Hey...the shoe bomber was sentanced....a long time ago...
And the judge basically bitch-slapped him, his point of view, his religous justification for murder, and his questionable motives.
I nominate this for the new speech that should recieve "Gettysburg Address" noteriety.
Any takers?
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Interesting point...
on fark.com forums:
"How do they determine who is a civilian and who is hezbullah?
I mean 300 of the 450 Lebanese civilians killed could be Hezbullah...they all wear civilian clothes and operate out of apartment buildings, schools, hospitals etc.
All they need to do is remove the AK47 from dead bodies hands and all of a sudden they are a 'civilian'..."
Interesting tactic...like arming your 12 and 14-year olds, sending them out to fight, then lamenting Israel for "killing innocent children" when they are forced to defend themselves.
And now I repeat my mantra: "There are precious few problems in this world that greater firepower cannot solve".
"How do they determine who is a civilian and who is hezbullah?
I mean 300 of the 450 Lebanese civilians killed could be Hezbullah...they all wear civilian clothes and operate out of apartment buildings, schools, hospitals etc.
All they need to do is remove the AK47 from dead bodies hands and all of a sudden they are a 'civilian'..."
Interesting tactic...like arming your 12 and 14-year olds, sending them out to fight, then lamenting Israel for "killing innocent children" when they are forced to defend themselves.
And now I repeat my mantra: "There are precious few problems in this world that greater firepower cannot solve".
Interesting language...
"Disproportionate"
I always thought that term was suspect...Does that mean that Israel has the right to send suicide bombers into Palestinian? Should they have simply sat back and launched rockets back into Lebanon? This would have been akin to England not invading Germany, but instead firing rockets back into Germany.
War is not a proportionate affair. You overtake and destroy your enemy. That's how wars are won. If a small guy does not have the firepower necessary to destroy an enemy's army, he should either ally with a larger army, or sue for peace. This idea of "fairness" does not equate to the battlefield, nor will it ever.
I also love how the talk is now focuses on civilian casualties. What they fail to focus on is Hezbollah using civilians as shields
Israel has warned all those not affiliated with Hezbollah to evacuate. Those staying behind know the risks. As I outlined earlier, the UN tower that was attacked was being used as a Hezbollah firing position.
This is necessary to demonize Israel for "killing innocents". It's evil at its worst, and needs to be rooted out.
I always thought that term was suspect...Does that mean that Israel has the right to send suicide bombers into Palestinian? Should they have simply sat back and launched rockets back into Lebanon? This would have been akin to England not invading Germany, but instead firing rockets back into Germany.
War is not a proportionate affair. You overtake and destroy your enemy. That's how wars are won. If a small guy does not have the firepower necessary to destroy an enemy's army, he should either ally with a larger army, or sue for peace. This idea of "fairness" does not equate to the battlefield, nor will it ever.
I also love how the talk is now focuses on civilian casualties. What they fail to focus on is Hezbollah using civilians as shields
Israel has warned all those not affiliated with Hezbollah to evacuate. Those staying behind know the risks. As I outlined earlier, the UN tower that was attacked was being used as a Hezbollah firing position.
This is necessary to demonize Israel for "killing innocents". It's evil at its worst, and needs to be rooted out.
Friday, July 28, 2006
North korea is pissing everyone off..
Even China is getting upset with them.
See, China is in an interesting place right now. They can't attack the U.S., much as I'm sure they would like to. This is because we are investing a lot of money in/with them, and they require the financial capital in order to grow.
China is attempting to play on the public market, and requires some clean-up in order to do so. For instance, with the Bejing olympics only two years away, they are attempting to teach their populace to wash their hands and not spit in public.
How does this fit in with North Korea? Well, as China can't attack us directly, they have to use intermediaries. And right now, they have us in a bind.
North Korea, has enough conventional arms pointed at Seoul to wipe it out on first strike if a war should break out.
So we have to protect our ally carefully.
On the other side, we have to protect our heavy investments in Taiwan. China wants to bring Taiwan back into the fold, but Taiwan isn't having any.
So how are these related?
Simple. China will use the threat of one to counter-act the other. If we protect South Korea in a war against North (again), our protection of Taiwan falters. And, if China makes a push to retain Taiwan, it simply has their North Korea puppet get hot over in South Korea in order to spread our forces out.
Bush is playing a diplomatic tightrope right now, and playing it well. The only reason we aren't in a mad rush to go in hot and heavy into North Korea is that Kim Jong Il isn't paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in South Korea. He is only starving his own people, and not really attacking outside his borders, except for the occasional saber-rattling (I.E. missile tests). We can take our time and see how far a diplomatic approach takes.
