This is Al Qaeda

[Tonus]

To anyone who ever considered them to be "freedom fighters." To everyone who tells us that killing these assholes is the surest way to create more of them. To everyone who thinks that we're the bullies. This is Al Qaeda. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/08/07/iraq.kidnapped.boy/index.html)


Terrorists kidnap, torture boy to bully Iraqi policeman

FALLUJA, Iraq (CNN) -- Like many young boys, Khidir loves playing with toy cars and wants to be a policeman like his father when he grows up. But it was his father's very job that caused the tiny child to suffer the unimaginable.

Khidir was just 6 years old when he was savagely ripped away from his family, kidnapped by al Qaeda operatives in Iraq.


"They beat me with a shovel, they pulled my teeth out with pliers, they would go like this and pull it," said Khidir, now 8, demonstrating with his hands. "And they would make me work on the farm gathering carrots."

What followed was even more horrific, an ordeal that would last for two years in captivity. Khidir and his father spoke to CNN recently, more than half a year after his rescue by Iraqi (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/iraq) police.

"This is where they hammered a nail into my leg and then they pulled it out," he says, lifting up his pant leg to show a tiny wound.


He says his captors also pulled out each of his tiny fingernails, broke both his arms, and beat him repeatedly on the side of the head with a shovel. He still suffers chronic headaches. He remembers them laughing as they inflicted the pain.


"I would think about my mommy and daddy," he replies, when asked how he managed to get through the agony.


His father, Abdul Qader, struggles for words. "When he tells me about how they would torture him, I can't tolerate it. I start crying," he says. "What hurts me the most is when they hammered a nail into his leg."


The father, a police officer, was sleeping at the police station in Falluja when his son was kidnapped. It was too dangerous to go home regularly. Although Falluja was no longer controlled by insurgents, assassinations against police were common.


"I woke up to the sound of a huge explosion ... and then I heard my name on the radio. I ran outside and they came to me saying your house was blown up," he says.


"When the police patrol came back, they all started kissing and comforting me," he continues. "I was asking, 'What's going on? Where is my family?' They told me that they took my son. This was a disaster. I went mad that day, I wasn't normal, I was hysterical."


Khidir's grandmother was at home with the family at the time.


"The kidnappers climbed the fence and kicked in the door," she says."They were screaming for Abdul Qader. I told them he's not here. They called me a liar and said we want his son. His son was hiding behind me, clutching my clothes. I said this is not his son. They hit me on the back with a rifle and ripped him out of my arms."


The last thing she remembers were his screams of "Granny, Granny!"


The attackers rigged the house with explosives and demolished it before taking off with the 6-year-old. The boy's grandmother and seven other family members rushed out of the home before it exploded.


"The kidnappers called me on the phone and demanded that some prisoners that we had be released or they would slit his throat," Khidir's father says. "But I said no to the release. I would not put killers back out on the street that would hurt other Muslims. So I thought to myself, 'Let my son be a martyr.' "


He even held a secret funeral for his little boy. He didn't want to tell the rest of the family that he had refused the kidnappers' ultimatum, allowing them to hope that he was still alive.


Last December, nearly two years later, police in Taji, about 45 miles (70 kilometers) away, received a tip that terrorists (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/terrorism) were holding kidnapped children.


"We thought that it was just a tip to ambush us, but we considered the mission as a sacrifice," said Iraqi police Capt. Khalib Ali. "Either we find the children and free them or face the danger and take the risk."


The tip led the Iraqi police to a rundown farm and a series of mud huts. Khidir's tiny body was twisted abnormally. And in another hut, they found another child. Two children are still believed to be with the kidnappers.

(http://topics.cnn.com/topics/al_qaeda_in_iraq)
Al Qaeda in Iraq (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/al_qaeda_in_iraq) has historically kidnapped children for money, to pressure officials, and even to use in terrorist attacks.


For Khidir's father, it was as if his son had come back from the dead.
"He didn't recognize his mother or his grandmother," Abdul Qader says. "But then he saw me in uniform and ran to me. I went flying toward him to hug him. People said be careful; both his arms are broken. So I held him from his waist, and he hugged me, kissed me, smelled me, and then broke into a smile."
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/content/ads/advertisement.gif






The father flips through old family photos -- all they were able to salvage from their destroyed home -- and notes some of the kidnappers are still at large. He still fears for his son's safety, but says he won't quit the police force.

