18 September 2006

Elaboration, with sarcasm

Michelle Malkin has photos and more information on the latest martyr to Islamic Islam-ness. Sister Leonella Sgorbati, eternal memory.

Meanwhile in London, candidates for deportation back to the Middle East Hellhole of their Choice conveniently identify themselves.

Oh, wait, the British aren't going to defend their nation. That might OFFEND the little savages.

The Aussies, however, have a bit more stones.

"We live in a world of terrorism where evil acts are being regularly perpetrated in the name of your faith," Mr Robb said at the Sydney conference.
"And because it is your faith that is being invoked as justification for these evil acts, it is your problem.
"You can't wish it away, or ignore it, just because it has been caused by others.
"Instead, speak up and condemn terrorism, defend your role in the way of life that we all share here in Australia."

Mr Robb said unless Muslims took responsibility for their destiny and tackled the causes of terrorism, Australia would become divided. Mr Robb, the parliamentary secretary for immigration and multicultural affairs, said it was important for migrants to learn English.

"I see as critical the need for imams to have effective English language skills -- it is a self-evident truth that a shared language is one of the foundations of national cohesion," he said.

On the eve of Mr Robb's release today of a discussion paper on a new citizenship test, the chairman of the Government's Muslim Reference Group, Dr Ameer Ali, said Opposition Leader Kim Beazley's idea of a values test was silly, as was the need for a universal English test. He called for an orientation program for new migrants akin to a university student's orientation week.

What a shocking, "silly" idea! That immigrants to an English-speaking country be expected to understand the values of that country and the language used to express those values! Good, heavens, what next? Next those crazy Aussies might want Muslims to stop beating their women and engaging in the slave trade.

Latest new in the War on Terrorism, Pakistan has pretty much officially changed sides. Among those released:

Ghulam Mustafa: "He was once close to Osama bin Laden, has intimate knowledge of al-Qaeda's logistics and financing and its nexus with the military in Pakistan."

Maulana Sufi Mohammad: "Maulana Sufi Mohammad was Faqir Mohammed's first jihadi mentor who introduced him to militancy in Afghanistan in 1993. Sufi Mohammad was one of the active leaders of Jamat-e-Islami (JI) in the 1980s. He was the principal of the JI madrassa in Tamaergra, a town in the northwestern part of NWFP. He was an instinctive hardliner and in due course developed differences with JI and left them in 1992 to form Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammed [TNSM]." Sufi Mohammad organized Pakistanis to fight jihad in Afghanistan and along with the TNSM fought in Kunduz November of 2001.

Mohammad Khaled: A brigade leader who led the Taliban in against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. ""It is a difficult time for Islam and Muslims. We are in a test. Everybody should be ready to pass the test - and to sacrifice our lives," said Mohammad Khaled.

Fazl-e-Raziq: A senior aide to Osama bin Laden, and "an ethnic Pakhtoon resident of Swabi district of the North West Frontier Province."

Khairullah Kherkhawa: The former Taliban governor of Herat.

Khalid Khawaja: "Khalid Khawaja is a retired squadron leader of the Pakistan Air Force who was an official in Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI, in the mid 1980s. After he wrote a critical letter to General Zia ul-Haq, who ruled Pakistan from 1977 till 1988, in which he labeled Zia as hypocrite, he was removed from the ISI and forced to retire from the airforce. He then went straight to Afghanistan in 1987 and fought against the Soviets along side with Osama Bin Laden, developing a relationship of firm friendship and trust. Khalid Khawaja’s name resurfaced when US reporter Daniel Pearl was abducted and subsequently killed. Pearl had come to Pakistan and met Khalid Khawaja in order to investigate the jihadi network of revered sufi, Syed Mubarak Ali Gailani."

Mansour Hasnain: A member of the group that kidnapped and murdered Danny Pearl. He also was "a militant of the Harkat-al-Mujahedin group, is one of those who hijacked an Indian Airlines jet in December 1999 and forced New Delhi to release three militants -- including Omar and Azhar."

Mohammad Hashim Qadeer: "Suspected of being one of [Daniel] Pearl’s actual killers, was arrested in August 2005 and has notable al-Qaida links" and "ties with the banned extremist groups Harkat-ul-Mujahedeen and Jaish-e-Muhammad."

Mohammad Bashir: Another Pakistani complicit in the murder of Daniel Pearl.

Aamni Ahmad, Hala Ahmad and Nooran Abdu: Facilitators/couriers, and wives of al-Qaeda members. "Pakistani authorities arrested 23 Arabs, including two children, suspected of links to Osama bin Laden, officials said Wednesday. All of them sneaked into the country from Afghanistan in recent weeks. The suspects include three women, identified as Aamni Ahmad, Hala Ahmad and Nooran Abdu, who are believed to be relatives of bin Laden. An interior ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the arrests were made in Pakistan's southwestern Baluchistan province, which borders Afghanistan."

