Jack Murtha pushed through one of those earmarks everyone loves to pick on. This one is for a paltry $1,000,000 to go to a company called Concurrent Technologies to manage something called the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure. Representative Jeff Flake couldn’t figure out if the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure even existed, so he asked. So, Flake proposed an amendment to take that money out of the picture since no one knew who they were or what they would be doing. Murtha insisted it stay citing the fact that if they don’t use it, it’s not spent. So, it went to a vote. You wanna guess the breakdown of how it ended up?
| Ayes | Noes | PRES | NV | |
| Democratic | 2 | 223 | 9 | |
| Republican | 96 | 103 | 3 | |
| Independent | ||||
| TOTALS | 98 | 326 | 12 |
Now, we can sort of expect the Republicans to not go along with it, since Nancy Pelosi has labeled them the exclusive members of the Culture of Corruption who are ate up with irresponsible spending. So, how did Nancy respond with this request to remove $1,000,000 from an entity that doesn’t exist and no one knows who they are or what they will even do with it? She didn’t show up to vote. Quite a statement on earmark transparency dontcha think? It WAS an issue when the Republicans were in charge. It’s forgotten now.
A lot has been made of John McCain’s free-fall during this primary season. He’s never held the lead, been dogged by minor inside scandals, has burned most of his cash, and is losing staff in droves. In other words, nothing seems to be going right. Enter Harry Reid to give McCain the chance to look good. Reid’s all-nighter stunt on withdrawing from Iraq gave McCain the opportunity he needed to sound strong and forceful like the John McCain so many Republicans have wanted to hear for years:
No matter where my colleagues came down in 2003 about the centrality of Iraq to the war on terror, there can simply be no debate that our efforts in Iraq today are critical to the wider struggle against violent Islamic extremism. Already, the terrorists are emboldened, excited that America is talking not about winning in Iraq, but is rather debating when we should lose. Last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaedas deputy chief, said that the United States is merely delaying our inevitable defeat in Iraq, and that the Mujahideen of Islam in Iraq of the caliphate and jihad are advancing with steady steps towards victory. He called on Muslims to travel to Iraq to fight Americans, and appealed for Muslims to support the Islamic State in Iraq, a group established by al Qaeda.
General Petraeus has called al Qaeda the principal short-term threat to Iraq. What do the supporters of this amendment believe to be the consequences of our leaving the battlefield with al Qaeda in place? If we leave Iraq prematurely, jihadists around the world will interpret the withdrawal as their great victory against our great power. Their movement thrives in an atmosphere of perceived victory; we saw this in the surge of men and money flowing to al Qaeda following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. If they defeat the United States in Iraq, they will believe that anything is possible, that history is on their side, that they really can bring their terrible rule to lands the world over. Recall the plan laid out in a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, before his death. That plan is to take shape in four stages: establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel none of which shall commence until the completion of stage one: expel the Americans from Iraq. Mr. President, the terrorists are in this war to win it. The question is: Are we?
The supporters of this amendment respond that they do not by any means intend to cede the battlefield to al Qaeda; on the contrary, their legislation would allow U.S. forces, presumably holed up in forward operating bases, to carry out targeted counterterrorism operations. But our own military commanders say that this approach will not succeed, and that moving in with search and destroy missions to kill and capture terrorists, only to immediately cede the territory to the enemy, is the failed strategy of the past three and a half years.
Those are the likely consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, and I hope that the supporters of such a move will tell us what they believe to be the likely consequences of this course of action. Should their amendment become law, and U.S. troops begin withdrawing, do they believe that Iraq will become more or less stable? That al Qaeda will find it easier to gather, plan, and carry out attacks from Iraqi soil, or that our withdrawal will somehow make this less likely? That the Iraqi people become more or less safe? That genocide becomes a more remote possibility or ever likelier?
Mr. President, this fight is about Iraq but not about Iraq alone. It is greater than that and more important still, about whether America still has the political courage to fight for victory or whether we will settle for defeat, with all of the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot walk away gracefully from defeat in this war.
Now, this isn’t going to instantly revive McCain’s campaign. What it can do, and might do, is muddle the difference between him and Giuliani. McCain pretty much killed his chances by teaming up with liberal Dems on the immigration fight earlier this year. However, a couple of mis-steps by Giuliani ( probably a given ), and Thompson ( if he ever decides to run ), and McCain can get back in this thing. A year is an eternity in politics. My personal bet? McCain will mitigate this strong speech by doing or saying something stupid in very short order.
17
Jul
I have often heard people say so-and-so is part of the New World Order. Now, up until now I always just came to the conclusion whenever I heard that whoever was saying it was slightly askew in their thinking. However, I came to the conclusion that wasn’t a nice thing to do since I was so completely ignorant of what they meant. So, having a spare ten minutes this evening, I decided to do some research. Rather than hop-skotching through the half dozen references I ran across, it all seemed to come together in one neat page at a place called educate-yourself.org. Now, I don’t know if these people believe all this, or are just educating us as to what it is. Whichever, it’s a lot more complicated than I thought. So, I’m just going to pull the pieces that brought me to my over-all conclusion of what I think about the New World Order. OK? Before I get trashed for only picking the snippets I want, the entire thing is in that link up there labeled “educate-yourself.org”. Got it? Okay, here goes:
There is a worldwide conspiracy being orchestrated by an extremely powerful and influential group of genetically-related individuals (at least at the highest echelons) which include many of the world’s wealthiest people, top political leaders, and corporate elite, as well as members of the so-called Black Nobility of Europe (dominated by the British Crown) whose goal is to create a One World (fascist) Government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to their agenda. Their intention is to effect complete and total control over every human being on the planet and to dramatically reduce the world’s population by 5.5 Billion people. While the name New World Order is a term frequently used today when referring to this group, it’s more useful to identify the principal organizations, institutions, and individuals who make up this vast interlocking spiderweb of elite conspirators……..
