be "the most dangerous blunder" possible.</blockquote><br /><p>Hmm. Well, that doesn't seem to be something one could agree with on face value. But, that's just his assertion, he still needs to back it up. And he better.</p><br /><blockquote>"They are convinced that the current debate in the Congress, that the election campaign last fall, all of that is evidence that they're right when they say the United States doesn't have the stomach for the fight in this war against terror," he said.<br /><br />"Bin Laden doesn't think he can beat us. He believes he can force us to quit," Cheney said, citing US military setbacks in Lebanon and Somalia that led to US withdrawals from those countries.<br /><br />"He believes after Lebanon and Somalia, the United States doesn't have the stomach for a long war and Iraq is the current central battlefield in that war, and it's essential we win there and we will win there," he said.<br /><br />"They're convinced that the United States will, in fact, pack it in and go home if they just kill enough of us," he said.</blockquote><br /><p>In this point, according to many analysts and authors Cheney is 100% correct. For example, Michael Scheuer (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer" target="_blank">wikipedia</a>). In his works, Scheuer documents, using Bin Laden's own words, how he sees the U.S. as a paper tiger or, a weak horse. Scheuer also shows how Bin Laden is attempting to portray himself as the strong horse to attract supporters.<br /><br />So, by looking at the issue of how the conflict in Iraq is resolved from the perspective of the Al Qaeda narrative, Dick Cheney would appear to be spot on.</p>antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-67264433968770450022007-01-13T16:24:00.000-05:002007-01-13T17:04:05.793-05:00James Woolsey for...<p>President! Or, Secretary of State! Or, Director of National Intelligence or, something useful! I've read some of James Woolsey's public writing (<a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2002/021116-ww4.htm" target="_blank">on the state of the world</a>, and <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009464" target="_blank">on oil</a>) and that prompted me to watch meeting of the <a href="http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov" target="_blank">House Committee for Foreign Affairs</a> (January 11, 2007, Next Steps in the Iran Crisis) on C-SPAN yesterday during which he testified.<br /><br />In his <a href="http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/110/woo011107.htm" target="_blank">prepared statement</a> he provides the committee members with the type of analysis that our brilliant media could never bring itself to do:</p><br /><blockquote> The regime’s threats to destroy Israel and, on a longer time-scale, the United States are part and parcel of its essence. Recent official statements to this effect represent not a shift in policy – Iran’s regime has defined itself by its fundamental hostility to the West, and especially Israel and the US, for nearly three decades (“Great Satan” etc.) – but rather a greater degree of public and explicit candor. <br /><br /> This fundamental hostility is now seasoned by a more pointed expression of the views of the circle of fanatic believers around Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi in Qum, including Ahmadinejad himself. This group expressly promotes the idea that large-scale killing should be welcomed because it will summon the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi, which in turn will lead to the end of the world. Recently the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting web site has begun to assert that the world is in its “last days” and that, as the world ends, Jesus will appear with the Mahdi, as a Shi’ite and as his lieutenant. This rhetoric is not limited to a small circle. Rafsanjani, e.g., has utilized it as well. To us, of course, it sounds bizarre – but we ignore such ideology at our peril. As Enders Wimbush points out in the current Weekly Standard “Iran’s leadership has spoken of its willingness – in their words – to “martyr” the entire Iranian nation, and it has even expressed he desirability of doing so as a way to accelerate an inevitable, apocalyptic collision between Islam and the West . . . .” Those in decision-making roles in the Iranian regime who believe such things are certainly not going to be very inclined to negotiate in good faith with us about Iraq, their nuclear program, or indeed anything at all. Even deterrence is questionable, much less arms control agreements.</blockquote><br /><p>I can't find a record of the question and answer that followed just yet. One member rattled off a litany of grievances worthy of Michael Moore against American policy toward Iran and wondered, "why shouldn't they distrust us? hate us?"<br /><br />Mr. Woolsey replied that the Iranian leadership does not want to destroy us because of what we've done wrong but, because of what we've done right. He attributes this insight to a conversation with a DC cab driver just after 9/11. In otherwords, our affront to their ideology. It wouldn't matter what we'd done in the past, the end result would not differ. Thanks a bunch Jimmy!<br /><br />In general, he advocates a policy of non-violent regime change modeled on Cold War efforts in Eastern Europe. This seems like they type of policy everyone could get behind.<br /><br />Later, he addressed the role of oil in international [in]security (an issue he speaks to at length in the article I link to above).