See, China is in an interesting place right now. They can't attack the U.S., much as I'm sure they would like to. This is because we are investing a lot of money in/with them, and they require the financial capital in order to grow.
China is attempting to play on the public market, and requires some clean-up in order to do so. For instance, with the Bejing olympics only two years away, they are attempting to teach their populace to wash their hands and not spit in public.
How does this fit in with North Korea? Well, as China can't attack us directly, they have to use intermediaries. And right now, they have us in a bind.
North Korea, has enough conventional arms pointed at Seoul to wipe it out on first strike if a war should break out.
So we have to protect our ally carefully.
On the other side, we have to protect our heavy investments in Taiwan. China wants to bring Taiwan back into the fold, but Taiwan isn't having any.
So how are these related?
Simple. China will use the threat of one to counter-act the other. If we protect South Korea in a war against North (again), our protection of Taiwan falters. And, if China makes a push to retain Taiwan, it simply has their North Korea puppet get hot over in South Korea in order to spread our forces out.
Bush is playing a diplomatic tightrope right now, and playing it well. The only reason we aren't in a mad rush to go in hot and heavy into North Korea is that Kim Jong Il isn't paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in South Korea. He is only starving his own people, and not really attacking outside his borders, except for the occasional saber-rattling (I.E. missile tests). We can take our time and see how far a diplomatic approach takes.
Monday, July 24, 2006
The religon of peace...
It is times like this that I am grateful for people like Jack Hayford, who provide a moment of clarity in the chaos.
I have no problems with any Muslim who wishes to live in peace. However, it is the passive/agressive nature of the people of Muslim faith that has me concerned. Those not performing acts of violence are very often supporting it passively, or justifying it.
As I commented in another blog, to take a lesson from another Jewish-hating culture, and, at the risk of Godwin-ing this blog:
To stand with Israel is not to oppose Arab peoples as an entity or to oppose the rights of Arabs living in Israel to a peaceful, politically secure, and prosperous life.
God has no disposition against any human being, certainly not Arabs who are the
offspring of Ishmael, the other son of His chosen leader Abraham. Standing for Israel doesn’t require an anti-Arab stance and doesn’t require us to be loveless toward other peoples.
The relentless animosities of sectors of the Arab world are not merely political causes but are driven by spiritual powers that will not be satisfied until Israel ceases to exist.
The forces opposed to Israel are not simply those of people who don’t like Jews. We are caught in the stream of spiritual forces greater than humanity, forces that cannot be overthrown politically or by the power of persuasion. These forces can only be broken by intercessory prayer where principalities and powers are cast down.
The same spirit driving these animosities is equally opposed to Christians as to Jews and in time will eventually bring persecution to both.
Just as Scripture states there are two witnesses that will be put to death in Jerusalem at the very end of time (Revelation 11), there have been two witnesses that have stood for God throughout history – the Jews and the Christians. The hostilities and animosities are just as leveled at believers as they are at Israel, because there is a spirit in the world that is against all that is called God and everything about Him.
• God as Creator – to Whom we owe our worship.
• God as Judge – to Whom we owe our accountability.
• God as Redeemer – Who has shown Himself through His Son, Jesus.
• God as the moral Lawgiver of all humanity – to Whom we owe a responsibility in terms of our behavior.
I have no problems with any Muslim who wishes to live in peace. However, it is the passive/agressive nature of the people of Muslim faith that has me concerned. Those not performing acts of violence are very often supporting it passively, or justifying it.
As I commented in another blog, to take a lesson from another Jewish-hating culture, and, at the risk of Godwin-ing this blog:
"Reading Steven Ambrose’s books (Citizen Soldier, Band Of Brothers, etc.), which are biographical accounts of WWII’s european campaigns, the soldiers were amazed how they travelled up and down Germany, but never found a nazi. (Imagine that).
Yet, the culture is what allowed for Auschwitz, Chełmno, etc. It wasn’t that the whole of the population was active in the Extermination camps, but because they were hardened via propaganda/culture, even if it didn’t lead to ACTIVE agression towards jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc., the culture they contributed to allowed these atrocities to occur.
In Islam, I see much of the same."
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Simply amazing...
Sooo....I'm visiting out here in San Fernando Valley with some friends (LA for those of you who don't know around where that is... )
It seems that I've met up with a bunch of my former classmates...It was cathartic to hear about all of the "in-crowd"'s "after-high-school" lives. (Hint to all you High Schoolers...once High School is over, popularity means nothing..)