One note right here, according to this author, the New World Order dates back to at least 1898. However, current events and agencies established as late as 1979 are included. Whoever planned all this was psychic apparently. Nevermind all that, let’s continue.
The sheer magnitude and complex web of deceit surrounding the individuals and organizations involved in this conspiracy is mind boggling, even for the most astute among us. Most people react with disbelief and skepticism towards the topic, unaware that they have been conditioned (brainwashed) to react with skepticism by institutional and media influences that were created by the Mother of All mind control organizations……
Already covering their bases. If you don’t believe, you’re brainwashed.
What most Americans believe to be “Public Opinion” is in reality carefully crafted and scripted propaganda designed to elicit a desired behavioral response from the public. Public opinion polls are really taken with the intent of gauging the public’s acceptance of the Illuminati’s planned programs. A strong showing in the polls tells the Illuminati that the programing is “taking”, while a poor showing tells the NWO manipulators that they have to recast or “tweak” the programming until the desired response is achieved. While the thrust and content of the propaganda is decided at Tavistock, implementation of the propaganda is executed in the United States by well over 200 ‘think tanks’ such as the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institute which are overseen and directed by the top NWO mind control organization in the United States, the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in Menlo Park, California.
Got that? 200 “think tanks” control what 300 million Americans think. According to them, we must all think exactly alike so they only have to tweak their mind control. That pesky polarization of the US apparently is just a mind control thing and doesn’t really exist. That’s cool with me. I hate it when people don’t agree with me 100% all the time.
The conflict is drawn to the world stage by the controlled media outlets with a barrage of photos and video tape reports of horrific and bloody atrocities suffered by innocent civilians. The cry goes up “Something has to be done!” And That is the desired Reaction (note: the same technique is presently being used to bring about gun control in the United States).
And the War in Iraq, and the famines of Africa, and the terrorist bombings, the reactions to the terrorist bombings, the third-world Muslim dismemberments of people, and even shock videos on the internet. Shoot, I can’t even watch MTV with getting a “desired reaction”. The problem I have here is there is so much horrific and bloody atrocities in the media there is no sway in any direction.
The NWO puppeteers then provide the Solution by sending in UN ‘Peace Keepers’ (Bosnia) or a UN ‘Coalition Force’ (Gulf War) or NATO Bombers and then ground troops (Kosovo). Once installed, the ‘peace keepers’ never leave (Bosnia, Kosovo). The idea is to have NWO controlled ground troops in all major countries or strategic areas where significant resistance to the New World Order takeover is likely to be encountered.
The NWO can have places where UN troops don’t leave. Whenever we do leave, they start killing each other again. Name one place where it hasn’t happened. Now, this is where it stars getting juicy ( if the previous hasn’t already gotten your attention ).
The local, sovereign military force is either defeated (i.e. Yugoslavia) or, as in the case of the United States itself, replaced by foreign UN “Partnership For Peace” (PFP) troops who take over the jobs of US soldiers who have been sent overseas on ‘peacekeeping’ missions. In addition to being killed in ground conflicts on foreign soil, US military forces will likely be reduced in the next few years through disease induced attrition (i.e. from mandatory Anthrax Vaccinations required of all US military personnel). These vaccinations will, in all probability, eventually produce the symptoms of the so-called Gulf War Illness, which was acquired by a certain percentage of Gulf War soldiers who were given a “special” anthrax vaccine (intended by the Illuminati/CIA as a test run to ascertain how quickly (and fatally) the disease would progress with a substantial population of healthy young men and women).
You got it, the Gulf War Syndrome is INTENTIONAL. How’s that for provoking the desired emotional response? According to this guy, killing off our soldiers who are no longer in service has a purpose. It just keeps getting better.
The United Nations, along with all the agencies working under the UN umbrella, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), are full time players in this scheme. Similarly, NATO is a military tool of the NWO.
You got it, ANY coalition force is a member of NWO and to be feared.
The leaders of all major industrial countries like the United States, England, Germany, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, etc. (E.g. members of the “G7/G8″ ) are active and fully cooperative participants in this conspiracy. In this century, the degree of control exerted by the Illuminati has advanced to the point that only certain hand-picked individuals, who are groomed and selected by the Illuminati are even eligible to become the prime minister or president of countries like England, Germany, or The United States. It didn’t matter whether Bill Clinton or Bob Dole won the Presidency in 1996, the results would have been the same (except maybe for Zipper Gate ). Both men are playing on the same team for the same ball club. Anyone who isn’t a team player is taken out: i.e.President Kennedy, Ali Bhutto (Pakistan) and Aldo Moro (Italy). More recently, Admiral Borda and William Colby were also killed because they were either unwilling to go along with the conspiracy to destroy America, weren’t cooperating in some capacity, or were attempting to expose/ thwart the Takeover agenda.
Now, this confuses me. If NATO and the UN are part of the conspiracy, and the US completely controls NATO, and has veto-power over the UN, why would US presidents be willing to destroy America? It would seem to me these guys, more than anyone else IN the New World Order, would want to RUN the New World Order. And, given that kind of control, could very easily have done it immediately following WWII when Russia and all of the industrialized economies were in complete shambles EXCEPT the United States?
Most of the major wars, political upheavals, and economic depression/recessions of the past 100 years (and earlier) were carefully planned and instigated by the machinations of these elites. They include The Spanish-American War (1898), World War I and World War II; TheGreat Depression; the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917; the Rise of Nazi Germany; the Korean War; the Vietnam War; the 1989-91″fall” of Soviet Communism, the 1991 Gulf War; and the recent War in Kosovo. Even the French Revolution was an orchestrated into existence by the Barvaian Illuminati and the House of Rothchild.