</p><br /><blockquote>And finally, by moving toward technology that can reduce substantially the role of oil in our own economy and that of the world’s other oil-importing states, we can help deprive oil exporters – Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, and others – of much of their leverage in international affairs. As Tom Friedman of the NY Times puts it, the price of oil and the path of freedom run in opposite directions. The attached op-ed piece of mine, published in the Wall Street Journal December 30, notes the possibility of plug-in hybrid vehicles soon making it possible for consumers to get around 500 miles per gallon of gasoline (since almost all propulsion would come from much less expensive electricity and renewable fuels, the latter mixed with only 15 per cent gasoline). This may seem an extraordinary number. But when General Motors last Sunday joined Toyota in the plug-in hybrid race to market and unveiled its new Chevrolet Volt, one of its executives used a figure of 525 miles per (gasoline) gallon. Five hundred and twenty-five miles per (gasoline) gallon should give Minister Nejad-Hosseinian and his colleagues a bracing degree of concern.</blockquote><br /><p><em>Surely</em> everyone can get behind this type of policy as well.<br /><br /><strong>James Woolsey for President! Or, Secretary of State! Or, Director of National Intelligence or, something useful!</strong></p>antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-16706797105995787802007-01-12T17:27:00.000-05:002007-01-12T18:11:29.721-05:00Terribly Misguided<p>More crazy protesters courtesy of <a href="http://www.zombietime.com" target="_blank">zombietime</a>. This time via Little Green Footballs: <a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23974&only" target="_blank">Anti-War Antisemitic Moonbats Take to the Streets</a></p><br /><br /><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/127/355217610_2b813b8efa.jpg" width="384" height="400" alt="IMG_1729" /><br /><br /><p>On the face of it, this poster seems represent a legitimate criticism of President Bush sitting in the Oval Office ordering American troops into Baghdad to fight insurgents and terrorists. If he's so eager to defeat them, let him do some of the fighting.<br /><br />However, if you think about it...<br /><br />The sign seems to blur the line between a civilian leader and a member of the military. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_control_of_the_military" target="_blank">Civilian control of the military</a> is a critical component of any liberal democracy (which includes our form of government):</p><br /><br /><blockquote>A state's effective monopoly of force is an issue of great concern for all national leaders, who must rely on the military to supply this aspect of their authority. The danger of granting military leaders full autonomy or sovereignty is that they may ignore or supplant the democratic decision-making process, and use physical force, or the threat of physical force, to achieve their preferred outcomes; in the worse cases, this may lead to a coup or military dictatorship. A related danger is the use of the military to crush domestic political opposition through intimidation or sheer physical force, interfering with the ability to have free and fair elections, a key part of the democratic process.</blockquote><br /><p>Even beyond the high-minded doctrinal discussion, there's a much more practical one that speaks to the issue of moral equivalence and legitimacy. I don't want to get too far into that because it's a tad off topic but, when's the last time you saw the US Military conducting a parade carrying a poster of Bush? Or, <em>any</em> current or former president, civilian leader, or general? Now, for example, how about the Iranian military? Or, Hezbollah?<br /><br />This is not an insignificant point.<br /><br />Another possibility is that the protester is merely so opposed to the policy that he wants to force President Bush to personally implement it in place of others. Afterall, we know that at least some, particularly Democrats, favor a draft. Forcing political <strike>prisoners</strike> opponents to engage in warfare on behalf of the state is not new. Especially on <em>the left</em>. You should read up on the history of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_battalion" target="_blank">penal military units</a> that drew many of their ranks from the pool of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag" target="_blank">gulag inmates</a>. You should note, in particular:</p><br /><blockquote>While these camps housed criminals of all types, the Gulag system has become primarily known as a place for political prisoners and as a mechanism for repressing political opposition to the Soviet state.</blockquote><br /><p>So, to me, that sign and the sentiment behind it, represents something to be actively resisted. It is far from democratic in thinking. Especially so when compared to today's civilian led all-volunteer force.</p>antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-34006863884727871542007-01-11T20:21:00.000-05:002007-01-11T20:43:48.436-05:00Beach ImpeachCourtesy of the indomitable Zombietime (<a href="http://www.zombietime.com" target="_blank">http://www.zombietime.com</a>), a recap, of sorts, of a protest, of sorts, in <a href="http://www.zombietime.com/beach_impeach/" target="_blank">San Francisco recently</a>.<br /><br />Note: All images are courtesy of http://www.zombietime.com and have been reproduced here for bandwidth purposes only (so as not to hijack zombietime's bandwidth)<br /><br /><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/149/354384705_97aa542f7d_m.jpg" /><br /><br />Some very interesting people were in attendance sporting some very uh, <em>special</em> hats.<br /><br /><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/150/354384783_6ee525210d_m.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/354384658_b54e359981_m.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/153/354384875_0520681e00_m.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/128/354384824_0f1af612f9_m.jpg" /><br /><br /><p>From Wikipedia, on the subject of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin-foil_hat" target="_blank"><em>tin-foil hats</em></a>:</p><br /><blockquote>Such hats are very uncommon in mainstream society, as the injuries they might guard against are highly speculative, and their effectiveness in preventing such harm would be dubious even if the danger were plausible. Instead, the concept has become a popular stereotype and term of derision; the phrase serves as a byword for paranoia and is associated with conspiracy theorists</blockquote><br /><p>For a more <em>in-depth</em> analysis of <em>tin-foil hats</em> refer to <a href="http://zapatopi.net/afdb/" target="_blank">http://zapatopi.net/afdb/</a> under the subject of the <em>Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie</em>.