I just wanted to post something here to all my readers. I noticed that not too many Bloggers on my side of the political fence have said anything about this.
Well, once again, I will be the one to do it.
Politics is one thing, real life is another.
Losing someone to a tragedy such as this, is unimaginable. Unlike some on the left, I will NOT bring my personal politics into this. But I will say that I personally feel for this people. Mining is in my family too; sort of. My Father is from Middlesboro, Kentucky. Back when he was a young man, he drove a tri-axle dump truck down in his home town. He worked out of a strip mines down in that town. Oh, the stories he would tell, about Hazards of driving those trucks. Some of the stories were side splitting tales, some were quite scary.
Anyhow, my heart goes out to these people during their time of loss. This is where I will also deviate from my normal hard line Conservative stance, and say the following; which most likely will not do anything for my Conservative creds. Not that I quite honestly give a damn about that anyhow.
It would be a crime, if I did not mention the fact that this mine was, in fact, a non-union mine. Because of that, the safety record of this mine, was, in fact, terrible. Unions; for all their short-comings and horrible politics, are the best defense against companies who want to cut corners and allow their employees to work in unsafe conditions. I honestly believe that if the union that my Father was represented by at G.M. had not been there, my Father would have been dead ages ago. For those who are just passing through, my Father is a retired G.M. Worker and is represented by the U.A.W. The Union forces the big business owners to a very high standard of safety and if the companies do not adhere to them, they simply will not allow their employees on the job. Which I feel is a very good thing. Equipment can be replaced —- Human Lives cannot.
There are some possibly of the right, that might say my bringing this up is morbid or something silly like that. Well, too bad. As they say, all politics is local; and this my friends is a local, personal issue for me. One of the nicest things I read, was the fact that even though this mine was non-union, the President of the Union miners was sending a team of people up to the site, to offer their assistance. Because it is the human and responsible thing to do. That is what normal, sane, rational Americans do, when their fellow man is hurting. They put partisan differences aside and come together. I bet some in the world of Political Blogging could learn something from that; on both sides of the aisle.
Again, my and my family’s prayers go out to the people of MONTCOAL, W.Va. tonight.
President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.
But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.
Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.
Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.
It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.
Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.
As I said above, I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, the idea of America being stoked to the hilt with Nukes on a hair trigger is not my idea of a good time. On the other hand, the idea of the United States not being able to defend itself is not a very comforting thought. Because I am not a partisan blogger, I will simply say this; I believe Obama is trying to strike a balance and trying to keep all parties happy. Which is not easy, when the people you are trying to make happy are not your biggest fans. Either way, it has to be a tough order.
War correspondents take huge risks to bring news of a war to readers far away. What this shows is just how risky it is to embed with terrorists, especially when their enemy controls the air. War is not the same thing as law enforcement; the US forces had no responsibility for identifying each member of the group and determining their mens rea. Legitimate rescue operations would have included markings on the vehicle and on uniforms to let hostile forces know to hold fire, and in the absence of that, the hostile forces have every reason to consider the second support group as a legitimate target as well. It’s heartbreaking for the families of these journalists, but this isn’t “collateral murder” — it’s war.
Worst case scenario this is a few innocent being accidentally killed in the fog of war.
But the video doesn’t even appear to be worst case scenario. It appears, in fact, that the video shows armed insurgents engaging or about to engage US troops. The Reuters camera men had embedded themselves with the insurgents. This makes them enemy combatants themselves and should have been shot.
Reuters has a long history of its local stringers embedding themsleves with terrorist forces. Perhaps they do this because they are sympathetic, perhaps they do this to get “the story”, but it matters little to those engaging insurgents.
When you embed yourselves with terrorists you know the risk. You are producing propaganda for them. You have become one of them.
Anything less than this understanding is purposeful naivite about “objective journalism”. In war there can be no objective journalism. You’re either with us or the enemy. If you want to stay neutral stay out of the war zone.
As for those who went in to pick up the bodies? Perhaps they were innocents. I’ve no idea.
But you drive your van into an active military engagement? What the hell were you thinking?
You are stupid. Innocent, but stupid. You’re asking to be killed.
And if you brought children into the midsts of an ongoing military engagement that makes you more than stupid: it makes youcriminally negligent.
“It’s their fault for bringing their kids to a battle,” says one of the Americans on the video. Indeed it is.