I was amazed at how many times someone would say, "so-and-so turned into a complete [Rhymes-like-witch]", or, "She was so stuck up...". Meanwhile, I, having been on the outside of the whole social scene, simply went, "umm...duh?"
I'm also glad I skipped out on the whole "oh, she met this guy, got pregnant, married the guy, cheated on him, divorced him and re-married after she became pregnant with his kids, etc." drama scene. Turns out that many of my former classmates didn't have it together nearly as much as they let on.
All those Friday nights alone with my computer seems like time well spent...
It seems that I've met up with a bunch of my former classmates...It was cathartic to hear about all of the "in-crowd"'s "after-high-school" lives. (Hint to all you High Schoolers...once High School is over, popularity means nothing..)
I was amazed at how many times someone would say, "so-and-so turned into a complete [Rhymes-like-witch]", or, "She was so stuck up...". Meanwhile, I, having been on the outside of the whole social scene, simply went, "umm...duh?"
I'm also glad I skipped out on the whole "oh, she met this guy, got pregnant, married the guy, cheated on him, divorced him and re-married after she became pregnant with his kids, etc." drama scene. Turns out that many of my former classmates didn't have it together nearly as much as they let on.
All those Friday nights alone with my computer seems like time well spent...
Sunday, July 02, 2006
In the twinkle of a Liberal eye...
I was thinking of something while driving home...Those of the left-leaning ilk have set themselves up for quite a conundrum:
They make the insinuation that life under Bush is a facist government.
Yet they support Gun Control.
Let me tell you why that is a contradictory point of view to take:
"but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''
--Federalist Paper #29.
The purpose behind the second amendment is to assure that, should the government become too abusive of power, the people could take it back.
The typical liberal slant on the US today is that the present state is the end-times for the US, and all is lost.
If that were the case, you would think they would be all for unrestricting Gun-control laws to take back the govnerment.
But, they aren't.
Why?
Because it is simply more political posturing.
Please, make no mistake. I am NOT advocating the overthrow the US by force by any means.
I think the measures that the liberals decry so much are being done because of the times that we live in.
We can't go back to being isolationist.
And we've done this sort of thing before.
FDR had six Nazi terrorists shot without a trial.
Lincoln arrested southern politicians, thereby denying southern governments the chance to get together to vote for secession. And denied due process for their trial.
Go read up on the the stuff we did during the cold war...it'll raise your neckhairs...
The point is: the purpose of our military and intelligence services is to protect democracy, not practice it.
And as far as I am concerned, if you are in the US or another country, and you are attacking us without wearing a uniform, you have no rights to geneva convention protection.
We play by the rules. You should too.
With that, I'm out
They make the insinuation that life under Bush is a facist government.
Yet they support Gun Control.
Let me tell you why that is a contradictory point of view to take:
"but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''
--Federalist Paper #29.
The purpose behind the second amendment is to assure that, should the government become too abusive of power, the people could take it back.
The typical liberal slant on the US today is that the present state is the end-times for the US, and all is lost.
If that were the case, you would think they would be all for unrestricting Gun-control laws to take back the govnerment.
But, they aren't.
Why?
Because it is simply more political posturing.
Please, make no mistake. I am NOT advocating the overthrow the US by force by any means.
I think the measures that the liberals decry so much are being done because of the times that we live in.
We can't go back to being isolationist.
And we've done this sort of thing before.
FDR had six Nazi terrorists shot without a trial.
Lincoln arrested southern politicians, thereby denying southern governments the chance to get together to vote for secession. And denied due process for their trial.
Go read up on the the stuff we did during the cold war...it'll raise your neckhairs...
The point is: the purpose of our military and intelligence services is to protect democracy, not practice it.
And as far as I am concerned, if you are in the US or another country, and you are attacking us without wearing a uniform, you have no rights to geneva convention protection.
We play by the rules. You should too.
With that, I'm out
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Interesting question...
Ignoring the "Christian answer", on a strictly instinctual basis, which one of these two statements leads you to believe the speaker is simply ignorant, and which one leads you to believe the speaker is hateful?
"The Catholic church is composed of nothing but pedophilic priests"
"The Muslim religon is composed of nothing but mindless terrorists"
Now, why did you answer the way you did?
"The Catholic church is composed of nothing but pedophilic priests"
"The Muslim religon is composed of nothing but mindless terrorists"
Now, why did you answer the way you did?
Would you pay to be a member?
It seems that somebody in Finland has created a website to assist people in resigning from the church.
Evidently, in order to become a member of the church (formal member) in Finland, you have to pay a yearly tax.
People are leaving the church, most often not because of religious issues, but because they don't want to pay.