Told ya, it just keeps getting better and better. Who do you suppose apparently orchestrated all these global and regionals conflist?
In America, the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) was created in 1979 under Presidential Memorandum 32 authored for President Carter by Prof. Samuel P. Huntington, a Harvard professor and former FEMA Advisory Board chairman. Huntington wrote the Seminal Peace for the Trilateral Commission in the mid 70′s, in which he criticized democracy and economic development as outdated ideas.
You got it. FEMA. Created in 1979, it apparently was the coordinator of several wars going back nearly 300 years before it existed. Of course, in order to buy this part, you have to assume it was just double-top-secret for 300 years. I’ll buy that just to get to the next part.
Huntington’s ideas were rewritten into National Security Decision Directive #47 (NSDD47), which was enacted in July 1982 by President Reagan. Treated as a passing footnote by the media, this law identified legitimate areas to be upgraded to maintain national defense, but it also laid the groundwork for Emergency Mobilization Preparedness, a plan under which existing socio/economic regulations or other legal constraints would be waived in the event of a national emergency. This plan was further strengthened in Public Law 101-647, signed by President Bush in November 1990.What it boils down to is this: in the event that the President declares a national emergency, for any reason (from major earthquakes to increased international tensions or economic /financial crisis of any stripe), FEMA can then, at their discretion, implement Executive Orders 10995 through 11005. These Executive Orders permit a takeover by FEMA of local, state, and national governments and the suspension of constitutional guarantees. FEMA will have the authority to exert any sort of control that it deems necessary upon the American public. A trained National Police Force, formally referred to by the name of Multi Jurisdictional Task Force (MJTF), wearing black uniforms and composed of:
1. specially selected US military personnel
2. foreign military units carrying United Nations ID cards, and
3. specially trained existing police groups from larger metropolitan American cities.These members of the MJTF will implement and enforce martial law under the direction and controlof FEMA. The President and Congress are out of the loop.
FEMA is the Trojan Horse by which the New World Order will implement overt, police-state control over the American populace.
OK, now follow that one. In the case of national emergency, the President can cede all authority to the MJTF, thereby taking himself completely out of the loop. Yeah, that’s gonna happen. I seem to recall an event somewhere around 9/11/01 where that actually happened. Of course, the exact opposite happened during that national emergency. President Bush consolidated his authority, stripped down several layers of beauracracy, and consolidated several agencies that were fighting with each other for funding into one. During Katrina, there were no men in black
Now, if you’ve made it this far, it only gets better. This is where I think the entire theory kind of jumps the shark:
The “War on Drugs” is a cruel joke. The US government, specifically the CIA, is the biggest ‘drug lord’ on the planet. Drug money is used to pay for innumerable ‘black projects’, including the construction of huge underground cities housing both humans and aliens working with the secret US government.
Ya got that? We have a secret US government? Oh, can’t forget those aliens. It keeps going….
Recent revelations from deprogrammed Illuminati (government) mind controlled individuals such as Arizona Wilder (The Biggest Secret), Cisco Wheeler ( Deeper Insights Into the Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind-controlled Slave
), Cathy O’Brien (Trance Formation of America: The True Life Story of a CIA Mind Control Slave
), and Brice Taylor (Thanks For The Memories … The Truth Has Set Me Free! The Memoirs of Bob Hope’s and Henry Kissinger’s Mind-Controlled Slave
) leave NO DOUBT that the upper levels of the Illuminati engage in Satanic rituals which usually include the killing of young children, the drinking of human blood and the consuming of flesh and human organs.
Ya know, I just really don’t see Laura allowing George to kill young children and drinking human blood and consuming flesh and human organs. Call me naive if you want, but I’ve George a couple of times. The site of beer makes him nervous these days. I just don’t buy that. I’m sure Kos and the like do tho.
And you want to know the weirdest part of all? Check THIS out:
To be Continued & Expanded…
What’s so weird about that you say? How’s about this: IT NEVER WAS! Apparently the Illuminati got ahold of Ken Adachi ( that’s the author ). Did they eat him? Did they inject him with Anthrax? Did they subject him to the men in black? I dunno exactly, but he sure seems to have found other ways to amuse himself in the meantime. You can read that exchange if you wish, I don’t want any of it here.
What the NWO does is tie together very neatly every major conspiracy theory there is going. UFO’s, the Kennedy Assassination, WWII, every single one. It even tacitly covers the latest conspiracy theory, global warming. Now, before going off the deep end, hear me out. There are two divergent schools of thought on global warming. One is that is purely a man-made event that will destroy the planet unless we stop doing whatever it is we’re doing to create it. The second is that it is a natural occurance that man can only mitigate to some degree. Now, if you buy into the first scenario, that it is a man-made event that will destroy the Earth, thereby killing off probably 5.5 billion people ( see above ), is it only a coincedence that the figure-head for the global warming movement is………
Al Gore? As a former vice-president, would he not be a member of the Illuminati? Since he obviously is, and his argument is we need to STOP global warming, then the mind-control people would be wanting us to believe global warming is truly a threat ( since he is a member of the mind-control people ). Therefore, since Al Gore is a member of NWO, and hasn’t been killed for resisting the NWO, this must be the NWO in action.
Therefore, the logical conclusion of all this is carbon offsets are a way to bypass global warming standards thereby leading to the actual destruction of Earth and MUST BE STOPPED!
OR
The other logical conclusion to all this is you have to be crazier than hell to believe in the New World Order.
You really, really, do.