People, this is war. This happens in war. It can’t be avoided. If you want to end civilian casualties then end war. Start by asking armed Islamists to put down their weapons. But you won’t do that because your real objection isn’t war, it’s America. Which is why anti-war activists around the globe never protest al-Qaeda, only America.
They’re not anti-war, they’re anti-American.
I agree. If you embed yourself with terrorists, you die. Just that simple.
I humbly submit, that these so-called Journalists got just was coming to them.
Update #3: Apparently some liberals, including a gay pedophile stalker blogger, that I will never link to; cannot grasp the idea of sarcasm and are complaining about what I wrote here about Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. Well, you know what liberals? I got two words; FUCK YOU. You bastards sat out here in the Blogosphere and mocked and derided Conservatives and the Tea Party protesters, to the point of using a crude sexual phrase to describe them. —– and you are going to bitch about me being a snarky bomb thrower? Please. 🙄 Just like that stupid liberal jack assed twit Maxine Waters, do as I say, not as I do. 🙄
Update: Rusty Talks back to me… (wow! 😯 )
Over at Political Byline:
“I humbly submit, that these so-called Journalists got just was coming to them”
Perhaps. This wouldn’t be the first time Reuters had sent off it’s “crack team” of locals to give the terrorists’ “point of view”.
Now why am I not surprised? 🙄
Update #2: Leave it one of my commentators to point out the obvious, From Gaven in the comments:
First off, watch the full, unedited one, without the political editorializing:
A little background is given in this one that is absent from the edited one. First off, the Apache’s mission was to support that infantry platoon. A few minutes before the video starts, that platoon takes RPG and small arms fire in that vicinity, so the Apache is called up to find the guys doing it. Source: Click here to read – See the 12th paragraph.
Our video starts. They see a large group of people, all adult males, several of whom are armed. You can see 2 AK’s and at least one actual RPG around 3:30-3:45 (Pic) . Next, they see a man peeking around the corner and pointing what looks like an RPG at the infantryman about four blocks away. Armed men? Check. Immediate threat to American lives? Check. They get permission to fire, and as soon as they have a shot, they take it.
(For what it’s worth, the actions of this group of people are very suspicious looking, especially in a combat zone mere minutes after US forces have been fired on. Including having the RPG firer simply poke around the corner and fire while everyone else hangs back to avoid backblast. See here for a slightly humorous example: Click for pic . Obviously one example does not a trend make, but I’m just bringing it to your attention)
Secondly, I have yet to see anyone say that the group of guys with the reporters were NOT insurgents. For extra emphasis, at 30:45 there is more small arms fire. At 31:10 you see guys with AK’s and body armor running away from the area. There was DEFINITELY a battle going on in this area, something that Wikileaks biased editing job carefully omits.
It wouldn’t be the first time that Reuters stringers were hanging out with insurgents for some good pictures. For instance, this picture:
Here, Namir is obviously standing about 10 feet away from insurgents as they commit an act of violence. I’m not passing judgement on him, I actually think it’s good to have reporters as close as possible to the conflict, but I’m merely pointing out that hanging out with insurgents is something that Noor-Eldeen had been doing for a few years prior to his death.
Anyways, back to the video.
At 19:20, someone reports finding an RPG round.
At 32:54, someone asks if it’s been defused yet, and is told “no, it’s still live”
Even if everyone in Iraq has an AK, only the bad guys have RPG rounds. The discovery of an RPG round among the bodies makes me believe that Namir Noor-Eldeen was yet again hanging out with an insurgent group looking for great shots. He and the other photographer were almost certainly innocent of actual wrongdoing, but the armed men they were with were in all likelihood some of the ACTUAL insurgents who fired on US troops before the video started.
As for the van that was attacked, I’ll admit that it’s slightly sketchier, but I’ll clarify that by noting that insurgents often clean up their own wounded, so an black van showing up with three or four adult men who immediately jump out and start aiding wounded insurgents is absolutely suspicious enough to make a case for engaging it. I don’t know that I personally would have engaged that van, but I find in totally understandable that they did. Although, again, there’s no proof that the men in the van weren’t also insurgents, since the video leaves out a lot of context.
Yes, this video is disturbing simply for the sheer violence and immediate destruction. But think about it before mindlessly jumping to conclusions regarding what actually happened that day.