"Never, never," he says. "If I leave the police force, if others leave the force, who will protect us from the terrorists? We are the only ones."


And to anyone who wants to cut and run from a "modern Vietnam," I hope that we never do that. Because betraying the people who are putting their lives on the line for each other and for freedom would be inhuman.

Obrysii once said the following, in a discussion about Iraq:
So. What exactly do we have to "lose" if we pull out of Iraq? Please, inform me.

And I'm trying to be serious: I can't really think of anything.

Has it stopped terrorism? No. Has it stabilized the region? No. What exactly will we lose, besides our pride, if we pull out of Iraq?
Now we have a very specific answer to his question. What do we have to lose if we pull out of Iraq? I wish he was here just long enough to read that article. It wouldn't make any difference to him, but it answers his question.

[Tonus]

And lest we forget, here is an example (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/09/AR2009080900834.html) of the sort of government that Al Qaeda would like to implement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although to their credit, they wouldn't have bothered with the part where they try to fake that they're a democracy and actually care about what the people want.


Iranian Officials Call for Arrest of Opposition Leaders

TEHRAN, Aug. 9 -- Revolutionary Guard generals, top politicians and senior clerics have called for the arrest and punishment of opposition leaders, including defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, Iranian state media reported Sunday, while the national police chief acknowledged that protesters had been mistreated while in custody.

The calls for arrests come as part of a crackdown against opposition activists who continue to dispute June's presidential vote, which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad officially won in a landslide but which Mousavi and his supporters say was stolen.



In recent weeks, the government has staged mass trials in which activists have given controversial confessions, admitting involvement in elaborate, internationally backed plots to bring what prosecutors call "a nonmilitary velvet revolution" to the Islamic republic. Opposition leaders have charged that the confessions are coerced and have vowed to continue the protests that have deeply unsettled Iran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/iran.html?nav=el) in recent weeks.

"In order to end this mayhem, they need to arrest, try and punish these political figures," Gen. Yadollah Javani, head of the political office of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, advised the judicial system Sunday, according to state news agency IRNA. "These individuals should be prosecuted, punished and tried as traitors." He singled out Mousavi, fellow defeated candidate Mehdi Karroubi and former president Mohammad Khatami. The Revolutionary Guard is a force that plays a highly influential role in politics.


Mohammad Karami-Rad, a member of the parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, told Iran's Journalists Club on Sunday that the government was pursuing a complaint against Mousavi, but he did not provide details.


Coupled with the trials already underway, charges against Mousavi and other top opposition figures would mark an unprecedented attempt to purge a faction that has been part of the nation's political fabric since the Islamic revolution 30 years ago. It comes after a decades-long dispute between the faction now represented by Ahmadinejad and the one now led by Mousavi, which erupted into open conflict in the run-up to the elections.

Defendants in the trials include opposition politicians, activists and journalists. The defendants have not had access to their lawyers.


Government supporters defend the trials by citing a speech by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on June 19 in which he not only expressed support for Ahmadinejad but also warned the leaders of the demonstrations that they would be held responsible for any violence.


"The leader told Mousavi to pursue his complaints through legal channels, but he instead called for protests. And the protesters turned violent, attacked several places and killed many people," Hossein Taeb, the commander of the volunteer Basij paramilitary force, said Sunday, according to the semiofficial Fars News Agency. Taeb said Mousavi and his followers were guilty of "an evil plot" and alleged that they do not "want the revolution to make progress and see its fourth decade."


The majority of those killed during the protests are believed to have been demonstrators, though security officers also died.

If the trials yield convictions, the government will have a basis for banning opposition parties and newspapers, paving the way for arrests of anyone protesting against the government. Convictions could also substantially narrow the field in any future vote, as Iranian law prohibits candidates with criminal records from participating in elections.


Mousavi has not been heard from in days. Karroubi called for an investigation of alleged sexual abuse of prisoners, Saham News reported Sunday. "I heard accounts of boys and girls being violently raped in prison," he wrote in a letter to Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a senior cleric and former president who analysts say supports Mousavi.