The bravery of the men and women in Iraq has never been an issue, but to compare the global pushback against fascism with Iraq dishonors World War II veterans and their families, friends and fellow citizens on the homefront who never wavered in their support for this just cause.
Now, I’m not going to pick on Shaun specifically, his argument is one that has been repeated plenty by lots of people flat out opposed to any military confrontation. By belittling the cause of the conflict, it makes the conflict less logical. However, I do disagree 100% with that argument. Here’s a couple of reasons why.
To keep it real simple, let’s look at dictionary.com:
…a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Now, that seems to define the Hussein regime in a nutshell does it not? I could stop here, but my problem is much bigger than just Iraq. When Bush was comparing the struggle against terrorism, he wasn’t just pinning the entire thing on Iraq. Now I would link to a source of the comparison, but too many people feel compelled to abuse the term “fascist” by tossing out conspiracy theories that Bush is fascist. So, the problem I see more often than not is people don’t care what the term means, they just know it sounds bad and therefore it must apply to Bush. But, the fact of the matter is Iraq was a fascist state. For all intents, Iran is as well ( presidential candidates are hand-picked by a religiously intolerant committee ). North Korea is as well. The axis of evil is well-defined by fascist states where choice of religion is basically non-existent and the consequences of not following the state mandated religious fundamentals, as well as human rights, are severe to the point of allowing public stonings. That folks, is fascism pure and simple. Bush and his administration are dead on accurate calling it what it is. There’s no need to drag Hitler into the mix, fascism was state-wide in Germany as it is now in those countries. But is it on a global scale as it was during World War II? Let’s take a look, shall we? During World War II, the primary focus of the military conflict centered in Europe. Although Germany had invaded several countries, it was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that finally motivated the US people to care enough to get involved. By the time the US did get directly involved, Italy had invaded North Africa and Japan had invaded most of the Pacific. All three were fascist governments of either a total degree, or partial. The US made the initial decision to take out the leader of fascism in Germany primarily. It could have been said then that by focusing on one leader in a country that did not attack the US that we had screwed up completely. However, the leader in the country who did not attack us was supplying all the others. By forcing them to focus their resources on one major conflict to protect themselves, they were no longer able to supply and abet the others in their efforts to spread their fascism.
Fast forward sixty years. We have seen several major conflicts and currently there are several conflicts going on. To make it quick, I’ll just post wiki’s summary:
- Arab-Israeli Wars
- Israeli-Palestinian conflict
- Iranian Revolution
- Lebanon
- Iran-Iraq War
- UN-Iraq War and the later US invasion of Iraq
- Soviet-Afghan War
- US invasion of Afghanistan
- Bangaladesh‘s secession from Pakistan
- several India-Pakistan conflicts over Kashmir and the later India-Pakistan nuclear standoff
- Somalia
- Bosnia-Herzegovina
- Kosovo
- Chechen rebel movement
- Philippine rebel movement
- Saudi Arabian rebel movement
- Afghan rebel movement
- Iraqi rebel movement
Now, Wiki is simply acknowledging the major conflicts here. We have also had “radical” Muslim attacks in:
- Bali, Indonesia in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005.
- London, England in 2005 ( also a thwarted bombing in 2007 )
- New York City in 1993 and 2001.
- Tanzania and Kenya in 1998.
- Saudi Arabia in 1996.
Well, to put it in a little better perspective, I’ll just post Wiki’s list:
- January, February: 52 civilians killed in insurgent attacks in Afghanistan according to Human Rights Watch.[151]
January 05, 2007 & January 06, 2007: A suspected LTTE suicide bomber blows themselves up aboard a bus and there is an explosion on another, during rush hour in Nittambuwa and Peraliya killing six and 16 civilians respectively. A further 100 are injured in the incidents.[158][159][160] See 2007 Sri Lankan bus bombs.
January 10: Three bombs kill six and injured twenty seven in the southern part of the Philippines. Muslim militants trying to disrupt ASEAN Summit suspected.[161]
January 12: Rocket causes minimal damage at the US Embassy in central Athens; police suspect spinoff of Greek left wing group November 17.[162]
January-February: 2007 United Kingdom letter bombs
January 22: A bombing in a market in Baghdad, Iraq, kills 88 people and wounds 160 others.
January 26: A suicide bomber kills himself and a security guard trying to enter the Marriott hotel in Islamabad.[163]- January 27: A suicide bombing Pakistan’s north-west city of Peshawar kills at least 14 people, mostly policemen, and injures at least 30. Security forces had been on high alert ahead of the annual Shia festival of Ashoura.[164]
January 29: A suicide bombing in the Israeli resort city of Eilat kills three people. Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades claimed joint responsibility.[165]- February 3: A truck bombing in a crowed Baghdad market kills at least 135 people and injures a further 339 others.[166] See 3 February 2007 Baghdad market bombing.
- February 17: A suicide bomber kills 15 people, including a judge, inside a courtroom in Pakistan. The Taliban is suspected.
February 18: A car bomb in Mogadishu killed four people, the first such attack of the Islamist insurgency in Somalia (2007present).[167]
February 19: Two bombs explode aboard the Samjhauta Express, a train headed toward Lahore, Pakistan, hour after it left New Delhi. 68 people died in the incident.[168]- February: 2007 chlorine bombings in Iraq
March 1: Ten injured in a car bomb blast in Neiva, capital of Huila. Rebel group FARC is believed to be responsible. The action is believed to be an assassination attempt on Neiva’s mayor.[169]- March 3: A bomb kills four police officers and one civilian in the city of Neiva, as they attempted to deactivate it.[169]
March 5: A Rikers Island inmate offered to pay an undercover police officer posing as a hit man to behead New York City police commissioner Raymond Kelly and bomb police headquarters in retaliation for the controversial police shooting of Sean Bell. The suspect wanted the bombing to be considered a terrorist act.[170][171]
March 5: The Taliban kidnap Italian Journalist Daniele Mastrogiacomo whilst beheading his driver. Mastrogiacomo was released March 19 after Afghan President Hamid Karzai agreed to free five Taliban prisoners. His translator was left behind. On April 8 an Afghan government official confirmed the translator was killed.[172]- March 6: Two suicide bombers kill 114 Shiite pilgrims in Hilla, Iraq.