</p>antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-47631153229579957242007-01-11T17:07:00.000-05:002007-01-12T10:45:51.989-05:00International PerspectiveA view from the UK on President Bush's plan for Iraq and '<em>the media</em>' response.<br /><br /><blockquote>Whatever else you might say about Bush, there can be absolutely no doubt that he - and the bulk of the American people - are genuine in their desire to see democracy functioning in Iraq – and the rest of the Middle East, for that matter.<br /><br />You really do have to wonder why it is, therefore, that such a noble objective should have the left-wing media – typified by our own Guardian - spitting with rage at the prospect the United States taking what might be decisive action against the terrorists who would see anarchy, misery and death.</blockquote><br /><p>You can <a href="http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/01/both-cant-wrong.html" target="_blank">read the whole thing here</a>. The author continues on to tell us:</p> <br /><br /><blockquote>The proximate reason for the newspaper's ire, of course, is that - in opting for a troop surge - Bush has "ignored the message of the mid-term elections" and the Guardian's Democrat (i.e., left-wing) chums. Bush, it screeches, "has also ignored the Iraq Study Group, Congress, his own top generals" and, horror of horrors, "most world opinion".<br /><br />There you have it people. A US president, leader of the most prosperous and dynamic country in the world, a country which has achieved its status by driving its own agenda - is not listening to the opinion of the people who neither elected him nor pay US taxes. Now isn't that a bummer!</blockquote><br /><p>Now, between you and me, a lot of people "over here", that is, the 10 sq miles surrounded by reality that is Ithaca, NY would say, that's right, we didn't elect him. Remember those bumper stickers? "Don't elect him in 2004 either!"? Drivel.<br /><br />But those folks aren't objective enough to see his point. I hope some of you reading here are and will read the rest of it here: EU Referendum - <a href="http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/01/both-cant-wrong.html" target="_blank">Both can't be wrong</a>.</p>antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-2414056934330335952007-01-07T17:59:00.000-05:002007-01-07T19:59:45.382-05:00No Sineman, Ithaca JournalSineman is still on hiatus and my attention has been drawn to a recent opinion letter in the <a href="http://www.ithacajournal.com" target="_blank">Ithaca Journal</a>. I think reproducing it here falls under <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html" target="_blank">Fair Use</a>.<br /><br />My purpose is criticism and comment. This blog is non-commercial. I will reproduce the letter in its entirety (sans the author's identity) but, it was published in the weekend edition and it's currently 6:43 PM on Sunday. My reproducing the letter at this date and time will not affect sales of the Ithaca Journal. As to the internet aspect of the letter, I certainly won't reduce traffic to the Journal website. If anything, and if I actually had readers, I would increase traffic to the site thereby increasing revenue for the Journal.<br /><br />I think I'm safe from any legal action under copyright law.<br /><br />The letter is titled "<a href="http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070106/OPINION03/701060316/1014/OPINION" target="_blank">Bush's 'holy' laurels</a>" (bold is my emphasis)<br /><br /><blockquote>A caller to C-SPAN wondered why we don't use overwhelming force in Iraq as Japan and Germany were submissive to our will after Hiroshima and Dresden.<br /><br />Talk about comparing apples and oranges! <strong>Japan and Germany attacked others</strong>. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 yet <strong>has lost three quarter of a million of its citizens to post-invasion violence</strong> while another two million have given up homes and careers to seek safety in other countries.<br /><br />When asked how he felt after the election Bush said he felt like Noah in the flood. Noah! The rescuer of life on earth! Bush indeed feels he is the apple of God's eye and it is his business to bring about the End Times, so a profane thing like an election is unlikely to sway him. He says he is listening to critics, but their words follow a direct path into his ears and then out. Why ponder, debate and analyze our dilemma when you can rest on your holy laurels? <br /><br />The next two years will be a true test of the separation of power and the will of the people as Bush digs in his heels and the Democrats and the voters who gave them their slim majority endeavor to confront his unchanged course hiding behind changed rhetoric.</blockquote><br />Ok. It is true that Japan and Germany attacked others. The insinuation is apparently that Iraq, under Saddam, did not. Remember now, Iraq, under Saddam, invaded Iran. Invaded Kuwait. Gassed Kurds. And slaughtered Shiites.<br /><br />Given the US history of intervention around the world, each of those four instances is justification enough. Taken together?<br /><br />750,000 dead. 655,000 dead according to the study published in the Lancet in 2006 right? It was 100,000 by the same researchers in 2004. In 2004, according to the United Nations, it was <a href="http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/overview.htm" target="_blank">18,187-29,299</a> (page 54 of the Analytical Report).<br /><br />In the 2006 Johns Hopkins study 1,800 households were studied. In the UN report, 21,000+ were studied. A bit of a difference eh?