Meanwhile, a controversy over a prison closed on orders of Iran's supreme leader because of "substandard conditions" continued Sunday. Iran's national police chief, Brig. Gen. Esmail Ahmadi-Moqaddam, admitted that abuse had occurred in Kahrizak prison but said that two prisoners had died of disease, not torture.


"This detention center was built to house dangerous criminals. Housing people related to recent riots caused an outbreak of diseases," IRNA quoted Ahmadi-Moqaddam as saying. Prosecutor General Ghorban Ali Dorri Najafabadi called for those responsible for mistreating detainees to be punished for "violations and carelessness," IRNA reported.


He said that authorities had been told not to take protesters to Kahrizak but that they ignored the order. Rights groups have identified at least three protesters they say died after being detained at Kahrizak.


And Obry couldn't think of anything we might stand to lose by abandoning-- sorry, pulling out of Iraq.

[Grunthos]

There were documented cases in Anbar where AQ kidnapped toddlers, and then cooked them alive in ovens, "serving" them to their horrified parents as the ceterpiece of a banquet table, as a warning.

A warning!?!?

[Ythogtha]

It's effective. Not that I like them, but I must admit that they have the "murderous bastards" game down to an art form. As sick as it is, I have to give them that. After all, would you fuck with someone who will kill and eat your kids? They have no rules, no morals, and no care for life or freedom. That's a nasty enemy. It's hard for some people to understand why they (as AQ) would do such horrible things, but that's the point - it's horrible and most people would think twice before crossing people who would do such things without a second thought. An organization that will kill scores of innocent people just to say "we warned you" is nothing to sneeze at.

Like I said, I do not like them, but I can understand why they do what they do and why it is effective. Fear is a powerful tool. It turns good people bad. You can force people to do all kinds of things through fear and what parent isn’t afraid of their kids dying? Husbands will die for their families, mothers as well, but if you can get their kids – if you can attack they vary thing they care about – you control them. That’s the point, fear and control. Hell, look what people can get other people to do just by spreading lies? You don’t even have to actually hurt anyone they may know, but just the threat of harm, no matter if it is outside the realm of common sense; can stock people into panic and fear. And the best part is half the time people will not even know they have been manipulated if the manipulation is casual enough. You can tip society with the slightest efforts through fear, even get someone to kill their loved ones if you do it right.

[S Carver Orne]

It's effective. Not that I like them, but I must admit that they have the "murderous bastards" game down to an art form. As sick as it is, I have to give them that. After all, would you fuck with someone who will kill and eat your kids? They have no rules, no morals, and no care for life or freedom. That's a nasty enemy. It's hard for some people to understand why they (as AQ) would do such horrible things, but that's the point - it's horrible and most people would think twice before crossing people who would do such things without a second thought. An organization that will kill scores of innocent people just to say "we warned you" is nothing to sneeze at.

Like I said, I do not like them, but I can understand why they do what they do and why it is effective. Fear is a powerful tool. It turns good people bad. You can force people to do all kinds of things through fear and what parent isn’t afraid of their kids dying? Husbands will die for their families, mothers as well, but if you can get their kids – if you can attack they vary thing they care about – you control them. That’s the point, fear and control. Hell, look what people can get other people to do just by spreading lies? You don’t even have to actually hurt anyone they may know, but just the threat of harm, no matter if it is outside the realm of common sense; can stock people into panic and fear. And the best part is half the time people will not even know they have been manipulated if the manipulation is casual enough. You can tip society with the slightest efforts through fear, even get someone to kill their loved ones if you do it right.

I like to call that "evil."

[Ythogtha]

Evil, some parts, but there are plenty of people and groups within the US that have used fear and hate as a way to influence or push others in the direction they want them to go, and I'm sure not all those organizations may be considered "evil", but they have employed the tactic nonetheless.

But, the baby eating part would be evil. The fear part (separate from the baby eating) is a sound tactic used all the time. Just depends what you use to invoke the fear.

[S Carver Orne]

Evil, some parts, but there are plenty of people and groups within the US that have used fear and hate as a way to influence or push others in the direction they want them to go, and I'm sure not all those organizations may be considered "evil", but they have employed the tactic nonetheless.

But, the baby eating part would be evil. The fear part (separate from the baby eating) is a sound tactic used all the time. Just depends what you use to invoke the fear.