- March 16: A bomb kills 16 and injures 16 in Buenaventura. Authorities blame FARC.[173]
- March 22: A rocket or mortar lands within 100 yards of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon in the Green Zone in Baghdad, in an apparent assassination attempt.
- March 27: Two truck bombs kill 152 people and injure 347 in Tal Afar, Iraq. See 2007 Tal Afar bombings
- March 28: A bomb injures ten in a grocery store in Buenaventura. Authorities blame FARC.[173]
- March 29: Two suicide bombers kill 79 people and injure 81 in a market of Baghdad.
- In the two weeks prior to April 8 at least thirteen Afghans and two French aid workers have been kidnapped. Rebels have demanded further releases of their jailed associates in exchange for some of the hostages.[172]
- April 9: A bomb against a police headquarters in Cali kills one and injures 30. FARC are blamed.[174]
April 10: Three suicide bombers kill one police man and injure 23 people in Casablanca, Morocco.
April 11: Two suicide car bombs kill 33 people and injure 222 in Algiers, Algeria. Al-Queda takes responsibility. See 2007 Algiers bombings- April 12: One suicide bomber kills eight people and injures 20 in the cafeteria on Iraq Parliament in the Green Zone in Baghdad.
April 12: A U.S. federal grand jury indicted Christopher Paul, 43, a U.S. citizen and resident of Columbus, Ohio on charges of joining al-Qaida and conspiring to bomb European tourist resorts and U.S. government facilities and military bases overseas.[175]- April 14: A suicide car bomb kills 65 people and injure 100 in Karbala, Iraq.
- April 14: Two suicide bombers explode near of the American Language Center in Casablanca, Morocco. One person was injured.
- April 16: Seung-Hui Cho killed 33 people including himself in the Virginia Tech massacre the worst civilian shooting spree in United States history, and the worst case of mass murder in the United States since 9/11. (Note: this may be commonly considered a general massacre and thus included in the List of massacres, but there had been several hints of Cho’s attempt to kill an attempt to terrorize.)
- April 18: A series of explosions kill 198 people and injure 251 in Baghdad, Iraq. See 18 April 2007 Baghdad bombings
April 18: In Malatya, Turkey, hometown of Mehmet Ali Agca, three Christian men, one of them 45-year-old German father of three children Tilman Geske, were brutally murdered by at least four young men who already have confessed the slayings. The assassins tortured their victims for hours before cutting their throats. An autopsy of the German victim found 156 stab wounds. Hurriyet newspaper quoted a suspect: “Let this be a lesson to enemies of our religion.”[176][177][178]
April 25: The American International School in the Gaza Strip is stormed by a dozen gunman claiming to be a members of al-Qaida of Palestine who stole eight computers, planted explosives in adjoining buildings, doused the school with gasoline and set it ablaze.[179]
April 28: Saudi Arabia announced it has arrested one hundred and seventy two people in an Al Queda plot to attack oil facilities, military bases and public figures using civilian aircraft as suicide missiles.[180]- April 28: Interior minister Aftab Khan Sherpao of Pakistan suffers minor injuries, 28 are killed and 35 are injured, ten critically, in a suicide bombing after the minister had finished speaking.[181]
- April 28: A car bomb kills 63 people and injure 70 in Karbala, Iraq.
- May 6: A car bomb kills 35 people and injure 80 in Baghdad, Iraq.
- May 6. In a bomb attack on a UN-run elementary school in the southern Gaza refugee camp of Rafah by Muslim extremists one person, a bodyguard of a local Fatah politician, was killed and eight others, including two children, were injured. The attack happened during a sports festival that earlier had been denounced as un-Islamic by the extremists.[182]
- May 7: 2007 Fort Dix attack plot Six men inspired by Jihadist videos arrested in the US, in a failed homegrown terrorism plot to kill US soldiers.
- May 9: A roadside bomb kills nine police officers engaged in anti-narcotics operations. Attacked is blamed on FARC.[183]
- May 10: A second roadside bomb kills ten soldiers while on patrol. Attack is blamed on FARC.[184]
- May 12: In Izmir, Turkey, a bomb explosion on a market kills one person and injures 14 others, one day before a planned march of secular Turks to demonstrate against the Islamic-rooted government.[185]
- May 13: A suicide truck bomb kills 50 people and injures 115 in Makhmur, Iraq.
- May 15: A bomb explodes in a restaurant in Pakistan’s north-west city of Peshawar. Up to 24 people are killed.
- May 15, May 16: Hamas launches twenty eight rockets into an Israeli town injuring five. Despite Hamas claims the motive was retaliation for Israeli violence, NBC News claims “likely it was an attempt to draw Israel into the fighting as a way of uniting the Palestinians against a common foe”.[186]
- May 18: 5-year-old Adril Watangao was killed and 37 other people were injured when a bomb, probably laid by Islamic extremists, exploded in the Weena bus terminal in Cotabato city, in the Mindanao region of southern Philippines.[187]
- May 20: Two women, one of them pregnant, were stopped at the Erez Crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip while they were en route to commit suicide bombings in Tel Aviv and Netanya. Both women admitted to being members of Islamic Jihad.[188]
- May 21: A Qassam rocket fired by Hamas hits a car in Sderot, killing 35-year-old Shir-El Friedman in the blast.[189]
- May 22: A suicide bombing ripped through an Ankara shopping district Tuesday, killing at six people and wounding dozens more. See 2007 Ankara bombing.