<br /><br />Also, from the UN report:<br /><blockquote>The question asked in ILCS was formulated and posed<br />in a relatively standard way typical to large surveys<br />and censuses (UN 1983). The question underestimates<br />deaths, because households in which all members<br />were lost are omitted. It is therefore common within<br />demographic studies to use a correction for this,<br />based on a number of assumptions derived from<br />stable population theory (UN 1983). This has not been<br />attempted here, as it is unlikely that the assumptions<br />are satisfied. It is not common to make this correction<br />in epidemiologically oriented studies, and this was<br />not done in the Roberts et al. study.</blockquote><br />In other words, Roberts et al. made assumptions that the UN thought unwise and made "corrections" that the UN didn't. To be fair, this was in 2004. I'm sure things were different in 2006 (rolleyes).<br /><br />The remainder of the letter mocks President Bush's faith. Have fun with that. Don't try it in say...Iraq.antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-42909965749044096922007-01-03T21:34:00.000-05:002007-01-03T21:43:04.003-05:00Reading: An Essential SkillI recently read: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Disinformation-Media-Myths-Undermine-Terror/dp/0895260069/sr=8-1/qid=1167878148/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-8027783-8668706?ie=UTF8&s=books" target="_blank">Disinformation : 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror</a><br /><br />A fascinating book dealing with "myths" which include, for example, The world is a more dangerous place after 9/11. And, Halliburton made a ton of money in Iraq.<br /><br />Also, regarding a book I read a while ago (<a href="http://antisineman.blogspot.com/2006/11/reading-essential-skill.html" target="_blank">America Alone</a> by Mark Steyn), <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/europes_end_not_with_bang_but.html" target="_blank">Europe's End: Not with Bang but a Whimper</a> (via American Thinker).<br /><br /><blockquote>Mark Steyn's recent best seller, America Alone is a gloomy book on Europe's future. By Europe, Mr. Steyn means primarily what Donald Rumsfeld once referred to contemptuously as "Old Europe." In a variation of the prime cliché of the 1992 Clinton campaign, Mr. Steyn's chief premise is that "It's the demographics, stupid." He cites in great and grave detail the comparison of the plummeting European birth rate and the prodigious birth rate of Muslims who now live in Europe. In some parts of Europe "Mohammad" is among the most popular names for newborns...<br /><br />As Robert Kagan pointed out in his 2002 Policy Review article "Policy and Weakness," Europeans have convinced themselves that they live in an ideal Kantian world. This is a fantasy where all contentious issues in the world are resolved as if at a New England town meeting where citizens decide the location of the bike path... <br /></blockquote>antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-75727588664241797092006-12-22T20:00:00.000-05:002006-12-22T20:40:55.534-05:00You Be The JudgeStill following the evolution of the Iraqi governing <em>coalition</em>. Today, I read a handful of reports, all published within an hour, from three different sources, with very different characteristics.<br /><br /><strong>First the NYT reports:</strong><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/world/middleeast/22iraq.html?ex=157680000&en=575efb3090907f27&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink" target="_blank">Iraqi Factions Try to Undercut a Plan to Isolate Extremists</a> 10:15 AM<br /><br />The NYT tells us that:<br /><blockquote>Several Iraqi political groups on Thursday maneuvered to undercut an American-backed initiative that would create a multisectarian bloc intended to isolate extremists like the Shiite cleric and militia leader Moktada al-Sadr.</blockquote><br /><p>But, then they go on to tell us there's one group and how the rest of parliment will never be able to meet their new demands (not bothering to mention them). Oh, and the negotiations have stopped.</p><br />The report then goes on to tell us:<br /><ul><br /><li>SecDef Gates visited Iraq to discuss sending more troops.</li><br /><li>38 bodies were found.</li><br /><li>Three bombs were set off.</li><br /><li>Saddam's trial was adjourned until Jan. 8.</li><br /><li>Sadr's maneuvering, has some control over Maliki, has paralyzed the gov't, and might rejoin the talks.</li><br /><li>Then back to Gates.</li><br /><li>Then back to more troops.</li><br /><li>Then a dig at the incompetent Iraqi troops.</li><br /></ul><br /><p>Wow. That was a, confusing, mouthful. So, the point is, the NYT asserted that Iraqi <em>Groups</em> were undermining the talks and then didn't back it up. There's <em>one</em> group according to their own report.<br /><br />And all of this is followed up with gloom and doom, talk of more US Troops, and incompetent Iraqi support.<br /></p><br /><strong>Second, the BBC:</strong><br /><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6201031.stm" target="_blank">Iraq Shia press for Sadr return</a> 10:12 AM<br /><br />This reports describes attempts to convince Sadr to re-enter the political process during ongoing talks in Najaf with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most prominent Shia cleric in Iraq.<br /><br />No mention of ongoing talks by the NYT eh?<br /><br /><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6203073.stm" target="_blank">Iraq tribes 'taking on al-Qaeda'</a> 10:18 AM<br /><br /><blockquote>The tribal chiefs in the Iraqi province of Anbar joined forces in September in an attempt to defeat al-Qaeda...<br /><br />"We are fighting the terrorists because they have caused the violent chaos in the country, the instability. They are killing innocent Iraqis and killing anyone who wants freedom and peace in Iraq," he explained...<br /><br />The sheikh said some of the al-Qaeda fighters and weapons came from neighbouring Arab countries, Syria and Saudi Arabia mainly, but some were from more distant Arab countries and from Afghanistan. <br /></blockquote><br /><p>No mention of anything like this in that expansive NYT piece eh?