Gul Ahmed Shami & Hamid Noor: Al-Qaeda foot soldiers who fought in Afghanistan. "I want to be the next Osama bin Laden," said Shami in 2001. "Allah is with us. The Americans have technology but they don't have the courage to face death, which we do. I will be there until my death if need be. I know I probably won't come back," said Hamid.

Yeah, gotta love those Pakistanis. The Taliban kicked their happy asses in Waziristan, mostly because they don't want to hammer the Taliban flat. They aren't committed to this war, but they are convinced that they fence sit and play both sides against they middle, just like the Saudis do. Time to drop a giant hammer on them. Like I have said before, the only justification for supporting a tinhorn two-bit dictator is if he supports your interests and and fights your enemies. Remember Joe Stalin? Genocidal manic who used to run the Soviet Union? But we gave him lots of trucks, tanks, airplanes, etc. during WWII because he was fighting the Nazis. Well, as long as he's fighting the Taliban, I'm in favor of supporting Pervez Musharraf. The second that justification is no longer there, I vote to kick him to the curb.

While I'm at it, let me publicize a little-known speech, where we are keeping up with the Catholics in telling it like it is.

Some speech, however is not merely stupid, but actually illegal. Thanks to soon-to-be-Mr. Watada for giving us a demonstration of what illegal speech looks like. I bet that if one his Soldiers call him a piece of shit, he'd want that Soldier punished. Well, as long as he still holds him commision I can't violate any articles of the UCMJ by calling him a piece of shit who deserves to go in front of a firing squad.

Civillians may do so.

On a lighter note, Xavier brings us Things NOT to do with an AK-47 if you want to catch your 72 virgins. I don't think they hand out virgins for arriving with a story about how you were going to go fight the infidel, but your buddy had an idea for a picture, and you didn't know the AK was loaded. . .

LTC Cooper (ret) is more than a little bit under the weather right now, keep him in mind.

OK, let me clarify a previous post.

According to this article,

"Bush's proposal allows evidence to be held from a defendant if it is classified and allows coerced testimony if deemed reliable. The Senate bill requires a judge to dismiss charges if evidence cannot be shared. It also excludes any testimony obtained by cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. "

We aren't saying 'what gives us actionable intelligence'. We are talking what is legally admissable in court. You want to be cruel or degrading to some towel-head in order to find out where his buddies are, that's OK by me.

I just don't want it in my court system. That's insane. That's ripe for abuse. That's a violation of any standards of legal procedure I can imagine. That's all.

I don't care if the CIA snatches up foreign nationals, and I don't believe they should have to meet legal standards of proof before doing so. Did we have evidence that met the legal standard of proof of criminal wrongdoing for every German and Japanese soldier we killed in WWII? Hell, no. But if you are going to take them alive, hold them, and then wish to charge them with a crime and imprison them, better have some decent proof. That's all I'm saying.

We aren't discussing whether or not it should be legal to wire a mass-murderer up with jumper cables and run voltage through his butt until he spills the beans about the menu at the last al-Qaeda prayer breakfast. That's a different and more nuanced question, and personally I feel the US Army Field Manual on the subject covers it well. The latest version is unclassified, but I leave it as an exercise for the reader.


Blogger Zero Ponsdorf said...

I read that same paragraph you quoted and didn't react to it as you did (obviously).

I haven't read the actual text of either proposal and will withhold opinion until I can, that or find an alternative to WAPO for perspective.

Off hand I can see where classified methods and tactics should treated carefully. A judge might decide that, in a specific case, not the Senate in a blanket pronouncement.

And coercion is not exactly the same as "cruel, inhuman or degrading". Cops lie and threaten to gain information. [shrug]

The broader implications are more troubling to me. I don't want to see any person (let alone someone in our military) treated as McCain was treated. But trying make a silk purse out of the sow's ear that is the Geneva Conventions is disengenious.

12:24 PM  
Blogger sophia said...

This post makes me sick to my stomach, but it's reality. So, thanks for opening my eyes to how to more effectively pray. Yeah, I'm impressed with the Aussies on this one and the Orthodox speech you refered to. That's courage. God bless you.

1:05 PM  
Anonymous auxdarastrix said...

ponsdorf, normal criminal inmates interviewed by police officers also have the option of a legal advice, are not subject to secret and indefinate imprisonment in secret prisons, and if an officer lays a hand on them during interegation they can not only have the case thrown out but can sue or even file a criminal complaint against the officer.

6:33 PM  
Blogger Zero Ponsdorf said...

Auxdarastrix, apples and oranges to be sure. I was addressing a complex subject quickly.

I'll stand by the balance of what I said and comment more when I've had time to study issue in more depth.

7:52 PM  
Anonymous cMAD said...

Geez, there are lots of Field Manuals! Did you have 27-10 in mind?

10:13 AM  
Blogger Just A Decurion said...

No, although relevant. There's a newly revised FM on interrogation which was declassified. I read about it in Stars and Stripes, but I don't remember the number.

1:03 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home