- May 25: Attack on Mecca Masjid in Hyderabad.
- June 3: The Righteous Swords of Islam splash acid on women in the Gaza Strip who dress immodestly and threaten female employees of Palestine TV with beheading unless they dress more modestly.[190]
- June 3: John F. Kennedy International Airport terror plot. Thwarted homegrown Islamist terrorism plot to destroy the fuel supply system for the airport located in New York City and cause a large amount of causalities by blowing up the connecting pipeline system that runs through densely populated neighborhoods.
- June 3: A car-bomb suicide attack to the Prime Ministers House in Mogadishu kills six guards and injures 20, while PM Ali Mohamed Gedi survives this third assassination attempt unhurt.[191]
June 8: An explosion occurred outside of a tea shop in the city of Yala and killed one woman and wounded 28 other people.[192]- June 8: A bomb exploded on a bus as it was traveling through the town of Hub, in Baluchistan province. Two passengers died and five suffered injuries.[193]
- June 8: An improvised bomb exploded aboard a bus in a remote area of Cotabato. 10 people were injured.[194]
- June 10: A bomb exploded outside of a clothing store in Istanbul and injured 14 people.[195]
June 11: A bomb exploded in a business district of Nairobi. The blast occurred outside of the Ambassador Hotel just a few blocks from the U.S. Embassy, the scene of a devastating bomb attack in 1998, and killed one person while injuring 37 others.[196]- June 13: Explosions occurred at the Askariya mosque in Samarra and destroyed the two minarets. No casualties were reported. The same mosque was the target of a February 2006 blast that damaged the building and destroyed its golden dome.[197]
June 14: A car bomb kills ten people in Beirut, Lebanon. Among the killed is the MP Walid Eido.[198]
June 14: Motihar police were able to defuse a bomb planted at the main gate of the Rajshahi University of Engineering and Technology (RUET). The bomb was the latest in a series targeting the area and was claimed by Jadid al Qaeda.[199]- June 19: A truck bomb blast on a square near to a mosque killed 75 and wounded 204 people.
- June 24: A suicide car bomb targeted and killed six members of Unifil near the border with Israel. Two others were also injured. The casualties were Spanish and Colombian nationals.[200]
- June 29,June 30: 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack, 2007 London car bombs, 2007 UK terrorist incidents. Car bomb plot suspected Al-Qaeda. At Glasgow Airport car rams into main terminal causing minor injuries to five and setting off blaze. Explosive device caught fire instead of detonating. In London’s West End attempt to set off two car bombs by suspected cell phone triggers fail. One car is towed before device is discovered in underground car park. Police link two incidents. Police find suicide notes on two suspects in London incident[201].Eight men arrested. One Glasgow suspect critically burned. One of the five men could be an associate of Dhiren Bharot a high level Al-Qaeda operative. Authorities say London bombs could have caused “significant loss of life”.[202][203] The two incidents have been linked, by police, to the same two people.[204]
- June 29: Sri Lanka Navy personnel find a truck packed with over 1000 kg (2200 lbs) of high explosives in the eastern port city of Trincomalee. It is suspected the Tamil Tiger (LTTE) rebels were planning to use it to blow up a major civilian target in the area. Two weeks earlier a similar explosive laden truck of the Tamil Tigers was detected close to Colombo, the capital city of Sri Lanka.[205]
July 2: Seven Spanish tourists and at least two Yemenis killed and another 5 wounded in suicide bombing attack at the Queen of Sheba temple in Marib[20].
People, that’s JUST 2007.
Now, granted that’s the entire list and not just one specific threat, look to see how many times you see the phrases “Muslim”. What they are wanting is Sharia Law.
So, don’t belittle what’s happening now by pretending this is a silly folly in Iraq. It’s a lot more than that. If you’re offended by Bush comparing it to WWII, then call it what it is, WWIII. If these people could get ahold of nukes, I have no doubt whatsoever they’d use them in a heartbeat. And, since you’re not Muslim, they won’t care that you’re dead. If you are Muslim, but not the right kind of Muslim, it won’t matter either. That, folks, is fascism pure and simple. It’s all over the damn planet.
And, just like World War II, a LOT of US citizens are quite sure that the silly folly over there will never involve or threaten us.
The comparisons to WWII are a lot easier to make than they are to disprove.
I have argued here a long time that most of the fears of nuclear energy are based on fear itself. Fear of the unknown as people don’t easily comprehend how nuclear energy works and don’t want to look into enough to sate those fears. People like Helen Caldicott and a lot of the media fan those fears based on their fear as well. The worst case scenarios are always painted with catastrophic results of millions of people dieing horrible deaths, etc.. Well, Helen’s worst case scenario hit Japan yesterday as a 6.8 magnitude earthquake hit one of Japan’s largest and most powerful reactors. To say the message sent afterwards by the media are confusing is to say the least. Here’s the media headline via CNN:
Report: Radioactivity leaked from Japan nuke plant
And, here’s the only reference to radioactivity in the report:
Earlier, Motoyasu Tamaki, a Tokyo Electric Power Co. official, said there was no release of radioactivity or damage to the reactors.
So, which is it? BBC has this to say:
A strong earthquake in central Japan has damaged a large nuclear power plant causing a leak of radioactive material, officials at the plant have said.
Of course, they don’t actually quote anyone.
Reuters India is a little more specific:
They do quote someone.
When quoting people, no radiation was leaked. When NOT quoting someone, radiation was leaked.
My bet, no radiation was leaked of any substantial proportion. A generator isn’t really a serious mechanical part in containing radiation.