</p><br /><strong>Third, and finally, the TimesOnline:</strong><br /><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2515389,00.html" target="_blank">Shia leadership agrees deal over sectarian killers</a> 11:12 AM<br /><br /><blockquote>Two of the senior Shia political leaders in Iraq agreed in principle to crack down on death squads within their own ranks yesterday. The rival Shia factions struck the deal in an attempt to salvage the country from collapse, said Haidar al-Abadi, a Shia MP in the Dawa party, who is close to Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister...<br /><br />Last night a delegation was on its way to the shrine city of Najaf intent on convincing the anti-Western cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia is blamed for much of the widespread killing of Sunnis, to join the crackdown. Officials close to Hojatoleslam al-Sadr said he had agreed to rejoin the Iraqi Government. <br /><br />Although the two parties are agreed on the need for a crackdown, the accord could easily fall apart if Hojatoleslam al-Sadr cannot be persuaded to back it and if Sunni parties fail to take similar steps.<br /></blockquote><br /><p>According to the TimesOnline, major Shia parties agree (sans al-Sadr), who agrees but will probably only play if the Sunnis do. No droning on about dooma and gloom. No hints at more troops, no digs at the poor, incapable Iraqi troops. The Times sticks to the story at hand.</p><br /><br /><strong>Conclusion (or, Questions):</strong><br />1) What's the political landscape in Iraq relative to the governing coalition?<br /><br />While it's not crystal-clear, it seems fairly promising. Sure there's some posturing. The fundamental questions is, what will Sadr do?<br /><br />2) Why the dramatic difference in reporting?<br /><br />...<br /><br />Related:<br /><a href="http://antisineman.blogspot.com/2006/12/groundwork.html" target="_blank">Groundwork</a><br /><a href="http://antisineman.blogspot.com/2006/12/what-next.html" target="_blank">What Next?</a><br /><br />antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-67664374394758697902006-12-20T20:07:00.000-05:002006-12-20T20:24:45.985-05:00GroundworkFollowing up on <a href="http://antisineman.blogspot.com/2006/12/what-next.html" target="_blank">What Next</a> with regard to the groundwork being laid for the deployment of additional troops to Iraq: Has everyone (Iraqi politicians) signed onto "Bush's" plan for isolating extreme elements of the society?<br /><br />Two articles today provide some insight:<br /><a href="http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/061220203413.q10arus0.html" target="_blank">New US defense chief weighs reinforcements on Iraq visit</a> (AFP)<br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/world/middleeast/20sistani.html?pagewanted=all" target="_blank">Top Shiite Cleric Is Said to Favor a Coalition for Iraq</a> (NYT)<br /><br />From AFP:<br /><blockquote>Hadi al-Ameri of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), described this idea as "madness".<br /><br />"Any attempt to exclude Sadr's movement would be a strategic error," he warned. "How could you exclude the Sadr movement when the prime minister is working for national reconciliation?"<br /><br />Instead, Shiite officials from the coalition parties said a delegation would meet Sadr and urge him to restate his support for the political process.</blockquote><br /><br /><p>al-Sadr has paralyzed the government since Bush's meeting with al-Maliki in Jordan. Why would he rejoin the government now?<br /><br /><em>Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq</em> sounds distinctly Iranian to me...which is a bit worrisome.</p><br /><br />From NYT:<br /><blockquote>BAGHDAD, Dec. 19 —Iraq’s most venerated Shiite cleric has tentatively approved an American-backed coalition of Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish parties that aims to isolate extremists, particularly the powerful Shiite militia leader Moktada al-Sadr, Iraqi and Western officials say...<br /><br />Mr. Maliki has expressed strong interest in the coalition but wants initially to welcome all political parties into its fold rather than to limit membership, Iraqi and Western officials say. That would provide additional political cover for any break with Mr. Sadr. <br /><br />The prime minister’s [al-Maliki] proposal, Mr. Hamoudi said, "is to start with a very wide door and gradually close it."<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><p>So, while different groups publicly express strong support and some reservation for the coalition I see a lot of agreement here on specifics. Including, critically, the approach to dealing with al-Sadr. Invite him in, give him a chance...when he rejects it, which I assume he will (why shouldn't I?), the beefed up American force can <em>finally</em> confront his militia head on.<br /><br />Is that what our troops are going to do?? If not, they shouldn't go.</p>antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-12001440604540575642006-12-20T15:08:00.000-05:002006-12-20T19:50:43.809-05:00Lost in Translationhattip <a href="http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2442" target="_blank">scrappleface</a><br /><br />I'm not a religous person. Which is why I've had to read more than a handful of books to understand the motives of radical islamist terrorists. It's that partial understanding that makes this video so amusing.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/T_S74ZDa2EA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T_S74ZDa2EA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object><br /><br /><a href="http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/12/zawahiri-says-us-should-negotiate-with.html" target="_blank">Gateway Pundit</a> is taking bets on which Democrats will be the first to agree with Zawahiri about the need for us to negotiate with his gang.