Also, allow me to point something out of the liberals and weak kneed Conservatives who are reading this. Let’s go back in history a bit, shall we? During World War 2, The Korean War and during Vietnam, I do not remember ever hearing of any American or international journalists embedding with the enemy then. So, why were these loons embedded with the Terrorists? Because point blank, these so-called “journalists” and their employer, who is quite obviously liberal; have an editorial position that the United States of America deserved the attacks on 9/11 and that these fighters in Iraq were a legitimate fighting force; that’s why! That is, as far as this writer is concerned, an Anti-American stance. Because of this, these bastards got EXACTLY AND I DO MEAN EXACTLY WHAT WAS COMING TO THEM! Period, end of story.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele’s comment on “Good Morning America” today that he and President Obama have a slimmer margin of error because of their race was dismissed by the White House as “silly.”
“Well, I think that is a fairly silly comment to make,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters today. “I think Michael Steele’s problem isn’t the race card, it’s the credit card.”
The embattled chairman played the race card today when asked if he has a slimmer margin of error because he is African American.
“The honest answer is, ‘yes,'” he said on “Good Morning America” today. “Barack Obama has a slimmer margin. A lot of folks do. It’s a different role for me to play and others to play and that’s just the reality of it. But you take that as part of the nature of it.”
“My view on politics is much more grassroots oriented, it’s not old boy network oriented, so I tend to, you know, come at it a little bit stronger, a little bit more street-wise, if you will. That’s rubbed some feathers the wrong way,” Steele told “GMA’s” George Stephanopoulos.
Today’s “GMA” interview is not the first time Steele has asserted that his race plays a role in the criticism he has faced as RNC chairman. During a recent interview with Washingtonian Magazine, which took place before the sex-club controversy, Steele said, “I don’t see stories about internal operations of the DNC that I see about this operation. Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?”
I have said on this blog a half of a million times, (or so…) that the G.O.P royally screwed up, when they put Michael Steele in as the chairman of the G.O.P. No, not because I am racist bigot. But because of this; it is quite obvious to me and many other people, that Michael Steele is all about identity politics — which is antithetical to what the Republican Party stands for, again, not because the Republican Party is racist, but because the Republican Party believes in “freedom for all, special privileges for none.” At least that is how it is supposed to work.
Of course; if you say a cross word about a Jew to a Republican, you are libeled as a Anti-Semite. Which is quite hypocritical, if you ask me. However, speaking for myself. I do not feel that I owe a Black Man or a Jew anything at all. If anything, I feel the Jews in this Country owe their lives for what this Country did for them during the second World War. Most Jews are grateful for this, but, honestly, there are some, who act like the United States did not do enough or not quickly enough. Which is, in my opinion, bogus.
Yes, I have seen that on a certain so-called “Conservative” blog, who is ran by a Jewish Lawyer from Michigan. I won’t mention any names, least that person file stalking charges against or something stupid like that. Funny how she can claim Anti-Semite nonsense; while all the while bashing Roman Catholic Conservatives. Funny how that works.
Anyhow, about Michael Steele; I think he should resign. It is quite obvious to many people that his skin color is more important than his Conservatism. Otherwise, stuff like this here will continue to happen:
In another serious blow to the Republican National Committee, one of its top fundraisers — and its few remaining connections to the traditional GOP donor base — has resigned a senior, unpaid position.
Former Ambassador Sam Fox, a top supporter of George W. Bush who was one of the co-chairmen of the Republican Regents — the RNC’s top-level fundraising board — has left the post, two Republican sources said.
Fox, a Missouri businessman who was Bush’s ambassador to Belgium, was one of the RNC’s few remaining connections to the deep-pocketed Republican establishment and was viewed as the heaviest hitter among its fundraisers.
Fox didn’t return a call seeking comment.
But Fox was “deeply troubled by the pattern of self-inflicted wounds and missteps,” another major Republican fundraiser told me today, and had “lost confidence” in Steele.
He was also finding it harder and harder to tap fellow wealthy Republicans for the RNC, the source said.
The GOP source predicted a coming wave of high-level finance resignations amid dissatisfaction over the arrival, under an ethical cloud, of a new fundraising staffer.