That opens up the discussion of absolute morality, which from a sociological standpoint makes the concept of evil absolute. Evil committed by any group remains evil. A better point might even be "is evil justifiable?"

[Ythogtha]

True, vary true and in some cases I may agree that evil IS justifiable. Murder is evil, but would a person consider murdering another to protect someone they love, or themselves, evil? I wouldn't, but then again I'm not the best person to judge perhaps. Then again, ones concept of evil is not another’s. What you may think of as an evil act another may not. Some people may find all forms of killing evil. Some people think killing animals (even for food - PETA) as an evil act. I just want a good burger and the living cow is standing in the way of my Big Mac attack.

In the end really it is subjective.

[Dr. L]

A warning like that should be responded to with iron spilling their blood.

[Tonus]

It's effective. Not that I like them, but I must admit that they have the "murderous bastards" game down to an art form. As sick as it is, I have to give them that. After all, would you fuck with someone who will kill and eat your kids? They have no rules, no morals, and no care for life or freedom. That's a nasty enemy. It's hard for some people to understand why they (as AQ) would do such horrible things, but that's the point - it's horrible and most people would think twice before crossing people who would do such things without a second thought. An organization that will kill scores of innocent people just to say "we warned you" is nothing to sneeze at.
Which is why I prefer the approach of shooting them and blowing them up and hunting their disgusting selves to the ends of the Earth. Much more effective than sneezing at them.

[Nepharski]

I like to call that "evil."Evil is a four-letter word.

Though I hesitate to think how anyone can claim moral superiority on behalf of an organization that regularly beheads people on live television just to make a point (aside from their apparent fascination with freelance dentistry in the upbringing of the youth). But no, the empire is always always the bad guy, even with the "Heroic" rebels are busy executing their own people for fun and profit.

No guys, we're the real monsters.

[Doc Holliday]

I'd like to know who is considering them the "good guys."

[Tonus]

If I had to guess, I'd say Michael Moore.

[Ythogtha]

I don't think Michael Moore's even that nuts (though I have been wrong before). I'd like to think Michael Moore thinks everyone's the badguys.

[Doc Holliday]

I don't think Michael Moore's even that nuts (though I have been wrong before). I'd like to think Michael Moore thinks everyone's the badguys.

Except the hamburgers.

[Nepharski]

I'd rather be hated by Michael Moore than eaten by him.

[Grunthos]

The Neph lives.

Considering that good and evil are sometimes considered debatable, how about we just say that letting animals like that run loose and reproduce is just a little too dangerous, and proceed with killing them until they can do neither?

[Ythogtha]

I tried that excuse when it comes to stupid people. It doesn't go over so well in court. :sad:

[Tonus]

Here is a story (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,25932291-1702,00.html?from=public_rss) that could get very interesting if it escalates further (though you have to wonder how far it must escalate to get major media attention- imagine if Israel was involved?).


Gaza clashes between Hamas, Islamist radicals kill 13


CLASHES between Hamas and Islamist radicals have killed 13 and injured at least 100 in one of the most violent incidents in the region since Israel's onslaught in January.

The clashes were sparked when Hamas police stormed a Gaza mosque where radicals had declared an Islamist "emirate," emergency services say. Shooting began in the afternoon following weekly prayers, witnesses said, and continued into the evening. The incident occurred in the southern city of Rafah, which straddles the Egyptian border.

Among the dead was Mohammed al-Shamali, head of the Hamas military unit for southern Gaza.

Emergency services said that bodies of some other victims could not be reached because of the intensity of the fighting.

Twenty of the wounded were said to be in serious condition as the confrontation developed into one of the most violent incidents in Gaza since Israel's 22-day onslaught on the impoverished enclave in December and January.

An Egyptian security official said a three-year-old boy was critically wounded by a bullet from the fighting across the border.

Witnesses said that following prayers, a group of Palestinians announced the formation of the Islamist "emirate," defying the authority of Hamas, which has ruled Gaza's 1.5 million people for the past two years.

"We are today proclaiming the creation of an Islamist Emirate in the Gaza Strip," Abdul Latif (http://search.news.com.au/search//0/?us=ndmnews&sid=1702&as=news&ac=ninews2&q=Abdul%20Latif) Musa said at the Bin Taymiyya mosque, witnesses said.
He was surrounded by armed fighters and spoke on behalf of Jund Ansar Allah (http://search.news.com.au/search//0/?us=ndmnews&sid=1702&as=news&ac=ninews2&q=Jund%20Ansar%20Allah) (Soldiers of the Partisans of God).