<br /><br />That's fairly incendiary. In defense, the <em>jab</em> is being made within the context of the ISG recommending that we negotiate with Iran and Syria (known to sponsor terrorists) and visits to Syria by legislators of a certain political party. The catch phrase being, "all through the Cold War we held talks with the Soviet Union". Well, to that I say, we all know, this isn't our daddy's Cold War. A message that seems to be increasingly lost in translation.antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-68331830964653857292006-12-18T21:39:00.000-05:002006-12-18T21:43:31.618-05:00NatureSome may wonder, why debate all the Shiite this and Sunni that? Why are we even there at this point? Why don't we just leave? There are many reasons, Maj. Ben Connable illustrates some of them for us in his NYT piece.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/opinion/18connable.html?pagewanted=all" target="_blank">A War That Abhors a Vacuum</a><br /><br /><blockquote>THE niceties are up for debate: phased or partial withdrawal from Iraq would entail pulling troops back to their bases across the country, or leapfrogging backward to the nearest international border, or redeploying to bases in nearby countries. <br /><br />But whatever the final prescription, the debate must include a sober look at the street-level impact of withdrawal. What will become of Iraqi villages, towns and cities as we pull out? Although past is not necessarily prologue, recent experience in Anbar Province may be instructive...</blockquote><br /><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/opinion/18connable.html?pagewanted=all" target="_blank">Read the rest</a></p>antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-47383769345743504472006-12-18T17:32:00.000-05:002006-12-19T09:51:30.370-05:00What Next?Well, the sineman would seem to be on vacation. He's placed a white board on his fence with some markers. Passers-by have written various foolish things on it. None of which are worthy of comment. And he hasn't posted on his blog in quite a while.<br /><br />So, what next? Well, President Bush is talking of sending <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/15/world/middleeast/15iraq.html" target="_blank">more troops to Iraq</a>. The NYT tells us about it. Quotes some Generals advising caution and then describes the latest attack in Baghdad. I have to say, they do a rather poor job of framing the issue...<br /><br />It's understood that the Iraqi capital is the focal point of the insurgency in Iraq. <em>At this stage</em> the Shiite militias have the Sunnis backed into a corner, and are holding the government hostage. That is, the al-Maliki government needs al-Sadr's votes to remain in power as Prime Minister and therefore, cannot act against him. Additionally, there's Al Qaeda. Some Sunni groups have thrown in with Al Qaeda as a means of survival, others for theological or political reasons. They're a minority, 25 of 31 Sunni tribes in Anbar province have signed a pact against Al Qaeda.<br /><br />Still framing here...Bush isn't just "throwing" troops into this. He recently met with <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/02/world/middleeast/02policy.html" target="_blank">Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, an Iraqi Shiite leader, and Tariq al-Hashemi, the Sunni vice president of Iraq</a>. Now we're done framing.<br /><br />Is President Bush building support for al-Maliki? Or, building support for his replacement? To coincide with the infusion of additional troops. Is it wise to stick with al-Maliki (as it seems to me that we will)? Why? Why not?<br /><br />Of course, there's no word on what was actually discussed during the talks. Did both parties "sign on" to "the plan"? If we're talking of sending more troops one would have to think so.<br /><br />With al-Sadr isolated, how will he react? Will he back down and opt for national reconciliation? Or, all out civil war? Is that why we're sending more troops? Are we assuming he'll opt for war?<br /><br />If anybody would like to offer some ideas, feel free. Someone recently commented that I'm "opinionated". Well, ok, maybe. But I am respectful and do listen and believe it or not, I do consider other points of view. Sineman can vouch for me ;)antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-61012777513091700842006-12-14T23:56:00.000-05:002006-12-14T23:57:30.466-05:00SanityWow. Who knew International Law could actually be enforced?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16209844/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16209844/</a><br /><br /><blockquote>NEW YORK - Outgoing U.S. U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and former diplomats from Israel and Canada called on the United Nations on Thursday to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with inciting genocide.</blockquote>antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-87896148831980641612006-12-13T21:50:00.000-05:002006-12-13T22:13:10.631-05:00Flying Pig Watch<a href="http://static.flickr.com/130/321831385_51b11740eb_m.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="http://static.flickr.com/130/321831385_51b11740eb_m.jpg" border="0" /></a><p>Every once in a while something is written which is so contrary, profound, and truthful that, well, "bring out the pig!".</p> <p>Astonishingly, it's from TIME. Lisa Beyer has confronted one of the major premises of the Iraq Study Group. It's one that I have a lot of trouble with as well. I understand the issue being addressed upsets people, and creates tension in the region but, in this case, I think it's being used as a carrot. Although, to quote <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/157385,CST-EDT-steyn03.article">Mark Steyn</a>, I think it's being used in a rather vulgar way, to "f--k the Jews".