It's silly to think that you could have a tithe and a cost of membership when the supposed purpose of a church is to facilitate people's growth in Christ.
I think this is an indicator that Finland is fallow ground for those offering to show them a personal relationship with God.
Evidently, in order to become a member of the church (formal member) in Finland, you have to pay a yearly tax.
People are leaving the church, most often not because of religious issues, but because they don't want to pay.
It's silly to think that you could have a tithe and a cost of membership when the supposed purpose of a church is to facilitate people's growth in Christ.
I think this is an indicator that Finland is fallow ground for those offering to show them a personal relationship with God.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Shouldn't be laughing...
You ever surf the 'net, and find something that you are laughing at that you shouldn't be?
Here's another..
A mix of music and events I would have never put together myself...
Here's another..
A mix of music and events I would have never put together myself...
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Monday, June 12, 2006
Interesting turn of events...
Them some crazy peoples there.
It would appear that the less-violent faction/pro-Abbas (the Palestinian president) Fatah faction have started attacking the Hamas-led Palestinian rest-of-the-government.
Their main gripe is that Hamas has been opposed to Abbas, since Abbas took steps to limit the Hamas' ability to curb militant islamic factions.
So, let me get this straight: A man who wants to end the violence is being represented by people who are violently ravaging the other side to drive home the point that they want less violence?
My head hurts...
It would appear that the less-violent faction/pro-Abbas (the Palestinian president) Fatah faction have started attacking the Hamas-led Palestinian rest-of-the-government.
Their main gripe is that Hamas has been opposed to Abbas, since Abbas took steps to limit the Hamas' ability to curb militant islamic factions.
So, let me get this straight: A man who wants to end the violence is being represented by people who are violently ravaging the other side to drive home the point that they want less violence?
My head hurts...
Saturday, June 10, 2006
France and Iraq...
I just found the following interesting...
Being a young'n, I had no idea that the Jaques Chirac sold Iraq a Nuclear Reactor...
Israel took it out in a mission that shocked the world.
Interesting quote from the leader of the Israeli Mission: (found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak)
"Deterrence was not attained by other countries – France and Italy – and even the United States. It was attained by the State of Israel and its Prime Minster who decided, acted and created a fact that no one in the world today – with the exception of our enemies – regrets." -- Yitzhak Shamir
Here is a 45 minute documentary on it.
Very interesting, I think...
Being a young'n, I had no idea that the Jaques Chirac sold Iraq a Nuclear Reactor...
Israel took it out in a mission that shocked the world.
Interesting quote from the leader of the Israeli Mission: (found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak)
"Deterrence was not attained by other countries – France and Italy – and even the United States. It was attained by the State of Israel and its Prime Minster who decided, acted and created a fact that no one in the world today – with the exception of our enemies – regrets." -- Yitzhak Shamir
Here is a 45 minute documentary on it.
Very interesting, I think...
Al Zarqawi's last words...
A reported, right before he died, Al Zarqawi mumbled something.
They have determined what his last words were:
"Shma Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad"
They have determined what his last words were:
"Shma Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad"
Friday, June 09, 2006
Another one bites the dust..
So...in case you haven't noticed, we've killed Al-Zarqawi.
The Father of Nick Berg, the journalist decapitated on live TV, claims that only violence will emerge from this attack. A confirmed Pacifist, he makes some rather astounding claims, dealt with further down:
People like this frustrate me. They claim "forgiveness and peace". Which is admirable, except for two things:
1) This is a people dedicated to wiping out people on the basis of religious grounds. When dealing with a spiritual "call" like that, there is no turning back, except for a change in relgion, which, in that environment, is highly unlikely.
2) Pacifism does not work against terrorism. Pacifism entails going against an existing system to show that you will withstand any punishment in order to see your way through. Pacifism against terrorism only provides them with easy targets to destroy. Remember, the victims of terrorism are not the same as the casualties. Victims are those that live in fear when the casualties are killed. Pacifists are actually working FOR the terrorist ideal by de-arming and encouraging the availability of open targets.
Further, I think Bush and Co. have done an excellent job of not making this out to be a political "so there!" speech. They have downplayed the effects in order to take pressure off of our fighting men and women.
The other things that the bombing does is really discourage anyone from taking over his role. All the press releases I have make mention of the fact that "we are looking at so-and-so as the next one to look for". Who really wants to attract that level of scrutiny?
Another thing that I found somewhat humorous is the fact that he was so over the top, that even Al Qaeda asked him to tone it down.
Mr. Berg's comments go as follows:
"Under Saddam Hussein, no al Qaeda. Under George Bush, al Qaeda.