Jund Ansar Allah seeks the strict enforcement of Islamic Sharia (http://search.news.com.au/search//0/?us=ndmnews&sid=1702&as=news&ac=ninews2&q=Islamic%20Sharia) law and accuses Hamas of being too liberal, witnesses in Gaza said.

Rafah is the Gaza stronghold of the so-called Salafist movement, of which Jund Ansar Allah is said to a part and which is ideologically close to Al-Qaeda.

Hamas police reportedly blocked all entrances to Rafah and dynamited Musa's house, although it is not clear whether the Islamist was there at the time.

Note the hoops that this paper jumps through in order to spin this as much as possible. Hamas is never described as anything but the legitimate government of the Palestinian people, although there are at least two references to "Israel's onslaught" (which don't mention that it was in response to repeated ROCKET ATTACKS by Hamas). They go to pains to minimize the fact that the group battling Hamas is an arm of Al Qaeda. They just mention that it's "ideologically close."

The amount of cowardly tip-toeing going on in the article is shameless. And it just has to hurt these guys to have to report on two radical terrorist groups assaulting each other for the right to attack Israel. If Al Qaeda has decided that it's time to elbow Hamas out of the way, things will get bloody and violent on levels that we never saw during the worst intifadah against Israel. The question is, will the media cover it honestly, if at all? This early effort makes me think that it won't.

[Grunthos]

Personally, I find the whole idea of a group of radicals terrorizing Hamas for being too conservative, to be composed almost entirely of rich, frothy win.

[Tonus]

The UK freed the mastermind of the bombing that killed 270 people on Flight 103 in 1988, because he was terminally ill. In case anyone is wondering why it's incredibly stupid to show that kind of consideration to a murderous scumbag, read this. (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/22/did-the-uk-trade-lockerbie-bomber-for-oil-contracts/)

Did the UK trade Lockerbie bomber for oil contracts?

The outrage over the release of the bomber and mass murderer responsible for killing 270 innocent people grew overnight as a key Libyan political figure claimed that the release came as part of a commercial deal (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090822/wl_uk_afp/britainlibyausattackslockerbietrade). Seif al-Islam, the son of Libyan strongman Moammar Gaddafi, met Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi at the airport and proclaimed him a hero in a display that embarrassed the UK when video of it hit British televisions. Gaddafi’s son then told interviewers that British commercial interests had required Megrahi’s release:The release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi was linked to trade deals with Britain, Seif al-Islam, the son of Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi, said in a interview. …

“In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, (Megrahi) was always on the negotiating table,” said Islam, interviewed late Thursday as he accompanied Megrahi on the flight back from Scotland to Libya.

“All British interests were linked to the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi,” Islam said in an interview broadcast by Libyan TV channel Al Mutawassit on Friday.
The Brown government in London quickly denied (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6070357/Lockerbie-bombers-release-linked-to-trade-deal-claims-Gaddafis-son.html) any commercial deal for Megrahi:The claims were vehemently denied by the UK government.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: “There is no deal. All decisions relating to Megrahi’s case have been exclusively for Scottish ministers, the Crown Office in Scotland and the Scottish judicial authorities.

“No deal has been made between the UK government and Libya in relation to Megrahi and any commercial interests in the country.”
This has turned into a massive embarrassment for Brown and his advisers. They have been reduced to admitting that they urgently requested Libya not to stage a hero’s welcome for Megrahi in order to keep from angering British voters. That effort failed miserably, as even before al-Islam’s remarks hit the televisions, Brits had reacted with shock and anger to Megrahi’s release.

And what will the British do now? They say they’re reconsidering plans to have Prince Andrew attend Moammar Gaddafi’s 40th anniversary of his dictatorship. Andrew, not coincidentally, represents British trade interests in Libya, including oil and gas contracts. Hmmmm.

The abject nature of Britain’s response to the celebrations, as well as al-Islam’s revelations, won’t ease that anger one bit. The British have utterly fumbled this situation from top to bottom.