</p><p> </p><blockquote>No sensible person is against peacemaking in the Holy Land. Applause and hopefulness would seem the reasonable reaction to the Iraq Study Group's recommendation that the Bush Administration "act boldly" and "as soon as possible" to resolve the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. But as a front-row observer of similar efforts over the past 15 years, I could muster neither response. In lumping the Iraq mess in with the Palestinian problem--and suggesting the first could not be fixed unless the second was too--the Baker-Hamilton commission lent credibility to a corrosive myth: that the fundamental problem in the Arab world is the plight of the Palestinians.</blockquote><p><a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1568466-1,00.html">Read it all</a>.</p>antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-37127888199354164002006-12-12T21:15:00.000-05:002006-12-19T10:04:08.479-05:00Spinning Polls<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061207/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/afghanistan_attitudes_1" target="_blank">Public optimism fades in Afghanistan</a><br /><br />The poll was conducted by ABC and the BBC, and then "reported" by AP. I say "reported" because I don't believe the headline and subsequent "analysis" represents the situation comprehensively.<br /><br /><blockquote>The number of people who think the country is on the right track has dropped 22 points — to 55 percent — in the last year...</blockquote><br />OK, "on the right track" to what? What percentage of respondents were <strong>optimistic</strong> with regard to the question of getting on the right track?<br /><br /><blockquote>Optimism had declined on a variety of fronts compared with a year earlier: a 17-point drop in the belief that security has improved since the Taliban was in charge of the country to 58 percent; a 13-point drop in the belief that life in Afghanistan will get better in the next year, to 54 percent; and a 15-point drop in the job approval rating of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, to 68 percent.<br /><br />That approval level would be welcomed by most politicians in the United States.</blockquote><br />There are four elements in the two paragraphs cited above. First, a drop in the belief that security has improved. Fair enough, we're all aware of the increase in violence there. Were respondents confident in the government's and NATO's ability to clamp down on it? There's no information presented about population's prediction with regard to future events, only on past events and the present situation.<br /><br />Second, a drop in the belief that life in Afghanistan will get better in a year. "Life"? For everyone? For the respondents family? For the respondent? Economic life? Social life? Quality of life? What factors are most important? But, at least this question deals with the future.<br /><br />Third, the job approval of Hamid Karzai. Well, quite a number of factors affect that number as well all know.<br /><br />Fourth, and finally, the gratuitous dig at western leaders by the anonymous authors.<br /><br />Then we get to the zinger:<br /><blockquote>Most in Afghanistan still think the U.S.-led invasion five years ago had positive effects on their country. Almost nine in 10 call the invasion a good thing for their country. Three-fourths have a favorable opinion of the United States and almost nine in 10 prefer the current government to the Taliban.</blockquote><br />Most in Afghanistan? Why don't they quantify that more precisely as they did with the previous questions? Because it doesn't fit with the headline??<br /><br />With the rest though, they completely miss the larger point. For example, Three-fourths <strong>[are willing to admit to a stranger that they]</strong> have a favorable opinion of the United States and almost nine in 10 prefer the current government to the Taliban <strong>[without fear of reprisal]</strong>.<br /><br />No reason for optimism there.<br /><br />EDIT: 12/19/2006 <a href="http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/12/karzai-holds-90-approval-rating-75.html" target="_blank">Gateway Pundit is writing about a newer poll in Afghanistan</a>.antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-1945497324087644152006-12-11T20:49:00.000-05:002006-12-11T20:59:18.877-05:00Isolating al-SadrLast night my wife and I were talking about Iraq and why al-Sadr was such an important person. His armed force aside, he's in control of 30 seats in parliment. The Prime Minister (to date) has relied on his support to stay in power and keep the government together.<br /><br />So, I suggested that, given the ISG's dismissal of partitioning Iraq, perhaps the purpose of president Bush's meetings with Shia and Sunni leaders from Iraq was to build support for Maliki to a point at which he would no longer have a need for al-Sadr's votes. Originally I thought maybe they would be discussing partition or a conference as I describe <a href="http://antisineman.blogspot.com/2006/12/rebirth-constructive-idea.html" target="_blank">here</a>.<br /><br />The NYT is reporting that the talks with Bush were part of an effort intended to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/world/middleeast/11cnd-iraq.html" target="_blank">build a coalition to isolate al-Sadr</a>.<br /><br />Assuming the effort meets with success. Once al-Sadr is politically isolated one would presume that he would "sue for terms" by joining the reconciliation effort and play to the part or, lash out.<br /><br />With our planning to send more troops to Baghdad...what do you think commanders on the ground anticipate?antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-66271879224578234942006-12-11T19:30:00.000-05:002006-12-11T19:55:38.415-05:00Reuters is on the ballYou know how important it is to frame people in the proper perspective right?<br /><br />Insurgent vs. Terrorist?<br />Academic vs. Racist?<br /><br /><a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-12-11T122358Z_01_L11639597_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-HOLOCAUST.xml&src=rss&rpc=22" target="_blank">Iran opens conference questioning the Holocaust</a><br /><br /><blockquote>Among the participants was <strong>U.S. academic David Duke, a former Louisiana Republican Representative</strong>. He praised Iran for hosting the event.