Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
macgupta's link to the BBC report is well worth a look. Here is a telling quote from an eye witness to the shootings:
'Then, the "foreign looking, fair skinned" men, as Mr Mishra remembers them, simply carried on killing.'
My first rule of thumb when looking at an event such as this is 'false-flag inside-job, til proven otherwise'.
Killers that are calm, fair skinned foreigners in India are not likely disaffected Muslims. Look for the story behind the story. Much like the Bali bombings, and the London tube station attacks, not to mention the attacks in Madrid, a little research shows that these were all almost certainly perpetrated by 'the good guys'.
In the meantime, the housewives of Caracas are faced with runaway inflation and massive food shortages.
Is a military coup? Is that what you're saying? And if so, I assume that you would support it here in the US? Which, you would have to agree, means that you reject the constitution utterly, or at least view it as a VERY "living" document that can be "interpreted" as one wishes? Which makes you a genuine "conservative" exactly how?
As usual, people who refer to themselves as "conservatives" are nothing but, their "thinking" rife with obvious and unresolvable self-contradictions that utterly discredit their "ideology", movement and selves. (Which also explains the silly ad homs about "libruls".)
To be a conservative is to be a living joke.
I have not heard a single person bring this up specifically, although in Glenn's article (and here in the comments) it's been hinted at.
BBC World News had several interviews with hostages yesterday who said that the militants asked if anyone was "American or British." That's a pretty precise vetting process for the sort of generalized so-called 'islamofascism' we are supposed to tacitly accept as our enemy.
Let's use some simple brainpower here -- what do the British and Americans have in common that could lead to this kind of hatred? Is it because they 'hate our freedom,' or, shockingly, because those two countries illegally invaded one of the highest-profile Muslim states in the world?
We need to ask ourselves a different question. Would this specific incident have happened if we never invaded Iraq. I think we all know the answer to that.
likes to forget about the past. Judy Miller, as her roots tangled with Dick Cheney, got us all cheerleading for war with Iraq. Did they ever acknowledge this? And of course Tom Friedman has completely blacked out on his past writings. It's what happens when you own all the ink.
ps: http://www.ahakokes.com/lawyer jokes.html
psps: http://www.klueless/lib/dork/usefullidiots.net
Would that be the Hugo Chavez who offered bargain-priced heating oil to New England last winter?
While the attack was in India, the actual target was likely Pakistan.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called Oct. 10 for the normalization of ties with Pakistan and said he sought "a solution of all issues that cause estrangement, including Jammu and Kashmir" through talks in an atmosphere free of violence.
From:
India, Pakistan Foreign Ministers Seek to Advance Peace ProcessBy Bibhudatta Pradhan
Nov. 26 (Bloomberg) -- India and Pakistan will seek to advance their more than 5-year-old peace process when foreign ministers of the nuclear-armed South Asian neighbors meet in New Delhi.
Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi starts a four- day visit to India today and will hold talks with his counterpart Pranab Mukherjee, India’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
India and Pakistan have been seeking to improve ties since 2003, after they came close to fighting a fourth war the previous year. The two countries are in talks on issues such as control of the Himalayan territory of Kashmir, commercial cooperation, terrorism and drug trafficking.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=aA0CdKqxxw54&refer=india
I mostly only go there (nyt) to see Frank Rich - i like Frank - and Paul Krugmon, nowadays.
Basically, i'm leary of any News Source with a circulation over >3, present company excluded, of course.
At least President Bush has not revised his vision on Iraq >10/26/2008 "...it was the right decision then -- and it's the right decision today. (applause.)" Forever and that's a long time.
Meanwhile, " We, the States Members of the United Nations, resolve:
To consistently, unequivocally and strongly condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, as it constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security.
To take urgent action to prevent and combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and, in particular:
To consider becoming parties without delay to the existing international conventions and protocols against terrorism, and implementing them, and to make every effort to reach an agreement on and conclude a comprehensive convention on international terrorism;
To implement all General Assembly resolutions on measures to eliminate international terrorism, and relevant General Assembly resolutions on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism;
To implement all Security Council resolutions related to international terrorism and to cooperate fully with the counter-terrorism subsidiary bodies of the Security Council in the fulfillment of their tasks, recognizing that many States continue to require assistance in implementing these resolutions.
To recognize that international cooperation and any measures that we undertake to prevent and combat terrorism must comply with our obligations under international law, including the Charter of the United Nations and relevant international conventions and protocols, in particular human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law."
bah.
Well, you and are differ considerably.
Far better, I believe, to have necessary and appropriate measures in place, and not to "let the terrorists win" via a post-trauma knee-jerk reaction.
That's leaving aside issues of the effectiveness of and necessity for the "extreme measures", the shifting of the security/civil liberties balance which occurs, the alleged "temporary" nature, the arguably ILLEGAL nature of such measures (inasmuch as they disregard existing legal frameworks) etc.
I could probably come up w/ a few more, but that's off the top of my head, and I'm sure you see my point.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
