Look closer. Think harder. Choose the sound argument over the clever one.

Saturday, July 30, 2005

7/21 Bombers' Intentions?

Osman Hussain, admitting his role in London's 7/21 bombings "said it was only intended to be an attention-grabbing strike, not a deadly one". But the head of the Metropolitan Police says otherwise.

Hussain "also reportedly told investigators the bombers were motivated by anger over the U.S.-led war in Iraq." But, as Chrenkoff points out: 250,000 Iraqis living in Great Britain, zero involved in any of these attacks. Curious, no? Not to mention 3,000 British citizens training in Afghanistan with the Taliban--long before Iraq.

Chicago's Democratic Political Machine

I'm so glad the Feds are investigating. But the bad-guys aren't going down without a nasty fight. And they scored a huge victory in leaking the cooperating witness list. Incredibly sick. No wonder the mob can instill such fear, when their lawyers do this. Are the courts obliged to show the defense this list? If so, the entire legal system breaks down in the face of organized crime.

(Registration req'd. Or bypass it.)

Update, 8/4/2005. More corruption: kickbacks for park contracts, including Millenium Park.

Thursday, July 28, 2005

London Plotter Aswat in Zambia

"U.S. authorities had asked Britain if they could take Aswat into custody but they refused because he was a UK citizen, the sources said. Later British authorities said they suspected Aswat lent support to the July 7 bombers."

I wonder what we might have discovered about 7/7.

Zambia is where Martin Mubanga was apprehended, who the malung says comes across as "your average quietly spoken British person" (see my response after it).

Did all the stink Mubanga made about his detention make British or Zambian officials gun-shy?

(Correction: a closer reading shows Aswat in South Africa, not Zambia, when U.S. officials made the request.)

Tuesday, July 26, 2005


Research shows stressed-out worms die young.

"But I am a worm..." -King David, Psalm 22:6.

Saturday, July 23, 2005


Watched the movie Ghandi last night. An amazing man who accomplished amazing things. Seeing what he did in India helps boost my (pretty low) faith in humanity. The movie looks closely at the injustices at the hands of the British, like British General Dyers' massacre (1,516 casualties with 1,650 bullets).

My favorite quotes:

It raises questions, though--questions I don't expect this movie to address, as it's (rightfully) a tribute to this great man.

Can his techniques be universally applied? Or were they specific to the situations in which he found himself? Would non-violent resistance have stopped Adolph Hitler, or Joseph Stalin? I'm convinced it wouldn't. (The movie toys with the idea with Hitler, but can't give an answer.)

Did Hitler, Stalin and Mao commit the mass murders they did because no one thought of applying Ghandi's non-violent resistance (or somehow didn't do it "correctly")? Or did hundreds or thousands of would-be-Ghandis die in obscurity at their hands? I believe the latter.

So then how did Ghandi succeed? Consider these two reasons:

Where Ghandi may have been wrong or failed...

Further reading:

PS: To be fair to the movie, it did depict Ghandi's frustration and dispair over the Muslim/Hindu clashes.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Let's call them "terrorist attacks"

...and the perpetrators "terrorists," or "indiscriminate mass murderers."

I don't want to get too hung up on labels, but some scrutiny is justified. Clear labels help us think and communicate most clearly.

Maybe you're sick of the flap over the BBC's editing out the word "terrorist" from their international coverage, or calling the attackers "misguided criminals".

But what about calling them London "bombers" or "suicide bombers"? Suicide was a peripheral part of it. Indiscriminate mass murder was what it really was about.

When I think of bombings, I think of the heinous attacks on abortion clinics here in the U.S.: 41 bombings, one resulting murder since 1993. Contrast that with the London attacks: 4 bombings, 52 dead, in a single day.

To the BBC's credit, they're calling them "attacks." They are.

(Note that there were eight abortion-clinic-related murders, but only one from bombings.)

See also the murder of Iraqi children.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005


IraqBodyCount.net is back in the news, estimating 25,000 civilian casualties.

In their Press Release, they say "30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003." Further, "US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims." and "Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices."

Let's do some math: 30% of 37% of 24865 civilians killed, or 2760, were killed by US-led forces during the invasion phase. Civilian deaths not involving explosives devices (100% - 53% = 47%): nearly 1300. Most of these deaths should be able to be corroborated by the hundreds of embedded reporters traveling with the military at that time. Where are they? These reporters should have witnessed many of these killings, or at least have seen the victims' bodies soon after their deaths.

Further, I reviewed this project on 9/8/2004 (before this blog existed). Here are my notes:

Listening to NPR, they did an interview of the web-site iraqbodycount.net. They claim between 11,800 and 13,800 civilian deaths to date, since the start of the conflict. However, scrutinizing their methods, here’s what I find:

My conclusion: anti-American propaganda.

HT: NRO's Media Blog: first, second, third, fourth.

Update: Edited a bit for wordiness.

Welcome, NRO Media Blog readers!

One more belated thought (12/30/2005): The web-site's background graphic (bombs falling endlessly from a distinctively American bomber) is part of the propaganda, suggesting that the majority of deaths were from American bombing. Misleading.

Update, 12/30/2005: GatewayPundit's analysis shows progress in Iraq.

The Scourge of Slavery

An amazing perspective on the history of slavery, and the Christian roots of liberty. I'd like independent verification of the facts presented here.

HT: Power and Control, via Roger L. Simon

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

NY Times Inconsistency

The New York Times reports that 10 Sunnis suffocated in Iraqi police custody. The victims seemed to be insurgent/terrorist suspects, though the Times never explicitly acknowledges this. Even so, they shouldn't have been treated this way.

To be consistent, the Times should report the religion/sect of every victim of every insurgent and terrorist attack. It's only when the fledgling government's mishap have "new flashpoint" potential that we're carefully told, in the headline, of their sect.

It's likely that the majority of the insurgents' and terrorists' victims are also Sunni, but perhaps pointing that out with equal care would cause a press-induced flashpoint. (Or would that be a truth-induced flashpoint?) It might knock the wind out of both terrorist and insurgent recruiting.

Suicide Car Bomber Kills Iraqi Children

Look your enemy in the face...

A suicide car bomber sped up to American soldiers distributing candy to children and detonated his explosives Wednesday, killing up to 27 other people, U.S. and Iraqi officials said. One U.S. soldier and about a dozen children were among the dead.

But as this guy says, there are no civilians.

(CNN: "...most of the dead were children...")

(7/27/05) Keep this in mind, too, when thinking about bin Laden's fatwah, complaining about "... great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance..."

(11/24/05) Update: Terrorists rig childrens' dolls with explosives.

Saturday, July 09, 2005

The Malung

The Malung and I have been butting heads for some time now (e.g., here and here).

He's been taking heat over the documentary he's doing on the Finsbury Park Mosque, in light of the terrorist attacks on London. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but those attacks sure look like the work of al-Qaeda. If it turns out that the folks he's been filming had something to do with it, he has a lot of re-thinking to do. And if they don't, he's vindicated (at least in that one realm).

Here's some random quotes from his own blog, to give you a sense of what he's about.

To his credit...

What I have a problem with...

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Karl Rove's Web of Evil

This little gem comes from the Huffington Post, of all places.

HT: Roger L. Simon

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?