</blockquote><br />Four hours later, the same "reporter" "published" an updated "article", with a new title, <a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-12-11T163329Z_01_L11639597_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-HOLOCAUST.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage3" target="_blank">Iran meeting questions Holocaust and gas chambers</a>. The paragraph I cite above is, strangely, missing.<br /><br />Ya'think there might be some shortcomings in the "process" over there at Reuters?<br /><br />Apparently, there's also something behind the charaterization of the Jewish Rabbis in attendance. Although I admit to having no first-hand knowledge on the subject. Reuters: David Duke a "US Academic" (<a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23621&only" target="_blank">LGF</a>)<br /><br /><blockquote>These so-called "Jewish rabbis" that Reuters casually drops into the article are in actuality members of Neturei Karta—an insane sect with a tiny membership that makes a practice of supporting evil around the world. Sort of the Jewish equivalent of Fred Phelps and his sick bunch. But to Reuters they’re just like any other "Jewish rabbis."</blockquote><br />Interestingly, this paragraph is also missing from the second "article" "authored" by the esteemed "journalist".<br /><br />antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-53992676955756149752006-12-11T17:14:00.000-05:002006-12-11T20:25:43.538-05:00Resisting Israeli Occupation?This is what you get when you legitimize armed religous zealots with moral equivelance and pandering.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2498565_1,00.html" target="_blank">Children of Islamic Hamas opponent killed</a> (TimesOnline)<br /><br />But the Times puts a funny slant on it.<br /><br /><blockquote>In a disturbing sign of wider regional tensions leaking into the Palestinian arena Fatah sought to portray the Iranian-funded Hamas as stooges of Shia Tehran, killing their fellow Sunni Palestinians.</blockquote><br />They ignore the 1400 year old divide within Islam. Dismiss the possibility that Iran uses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as political cover for a policy seeking hegemony over the greater Middle East. Instead adopt the recently-made-trendy stance of attributing the violence, in part, to Iraq.<br /><br />Wait, I thought the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the cause of all violence in the Middle East...now it's the other way around?? (hat tip: ISG) hmm...<br /><br />Turns out, the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6167835.stm" target="_blank">BBC</a> may have more of the real story.<br /><br /><blockquote>Mr Balousheh [the children's father] is considered a leading enemy of Hamas. He was the main interrogator of Hamas members during the 1990s crackdown on the Islamist movement. </blockquote><br />And there's the ongoing evolution of "democracy":<br /><blockquote>Mr Abbas has been considering a request by his allies to hold early elections to resolve an impasse in efforts to form a unity government. <br />Hamas denounced the proposal to hold another election as a "coup against democracy".</blockquote><br />In any event, I doubt this was a botched assassination attempt. More likely, revenge.<br /><br />Now, how has the international community reacted? The UN? Kofi Annan? Well, he was busy (<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/11/annan.speech/index.html" target="_blank">Annan chides U.S. in farewell speech</a>).<br /><br />EDIT: <a href="http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/12/democrats-held-meetings-with-hamas.html" target="_blank">Gates of Vienna</a> has a similar view:<br /><br /><blockquote>The initial news reports claimed that Mr. Balousheh was the supposed target of the killing. However, Carl in Jerusalem puts it in even starker terms: “I believe that they were trying to get the kids as a warning to the father and to other Fatah members.”<br /><br />In other words, they knew the father wasn’t in the car; instead, the targeting of the children was a message to him. And the fact that the message was delivered in a font called Overkill, in a street full of other children, didn’t matter at all. What was important was to deliver the message.</blockquote><br />In addition to that, a tidbit, if you could call it that, on politicians from a certain party meeting with HAMAS members. sigh.antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31456255.post-23995450632062619952006-12-10T22:06:00.000-05:002006-12-10T22:21:37.174-05:00Cartoons and ConferencesIn a partial <i>response</i> to the Danish Muhammad cartoons Iran hosted a gallery of cartoons from around the world back in August. (<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4795709.stm" target="_blank">BBC</a>)<br /><br /><blockquote>Organiser Masoud Shojai said: "You see they allow the Prophet to be insulted. But when we talk about the Holocaust, they consider it so holy that they punish people for questioning it." </blockquote><br />No mention of the <strong>lack</strong> of violent protests and out-right murder in response to the anti-semitic cartoons.<br /><br />So, that wasn't good enough. Didn't provoke enough of a reaction among the infidels. Thus, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6167695.stm" target="_blank">Iran is hosting a two-day conference which is likely to question whether the Holocaust actually happened</a>. (BBC)<br /><br /><blockquote>"The first question to be posed is: did the Holocaust actually happen or not? And the second one is: if it did happen, what was the scale of it?"<br /><br />"The allegation that six million Jews were killed or burnt in this event, is it true or not?"</blockquote><br />You know, so what if it didn't. How does that affect <em>anything</em>? Oh, nevermind, I get it, "6 million of you didn't die 60 years ago so, we're going to kill 7 million of you now."<br /><br />Here's to negotiating with genocidal maniacs.antithacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318962364090324035noreply@blogger.com0