Michael Steele, Uniting Conservatives everywhere. 🙄
Now, if the G.O.P. wanted to put a REAL Conservative minority in as chairman; they could look at Michelle Malkin. Now that’s a woman that could do something for that Party! 😀 She’s screechy, She’s annoying as hell; but damn it, she’s about as pure as they come. Think about it Republicans. Who do you want representing your party? Megan McCain with black skin? or a Minority who’s truly down with the cause? It is something to think about! 😀
Three explosions, two rocket attacks and subsequent gunfire have been reported in the near vicinity of the U.S. Consulate in Peshawar, Pakistan, on April 5. The attack occurred early afternoon local time when the consulate would have been full of both American and local employees. The death toll is reported at 36 but is expected to rise.
There are no assessments yet of the damage that the consulate building has sustained, but reports indicate that the explosions led to the collapse of other, adjacent buildings. Pakistani soldiers are also reported to be engaging militants in gunfire, indicating that militants are actively engaged in an attack near the area — possibly with the intention of breaching the U.S. Consulate.
[….]
UPDATE:
One attacker was able to blow up in the U.S. Consulate premises, AAJ TV reported April 5. The front side of the U.S. Consulate has been totally destroyed. Reports indicate that seven or eight security personnel in the consulate are dead. The consulate’s communication system is down.
Many people are wondering why this has happened. I think I know why. It could very well be because of this here:
KABUL — President Obama’s visit to Kabul last week, intended in part to forge a closer working relationship with President Hamid Karzai, has helped produce the opposite: an angry Afghan leader now attacking the West for what he perceives as an effort to manipulate him and weaken his rule.
Karzai’s relationship with his U.S. backers in the past week has taken a sharp turn for the worse after his two anti-Western speeches in three days, remarks that some officials see as a rehearsed, intentional move away from the United States.
In remarks to parliament members Saturday, Karzai said that if foreign interference in his government continues, the Taliban would become a legitimate resistance — one that he might even join, according to lawmakers present.
“When I heard Karzai’s remarks, it really shocked me. It scared me,” a senior Afghan official who works closely with Karzai said. “We should not take this lightly. This is a golden opportunity to have the West here; we can’t squander it.”
Karzai’s comments have angered U.S. officials and some of his prominent Afghan colleagues in the government, who fear he is jeopardizing international funding and military support because his pride has been injured.
“That guy’s erratic, he’s unpredictable. I don’t get him,” said a senior U.S. military official in Kabul.
However, if you read a little deeper, you will see this:
But the next day, Karzai told a gathering of lawmakers that foreign interference fuels the insurgency. One lawmaker said Karzai made the point that if he is compelled to obey foreigners, “I’ll join the Taliban.”
“I know he’s cooperating with the U.S., but he just wants to give us a wrong perception. He’s trying to prove himself as a hero, a nationalist,” the lawmaker said.
Some of the presidents’ supporters said that people overreacted to the statements, and that Karzai is well aware of how reliant he is on the United States and other countries fighting in Afghanistan. The United States pours billions of dollars monthly into Afghanistan, and 30,000 new troops are arriving to fight the Taliban.
Speaking at a meeting of about 1,200 tribal leaders and local officials in the southern city of Kandahar on Sunday, Karzai again suggested that U.S. pressure is counterproductive.
“Afghanistan will be fixed when its people trust that their president is independent and not a puppet,” he said. “We have to demonstrate our sovereignty. We have to demonstrate that we are standing up for our values.”
I think this guy needs to make up his mind. Trying to play to his people and be friends with the west is not going to work. The United States of America is NOT interested in owning that Country, no more than it is interested in owning Iraq. We are, or at least we were, there to get rid of Al-Qaeda terrorists who wanted to attack and destroy America. It seems that our focus is shifting and we are now trying to play “Paddy Cake” with Afgan Leaders who want to be friendly with the the U.S. and the Taliban. The President of the United States needs to firm with Karzai, and tell him either choose the Taliban and possibly being killed by the United States in military action or choose true freedom and democracy. You cannot have it both ways, terrorism and democracy cannot co-exist.
Just a personal aside, I had a sinking feeling that this sort of a thing would happen, if we elected a Democrat for a President. For all of his failings, for all of the stuff that I did not like about him; George W. Bush knew exactly how to deal with these sorts of things. He was seen by the Afghan people and the Iraqis as a firm strong leader, who was willing to risk it all to stand against terrorism, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. President Obama just does not have that same stance. President Obama and by default, the Democrats see terrorism as a juvenile criminal behavior; and it is not; it is a war against freedom and democracy in the name of a backward and dangerous religion.