Update: My friend Scott Johnson at Power Line (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/08/024345.php) hears from one of their regular correspondents, whose personal experience indicates that this decision was driven by commercial interests and Gordon Brown. However, the British may not have been the only ones to fumble this:I’ve been quite perplexed at the characterization of this as a Scottish decision, as my friend spoke of it in terms of something that had already been cleared conditionally by the courts and had been signed off on by the Prime Minister. In fact, he pointed me toward this February 2009 AFP article (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hrCuuNEA6FWKuJb8Vrx9be5fM87g), mentioning that it was a trial balloon from the British government to test the reaction in the US and UK.

Note the date. They had not detected much anger of the article, so they British government had already decided that they would acquiesce to the Libyan request. He was also very explicit that they had informed the US of their plans to release him.
Sounds like either the White House, the State Department, or both were asleep at the switch. Either that, or Hillary Clinton was too busy making a reset button (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/06/two-gift-gaffe-days-in-a-row-for-obama-administration/) to care.

Update II: It doesn’t get any better for Britain, as Gaddafi himself (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090822/wl_nm/us_britain_lockerbie) hints that commercial interests drove Megrahi’s release:Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi hugged the convicted Lockerbie bomber and promised more cooperation with Britain in gratitude for his release, while London and Washington condemned his “hero’s welcome” home.

Meeting Abdel Basset al-Megrahi and his family late on Friday, Gaddafi thanked British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Queen Elizabeth for “encouraging” Scotland to release the dying prisoner from a Scottish jail, Libyan news agency JANA reported. …

“This step is in the interest of relations between the two countries … and of the personal friendship between me and them and will be positively reflected for sure in all areas of cooperation between the two countries,” the Libyan leader said.

Gaddafi’s comments drew a flat denial from Britain that Megrahi’s release was in any way linked to business deals with Libya, which has Africa’s largest proven oil reserves. Britain said all responsibility for his release rested with Scotland, which runs its own judicial affairs.
For a moment, let's put aside the notion that the British, possibly with US consent, agreed to an "oil for terrorists" exchange. Let's assume that out of the sincere goodness of their hearts, the British decided to let this aging, dying man go home because they felt it was the humanitarian thing to do. Knowing that it would be an unpopular decision (who knew that releasing an unrepentant murdering asshole would be unpopular!) they begged Libya not to make a spectacle of the guy's return.

The result: Libya gleefully spits in their eyes, treating the guy to a hero's welcome. You wonder if they were able to suppress their delight as they accused the UK of releasing him in order to improve their trade relations with a terror-supporting dictatorial regime. The UK leadership further fumbles the ball by clumsily pointing at the Scots, a pathetic attempt to pass a hot potato. The Arab world is having a big laugh at their expense.

This is a government that has driven the electorate to a rage with their fiscal irresponsibility, and now they deliver this stinging slap to their constituent's faces. And that's assuming that this was done in good faith. If it really was a 'business deal' then Gordon Brown may want to start considering where to live after he is removed from office-- preferably a country without an extradition agreement with the UK.

And I wonder if anyone in the administration here is beginning to sweat just a bit. If the rumor that the USA signed off on this winds up being true and more sources step forward to corroborate it, it's another nail in Obama's coffin, and this time Hillary will get her full share of the blame as well. Which is the last thing Obama needs, as foreign relations was the one area that polls indicated he had some support.

[Grunthos]

Amateur Hour.... Seems like every generation has to try foisting a idealistic populist "visionary" idiot on the country, and then we all get to spend 30 years cleaning up the mess.

Obama
Carter
Kennedy
...

[Ythogtha]

No Grunny, that's just the world at work, not "liberals". It's just the world at work. Stupidity, greed, hate, fear, they know no bounds, political, social, economic, racial or otherwise. Amorality isn't a political sin, it's human nature.

[Tonus]

Looks like the Scottish government is going to take the fall on this one, and for good reason. They may have lied in order to give a terrorist an early release. (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/26/did-megrahi-only-have-weeks-to-live/)

Choice quote:
JUSTICE secretary Kenny MacAskill was last night under pressure to reveal more details of the medical evidence that led to the release of the Lockerbie bomber, after it emerged that only one doctor was willing to say Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had less than three months to live.