Under Saddam Hussein, relative stability. Under George Bush, instability.
Under Saddam Hussein, about 30,000 deaths a year. Under George Bush, about 60,000 deaths a year. I don't get it. Why is it better to have George Bush the king of Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein?"
In any time in history, whenever there is a removal of a corrupt power, a power vacuum exists. In this vacuum, others rush in to fill it.
I suspect that one of the primary reasons we got involved in Iraq was that Saddam was paying the family of suicide bombers up to $25,000 per attack. In response, the Israeli army were evacuating, then razing the houses of suicide bombers so that it was a net zero transaction.
As you can imagine, this added lots of tension in the middle of an already tense peace process.
I strongly suspect that this was one of our factors for invading Iraq. However, those in the Arab culture that would rather see Israel "Pushed into the sea" have flooded into the area, determined to bring back the Good 'ole days. So in response, I would say that the removal of Saddam saw less killings in Israel. The killing of Al-Zarqawi is a step towards the removal of Al Qaeda as a factor in Iraqi politics.
Yes, there are more deaths in the short term. It is a turbulent time. Would he have preferred that the rape rooms and the arbitrary executions continue? Somehow I think not. You are taking 14th century culture and bringing it kicking and screaming to the 21st century. Look how even today, the MPAA and the RIAA are resisting new technologies that have been introduced only in the last decade.
Change is difficult. Change is strenuous. But it has to happen. Otherwise, we become attached to the past in was that cannot be reconciled with the modern world. Kinda like a 60s peacenik in a post 9/11 world...
Ok, that's it. I'm done ranting...Carry on.
The Father of Nick Berg, the journalist decapitated on live TV, claims that only violence will emerge from this attack. A confirmed Pacifist, he makes some rather astounding claims, dealt with further down:
People like this frustrate me. They claim "forgiveness and peace". Which is admirable, except for two things:
1) This is a people dedicated to wiping out people on the basis of religious grounds. When dealing with a spiritual "call" like that, there is no turning back, except for a change in relgion, which, in that environment, is highly unlikely.
2) Pacifism does not work against terrorism. Pacifism entails going against an existing system to show that you will withstand any punishment in order to see your way through. Pacifism against terrorism only provides them with easy targets to destroy. Remember, the victims of terrorism are not the same as the casualties. Victims are those that live in fear when the casualties are killed. Pacifists are actually working FOR the terrorist ideal by de-arming and encouraging the availability of open targets.
Further, I think Bush and Co. have done an excellent job of not making this out to be a political "so there!" speech. They have downplayed the effects in order to take pressure off of our fighting men and women.
The other things that the bombing does is really discourage anyone from taking over his role. All the press releases I have make mention of the fact that "we are looking at so-and-so as the next one to look for". Who really wants to attract that level of scrutiny?
Another thing that I found somewhat humorous is the fact that he was so over the top, that even Al Qaeda asked him to tone it down.
Mr. Berg's comments go as follows:
"Under Saddam Hussein, no al Qaeda. Under George Bush, al Qaeda.
Under Saddam Hussein, relative stability. Under George Bush, instability.
Under Saddam Hussein, about 30,000 deaths a year. Under George Bush, about 60,000 deaths a year. I don't get it. Why is it better to have George Bush the king of Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein?"
In any time in history, whenever there is a removal of a corrupt power, a power vacuum exists. In this vacuum, others rush in to fill it.
I suspect that one of the primary reasons we got involved in Iraq was that Saddam was paying the family of suicide bombers up to $25,000 per attack. In response, the Israeli army were evacuating, then razing the houses of suicide bombers so that it was a net zero transaction.
As you can imagine, this added lots of tension in the middle of an already tense peace process.
I strongly suspect that this was one of our factors for invading Iraq. However, those in the Arab culture that would rather see Israel "Pushed into the sea" have flooded into the area, determined to bring back the Good 'ole days. So in response, I would say that the removal of Saddam saw less killings in Israel. The killing of Al-Zarqawi is a step towards the removal of Al Qaeda as a factor in Iraqi politics.
Yes, there are more deaths in the short term. It is a turbulent time. Would he have preferred that the rape rooms and the arbitrary executions continue? Somehow I think not. You are taking 14th century culture and bringing it kicking and screaming to the 21st century. Look how even today, the MPAA and the RIAA are resisting new technologies that have been introduced only in the last decade.
Change is difficult. Change is strenuous. But it has to happen. Otherwise, we become attached to the past in was that cannot be reconciled with the modern world. Kinda like a 60s peacenik in a post 9/11 world...
Ok, that's it. I'm done ranting...Carry on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)