This just plays into what I have always felt. Media loves a good conspiracy, even if they have to make it up. The easy assumption to make is because a nuclear plant was damaged in any way, radioactive waste HAS to escape. Fact is, they’re a lot sturdier than that. I’ve seen pictures of the plant. There’s nothing to indicate there was any serious damage to the structure. My bet is BBC embellished just a LITTLE bit.
Now, are Helen and the anti-nuclear peeps gonna admit that nuclear energy is a little safer than they’ve been telling us? I bet the half-life of plutonium expires first.
July 15, 2007 UPDATE: According to NEW reports some radiation might have been released in the form of water spilling into the ocean and busted barrels. To date, no illnesses or injuries have been reported due to this possible release.
Buried very quietly on most media pages is what I think is one of the biggest events of the year:
U.N. Nuclear Inspectors Confirm Shutdown on North Korean Reactor
On Fox, this didn’t garner nearly the attention Lindsay Lohan‘s ankle bracelet or Jessica Simpson’s boobs got. Not even close. However, when history looks back at 2007, North Korea bowing down to world pressure instead of guns will prove a much bigger story.
I’m waiting for Nancy Pelosi to brag about this huge diplomatic coup. Putting two and two together yet? If not, I’ll help you:
- It’s not sexy enough for media.
- Bashing Bush is the norm, praising Bush scares people.
- You don’t have anyone touting Bush right now. The Democrats won’t do it in a billion years, most media won’t in a billion years, and the Republicans that should are all too concerned about their own campaigns to take the chance.
This sucks. Because in my opinion, this is HUGE.
There’s a lot of talk about John McCain’s presidential bid implosion. Some are saying it’s because he’s not liberal enough, citing his ties to Bush a few years ago. Others, in the same thread, are claiming he’s not conservative enough, citing his failure to support a lot of Bush’s agenda. I think it’s a totally different reason. Nearly two years ago to this date I did a thingy on a Patrick Ruffini straw poll that shouwed George Allen barely edging out Rudy Giuliani for the lead. John McCain wasn’t even close. During the 2004 election he stood solidly behind Bush in supporting the war in Iraq. One month after the election, he was critical of people leading the war in Iraq. So, he’s immediately drawn the ire of anti-war folks and pro-war folks at the same time. This has been a trademark of McCain for as long as I’ve kept up with him. It’s not that he’s John Kerry wishy-washy on topics, he comes armed with facts and makes a strong case about something, then immediately makes a strong case against what it was he expected you follow him on in the first place. In other words, the average guy learned that to trust him was assured of getting burned. I like moderates, people who dwell in the middle with the ability to go against the stereotypes of conservative or liberal. I have wanted to like McCain for a long time. But, I just never could. He’s just too darned aggressive when he flips sides on issues. On many, many, issues, Republicans learned they couldn’t rely on McCain. For me, the straw was the McCain-Feingold “reform” legislation that ignored the most obvious transgressors of national elections, 527′s. Teaming up with Russ Feingold sent shivers down a lot of Republican and conservative voters. I wasn’t blogging at the time of the legislation’s inception, but I said somewhere that this legislation would bite McCain in the butt. It’s just symptomatic of who he seems to respect in the Senate, which in this case, is the most bizarre character in DC who I wouldn’t allow to babysit my kid for an hour. McCain attaching his name to Feingold’s just ended it for me with John. Then, he buddied up with Ted Kennedy……
So, back to the original question about the “McCain Implosion”. My only response to the “implosion” is, what implosion? He’s been losing since 2004. Probably always was. Having a few personnel issues doesn’t change that fact. Considering he’s been losing for three years or more, if he didn’t make major personnel changes going into the final stretch, THEN I’d be surprised.
( No sooner than I clicked Save, I saw this from Prose Before Hos. The beauty of their article is they make the very compelling argument that even with teaming up with Feingold and Kennedy, McCain was moving his image to a much more strongly conservative image ( note the survey results ). That’s pretty much what I’m trying to elaborate here in a much different way. The Moderate Voice says he was walking a tightrope. I don’t think it was that so much as he never defined who he is and constantly sends out mixed signals. Much as John Kerry did in 2004. That lack of definition raises doubt with a lot of people. Because of that, those that do define themselves beat McCain like a drum every time. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, that’s just the way it is. )
Bottom line to this implosion discussion is there is no implosion, there was nothing there to implode. It’s been a mess since about 2000, it’s just getting a little worse now.
Michael Chertoff created a buzz, and has done a weak job dealing with it. Basically he insinuated there’s a growing threat from Al Qaeda due to increased chatter. What he has not done is say there is an increased threat from Al Qaeda due to increased chatter. He upped that concern by saying it’s something like pre-9/11. That’s pretty serious. What he won’t do is say what we’re doing on a preemptive measure to deal with all that chatter.
I have an idea.
The general assumption ( yeah, I know what assuming does ), is that Osama Bin Laden is in northern Pakistan. The US military and Pakistani military both claim that area is dominated by tribal chiefs and such and are so dangerous even the US military can’t go in to deal with it. Along the same lines, the US and Russia have agreed to lower their nuclear arsenal levels by eliminating some outdated missiles and warheads. Well, I got a suggestion:
Let’s put all those unnecessary nukes right about here:
To be civilized about it, we create a bunch of chatter telling people who do not belong to Al Qaeda to get out first. Then, just turn those rocky craggy hills and mountains filled with Al Qaeda and other too-dangerous-for-civilized-man types into rocky craggy hills and mountains with no man at all. Nothing lost in doing that. Then, in a few years, we can try again and see if we can do better this time.
I’m welcome to hear the downside of this plan. But, at this time, I see none.
And, if nothing else, at the very least we’d be creating some chatter of our own other than the chatter we’re sending out now that we’re too scared to say anything that might deter them in the from place.
UPDATE: July 13, 2007: Ed Morrissey does an excellent post on this topic over at Captain’s Quarters. Not so much on the topic I made in this post, but the underlying causes of why I made this post that have been elaborated on in the comments. A must read if you have any interest in this topic ( Pakistan and Al Qaeda, not nukes. )
Aaron Hanscom over at Pajamas Media makes an observation regarding Rosie O’Donnell’s comments that radical Christianity is as dangerous as radical Islam. Notably:
Now, the problem I have is Hanscom generalizing the word “radical”. Now, what Rosie actually said was:
The key words here being”where we have separation of church and state”. What I’m getting to here is Hanscom generalizes Rosie’s comments as being an overall “radical” element whereas what Rosie is saying that it is an individual threat here. In the US ( come on Rosie, “America” is not a country ), the threat is from individuals because the government basically does not involve itself in individual religious rights. However, that doesn’t protect anyone. What it does is punish those who trespass against others after the fact. So, Rosie’s wrong in her general summation that she’s any safer here than there. In a country like “America”, the “radicals” are just as free to kill her because she’s gay as they are in Iraq. In Iraq, they don’t really prosecute or punish people for killing gays. In “America”, the killer is more likely to spend some time in prison and possibly walk free than they are to be given equal justice. So, what’s terribly different in regards to the victim? One person is dead, the killer is not. Googling “hate crime” will get you all kinds of examples of violence against gays. Most of them in “America”. So, Rosie’s assumption that Christianity is as much a threat in America as radical Muslim is correct until we truly take the measures it takes to prove otherwise. ( That would be enacting the death penalty without exceptions when the evidence is overwhelming on a federal level. )
However, it’s a 100% strawman point. It’s based on the assumption that radical Christians are basically the only threat. Here, we’ve got a myriad of radical organizations. Not all of them are based on religion. The Arians for example, are based purely on a political philosophy. I’m not sure that they single out gays, but whether you’re gay or not, they can be a threat. One of the most violent has been an environmental advocacy group. If they kill you, and you’re gay, it wasn’t because you were gay. And, it wasn’t because they are radical Christians. The only difference I’m getting at is getting killed by a radical Islamist in “America” is possible. However, you’re more likely to get killed by one of the myriad of other violent groups protesting about anything you can dream up. So, what Rosie is concluding is the government makes all things equal for a terrorist. It does, but that proves nothing. It only proves you’re as likely to be threatened by a tree-hugger as a radical Islam. That’s not much of a point to make.
Now, I’m just as lost by Hanscom’s rebuttal that homosexuality is punishable by death in most Islam societies. What’s the point of that? Rosie is careful to point out the seperation of church and state, Hanscom rebuts with the example of no separation. We’re not comparing apples here. Rosie I think was trashing Christianity by pointing out it has its radical elements as well. Hanscom pointing out Islam has its radical elements as well proves nothing in regards to what Rosie was comparing. Now, what I think Rosie was getting at is that the US government doesn’t endorse any religion, which leaves them all on the same playing field, even if that playing field condones violence. What Hanscom is trying to point out is that Islam in its nature does not allow a level playing field. As screwed up as I think I am getting this entire scenario, the bottom line I think it paints is that both of these people seem to indicate, when taken together, that religion in general breeds the radicals that we have to fear.
I don’t believe that. Radicals are radicals. I fear the tree-spikers as much as I do the abortion clinic bombers as I do the jihadist as I do the Nazi. They are all terrorists with no respect for life in general. I have always felt that a terrorist is just looking for a cause to promote the instincts they already have. Someone born and living the life of a saint is not going to suddenly become a terrorist because they convert to Islam or Greenpeace. The assumption Rosie is making and Hanscom ( and others ) is rebutting is therefore moot and rather than making it a very selective us versus them, should be including all radicals. Just because you fear radical Christians doesn’t make you safe from radical Muslims or radical environmentalists. They kill indiscriminately. They kill because you are human. They kill no matter where you are. They kill because they kill. It’s just that simple.
So, Rosie, quit being so narrow and shallow that you feel compelled to put radical Christians on a level by comparing them to radical Islam. And Hanscom, quit running with the assumption Islam in general is dangerous. It dilutes all the other terrorists that probably are feeling left out right now. The last thing we need to be doing is motivating all the non-Christian and non-Muslim terrorists. Dontcha think?
Mark Levin over at The Corner on NRO had this comment:
Now, being as this is the first time I’ve ever seen a need to actually quote National Review here, I thought it must be pretty clever. Biased, sure, but clever. However, Dr. Steven Taylor over at Poliblog apparently differs in his opinion, labeling it:
By Dr. Steven Taylor
One of his readers backs him up by pointing out they HAVE raised minimum wage. I just gotta wonder WHY Dr. Taylor considers this the dumbest quote of the day? All he does is give a lead to The Daily Dish, which labels it:
Malkin Award Nominee
One post makes an observation. The combined text between the two posts responding to it is a total of zero words. You know how dumb a post with zero words sounds to me?
OK, so to tackle the question pondered, which seems to draw scorn but no ability to reciprocate, the Democrat Congress HAS raised minimum wage, and HAVE decided to allow the tax incentives to expire, and HAS funded the Iraqi war they say they oppose. So, the net effect is they have raised your taxes, given you nothing since most states had higher minimum wages anyway, and sent billions more dollars to Iraq.
There ya go Mark, Steven, and Andrew Sullivan. I really haven’t kept up with the Iraqi governmen, but I know OUR Democrat Congress has done all kinds of stuff. And if they keep at it, every Iraqi citizen will have free health care and higher standard of living than the US.