Labour and Conservative politicians have demanded the Scottish Government publish details of the doctor’s expertise and qualifications, amid suggestions he or she may not have been a prostate cancer expert.

The parties have also raised questions over whether the doctor was employed by the Libyan government or Megrahi’s legal team, which could have influenced the judgment.

[Grunthos]

No Grunny, that's just the world at work, not "liberals". It's just the world at work. Stupidity, greed, hate, fear, they know no bounds, political, social, economic, racial or otherwise. Amorality isn't a political sin, it's human nature.

Having observed it personally for some time now, it strikes me as odd how the cycles in one tend to coincide with the cycles of the other.

[Ythogtha]

Having observed it personally for some time now, it strikes me as odd how the cycles in one tend to coincide with the cycles of the other.

Power corrupts. Of course, go to church and dig a little into the lives of the people there. You'll be surprised what you find.

[Tonus]

This one needs neither an introduction nor explanation, except to point out that no, this isn't about Al Qaeda specifically. But it speaks to the culture that drives such organizations. And to think, people got their noses out of shape because Bush called Iran "evil."

EDIT: Just wanted to add that it was pointed out that this conversation/interview is alleged to have taken place, and the text was provided by pro-reform Iranian dissidents. Therefore it must be understood to be unverified information.

The Iranian Answer To “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” (http://www.qando.net/?p=4419)

Iran, as we all know, is a theocracy. That means Islamic law and thus Islamic clerics, have great influence. One of the clerics which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regularly consults, has recently laid out the Iranian version of “enhanced interrogation techniques”. It is rather revealing, both about the mentality of those that we’re fighting (and make no mistake, we’re engaged in a war with Iran, even if only through surrogates) and the religion they claim.

It appears, at least in the version of Shi’a Islam this cleric claims (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/133214), that the use of rape, torture and drugs are perfectly permissible for use against enemies of that state – after ritual washing and proper prayers, of course.“Can an interrogator rape the prisoner in order to obtain a confession?” was the follow-up question posed to the Islamic cleric.


Mesbah-Yazdi answered: “The necessary precaution is for the interrogator to perform a ritual washing first and say prayers while raping the prisoner. If the prisoner is female, it is permissible to rape through the vagina or anus. It is better not to have a witness present. If it is a male prisoner, then it’s acceptable for someone else to watch while the rape is committed.”
Lovely – religiously sanctioned rape and sodomy. And, of course in the case of Iran, that means state sanctioned rape.


These questions were apparently raised after allegations of rape surfaced in connection with election protesters the regime had jailed. Oh, and you’ll love this little disclaimer:This reply, and reports of the rape of teen male prisoners in Iranian jails, may have prompted the following question: “Is the rape of men and young boys considered sodomy?”

Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi: “No, because it is not consensual. Of course, if the prisoner is aroused and enjoys the rape, then caution must be taken not to repeat the rape.”
Because we certainly wouldn’t want anyone enjoying it – no word about what they’re supposed to do if the rapist enjoys it. Rinse and repeat, I suppose.


As for women?A related issue, in the eyes of the questioners, was the rape of virgin female prisoners. In this instance, Mesbah-Yazdi went beyond the permissibility issue and described the Allah-sanctioned rewards accorded the rapist-in-the-name-of-Islam:


“If the judgment for the [female] prisoner is execution, then rape before execution brings the interrogator a spiritual reward equivalent to making the mandated Haj pilgrimage [to Mecca], but if there is no execution decreed, then the reward would be equivalent to making a pilgrimage to [the Shi'ite holy city of] Karbala.”
What a job description – a “rapist-in-the-name-of-Islam” who, while committing what any other civilized country would consider a heinous crime punishable by life behind bars is promised “Allah sanctioned” pilgrimage equivalents, depending on the status of his helpless prisoner. Always a nice bonus to get your Haj credits while performing such a valuable service for the state.


As we rip ourselves apart debating the cruelty of blowing second-hand cigar smoke in the face of a detainee caught trying to kill Americans, consider what our adversaries gladly reveal about their own moral code. That’s not to condone or rationalize torture by our side. It is instead to provide a reality check for those who need it.