I guess the only hope at this point is that Obama realizes what he is dealing with here and changes his focus. However, I just do not see that happening at all. Needless to say, the next year few years is going to be interesting, when it comes to the war on terror and this entire situation.
Just my observation; Anyone that cannot differentiate between a violent anti-Government or Anti-American terrorist and someone peacefully protesting the misdeeds of the current Government in power, shouldn’t be driving a damn car —- Much less writing an opinion column. Besides all of this, just where the hell where these socialist liberal idiots, when the idiotic people were calling for the death of President George W. Bush? Oh, that’s right! They were providing covering for them and also, supporting them as well. 🙄
Damned hypocrites, every last one of them. 😡 Which is why I will never support the Democratic Party, ever again. I’d rather never work another damned job in my life and be as poor as a Church mouse, and never vote again for that Party again; than to sell my soul to a party of Socialists who reek with the smell of utter hypocrisy.
Gadgets come and gadgets go. The iPad you buy today will be e-waste in a year or two (less, if you decide not to pay to have the battery changed for you). The real issue isn’t the capabilities of the piece of plastic you unwrap today, but the technical and social infrastructure that accompanies it.
If you want to live in the creative universe where anyone with a cool idea can make it and give it to you to run on your hardware, the iPad isn’t for you.
If you want to live in the fair world where you get to keep (or give away) the stuff you buy, the iPad isn’t for you.
If you want to write code for a platform where the only thing that determines whether you’re going to succeed with it is whether your audience loves it, the iPad isn’t for you.
I have to give props to Mr. Cory Doctorow for his brutal honesty. The article is quite the good read; from a standpoint of someone, who does not even own a iPod, much less an iPhone! 😀 I mean, I am just not big into, what I like to call, useless gadgets. To me, a phone is for making phone calls. Not for sitting there and playing games and all the crap you can do on them today. I mean, there is a thing called “Sexting” which is transmitting rather nasty pictures of one’s self over the internet. We never had to contend with stuff like that when I was a kid. (I am 37, by the way…) Besides that, you would not want to be transmitting naked pictures of my body anyhow; as I am almost sure it would cause someone great problems of the psychological sort to see me naked.
Now, from a greedy capitalist’s stand point; if I had a bunch of shares with Apple right about now and I saw this article. I would be asking for this guys head on a platter. I mean, just who the hell does this grumpy old jackass think he is? I am sure that Steve Jobs is not too happy about someone dissing his product, that he’s worked his rear end off to produce. On the other hand, this is just one man’s opinion of this product and I am sure that there are many others who have written that this is an exciting product to try.
The bottom line is this; we live in a free market, capitalistic society, and that free market will decide if this product is a smashing success or if it will be a flop. That is because that Free Market allows the PEOPLE, not the Government, to choose whether a product will be sold or even successful or not. Granted, it will take effort to make this happen; promotion by the company, the sales people and even the customer to buy the product. However the point is….. the freedom of choice is there. You can choose which product you wish to own by apple, all of them or none of them at all. That is the beauty of America. The only thing stopping you is your financial situation and also possibly your personal desire to own such product. Personally, even if I did have the money to own one of these iPads, I most likely would not own one. Because I personally do not see the point in owning such a thing. I have a very nice laptop, which suits my needs perfectly. I also do not see the point in owning something like this, and then having to own a iPhone or something similar, why not just put a camera and the ability to make phone calls in it as well? Again that is wonderful power of personal freedom and choice.
Now I could yammer on here about how the some of the Democrats and the socialists want to do away with all this freedom and change the system we have here in America. But I think everyone that reads this knows my position on those subjects. It also is not lost on me, where this thing is produced and the political positions of some of the people that will own one of these things. However, I will not bring that into this discussion here, as I am blogging about an iPad. 😉 😀 😛
Update #2: Message to AllahPundit: Do you really want to be known as the dude who owns a electronic gadget, who’s name basically invokes thoughts of a Electronic Maxi-Pad or Internet Maxi-Pad? Not if you are Beta-Male. I mean, you are already being called a candy-ass Rhino as it is; you do not need anymore help. I’m just sayin’ 😛
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
1 minute
_gac_
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