Iranians love to tell the world how they are one of the world’s oldest civilizations and will expound at length about the contributions their civilization has made to the rest of the world. While it’s true that Persia has indeed make a number of outstanding contributions over the centuries, modern Iran is a religiously warped and perverted state which apparently regularly churns out religious leaders such as this whack job. The problem is he’s not hidden away in some mental hospital jibbering only to some health care professional who shakes his head in amazement before quietly closing the door of his cell and leaving him there alone until the next session.


Instead he’s an adviser to the President of the country and what he says is being acted upon throughout the prisons and jails of Iran. What a miserable, awful place. It is hard to imagine living in a country in which religious leaders not only condone but encourage and incentivize the behavior you read about above, isn’t it?


For you lovers of the state, this is a cautionary tale – anything can be made legal, as demonstrated above. And, as a wise man once said, “the state is coercion”. The combination, unfortunately, can, and does, bring exactly what Iran now suffers.

[Grunthos]

Power corrupts. Of course, go to church and dig a little into the lives of the people there. You'll be surprised what you find.

No need; it's rampantly on display in Congress. Particularly in the thoroughly disgusting form of one Charles Rangel; a brood sow among pigs if ever there was one.

Churches only have power over you if you allow them to; not so, governments.

[sdhonda]

...
Suicide of the West?

America, too, will now approach its implacable enemies with concessions and smiles.
By Thomas Sowell


Britain’s release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi — the Libyan terrorist whose bomb blew up a plane over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 270 people — is galling enough in itself. But it is even more profoundly troubling as a sign of a larger mood that has been growing in Western democracies in our time.

In ways large and small, domestically and internationally, the West is surrendering on the installment plan to Islamic extremists.

The late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put his finger on the problem when he said: “The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles.”

He wrote this long before Barack Obama became president of the United States. But this administration epitomizes the “concessions and smiles” approach to countries that are our implacable enemies.

Western Europe has gone down that path before us, but we now seem to be trying to catch up.

Still, the release of a mass-murdering terrorist, who went home to a hero’s welcome in Libya, shows that President Obama is not the only one who wants to move away from the idea of a “war on terror” — as if that will stop the terrorists’ war on us.

The ostensible reason for releasing al-Megrahi was compassion for a man terminally ill. It is ironic that this was said in Scotland, for exactly 250 years ago another Scotsman — Adam Smith — said, “Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.”

That lesson seems to have been forgotten in America, as well — where so many people seem far more concerned about whether we have been nice enough to the mass-murdering terrorists in our custody than those critics have ever been about the innocent people beheaded or blown up by the terrorists themselves.

Tragically, those with this strange inversion of values include the attorney general of the United States, Eric Holder. Although President Obama has said that he does not want to revisit the past, this is only the latest example of how his administration’s actions are the direct opposite of his lofty words.

It is not just a question of looking backward. The decision to second-guess CIA agents who extracted information to save American lives is even worse when you look forward.

Years from now, long after Barack Obama is gone, CIA agents dealing with hardened terrorists will have to worry about whether what they do to get information out of terrorists to save American lives will make the agents themselves liable to prosecution that can destroy their careers and ruin their lives.

This is not simply an injustice to those who have tried to keep this country safe, it is a danger recklessly imposed on future Americans whose safety cannot always be guaranteed by sweet and gentle measures against hardened murderers.

Those who are pushing for legal action against CIA agents may talk about “upholding the law,” but they are doing no such thing. Neither the Constitution of the United States nor the Geneva Conventions gives rights to terrorists who operate outside the law.

There was a time when everybody understood this. German soldiers who put on American military uniforms in order to infiltrate American lines during the Battle of the Bulge were simply lined up against a wall and shot — and no one wrung their hands over it. Nor did the U.S. Army try to conceal what they had done. The executions were filmed, and the film has been shown on the History Channel.

So many “rights” have been conjured up out of thin air that many people seem unaware that rights and obligations derive from explicit laws, not from politically correct pieties. If you don’t meet the terms of the Geneva Conventions, then the Geneva Conventions don’t protect you. If you are not an American citizen, then the rights guaranteed to American citizens do not apply to you.

That should be especially obvious if you are part of an international network bent on killing Americans. But bending over backward to be nice to our enemies is one of the many self-indulgences of those who engage in moral preening.

But getting other people killed so that you can feel puffed up about yourself is profoundly immoral. So is betraying the country you took an oath to protect.


— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution