First off, what AllahPundit is griping about is this:
In response to this, AllahPundit politely objects:
“When conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into them.” True enough, and I don’t always “like” that we’re pulled into them. For example, I don’t “like” the fact that we have 30,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea as cannon fodder in case the lunatic to the north ever attacks Seoul. But I accept it because I understand it’s an effective deterrent that saves millions of lives. I don’t “like” the fact that we’re forced to take the lead on Iran even though their military capabilities are more of an immediate threat to Europe and the Sunnis, but I accept it because the stick we wield is so much bigger than everyone else’s that we’re most likely to bring them to heel. I don’t “like” the fact that American troops have spent the past seven years dodging — and, sometimes, not dodging — IEDs in Iraq, but I accept it because I think having a democracy in the region will eventually put pressure on local autocrats to liberalize and held deflate jihadism. Disagree with my position on any or all of those if you like, but I don’t see how it’s controversial or demeaning to suggest that the world’s policeman, like any policeman, doesn’t always enjoy his job. In fact, less than six months ago, Pew found for the first time in 45 years that those who believe the U.S. should mind its own business abroad outnumber those who don’t. I think that isolationist impulse is nutty and a de facto invitation to malign powers to expand their influence, but then so does The One — which, I take it, is why he ordered the surge in Afghanistan, is going slow on withdrawal from Iraq, is stepping up drone attacks in Pakistan, and is keeping the troops in Korea and elsewhere in place.
I give AP credit; he is absolutely right. Sometimes, it just sucks to have to be the leader of the free world. I mean, the United States, not Obama. This is filed under the “Stuck on Stupid” business, that my Blog’s subtitle refers to. Unfortunately, on the far right; there is this effort, a foolhardy one, but none the less, an effort; to castigate President Obama —- No matter what he does. I refer to it as that “Sean Hannity bullcrap.” I mean, I respect Hannity, most of the time. But I cannot stand watching that show; because all his show is about — is bashing Obama, no matter what he does.
I mean, say what you want, but, Obama might be a socialist, Obama might be a wealth redistributor; but, like it or not, Obama does have his rather pointed head on straight when it comes to Foreign Policy and when it comes to Islamic Terrorism. I mean, as AP alluded to in his article, the President could be like Ron Paul. (Shudder!) I am; as I am sure AP is, very grateful that President Obama has his head on straight about the middle east and the danger that Islamic Terrorism poses for this Nation. President Obama might not handle things the way that Bush did; but this does not mean that he does not see and want to deal with the danger.
For this, I am willing to give President Obama a pass in this department. But, only in this department.
Another thing I will say is this; where I see the most Anti-Obama rhetoric, when it comes to terrorism, is from certain protected ethnic classes on the right. (I think you can figure out, what I mean….) This, I believe is fueled by this idiotic notion, that Obama is some sort of secret Muslim. This sort of thing is, in this white man’s opinion, absolutely idiotic. I mean, how ironic is it, that the same class of people, who were subjected to horrific atrocities by a German madman, are now themselves engaging in the same bigoted behavior? Quite, I would say. I will not mention any names, but I think you can guess to which players I allude.
Again, just more of that stuck on stupid, that I refer to…
Thanks to AP for, once again, being “The skinny guy, at fat camp.”
Update: There’s always a smart ass in the crowd. 😉
The Report from ABC NEWS, The story is yet to break National News or they’re working on it:
Federal air marshals subdued a man who authorities say attempted to “light his shoes on fire” on a United flight from Washington Reagan to Denver Wednesday night, federal law enforcement officials told ABC News.
Authorities say an explosive team is on the way to the airport, and that while the presence of explosives has not yet been confirmed, they believe it was an attempted “shoe bomb.”
The suspect was identified by authorities as a diplomat in the Qatar embassy in Washington, Mohammed al Modadi. The FBI said the man had full diplomat immunity as the 3rd secretary and vice-consul.
Authorities said two jet fighters were scrambled from Buckley Air Force Base to accompany United flight 663, a Boeing 757, as it flew the final 40 miles to Denver where it landed safely.
Authorities said the man, identified as from Qatar, was restrained by the air marshals who were on the flight.
The United jet was reportedly being directed to a remote location at the Denver airport.
A spokesman for the FBI in Denver declined to comment.
This is not good at all. This could cause some serious problems for Obama’s strategy on the war on terror.
Update: Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN story alerts up. Update #2: all have stories up now.
MSNBC (ugh!) is now reporting, that this dude was in the bathroom, and was smoking in the can. When someone, not sure whom, asked him what he was doing. He replied, “Well, I was setting my shoes on fire…” Apparently, the douche nozzle was kidding around. Well, the only one laughing was him! 😮 Anyhow, looks like this idiot is going back Qutar. MSNBC is giving the name of the person. I will print it, when it comes up. Update #3: Mohammed al-Modadi is his name. (H/T AP)
ABOVE THE POST UPDATE (11:00): According to CNN, another diplomat is saying that this is a misunderstanding. The story is that the man was smoking in the lavatory and when challenged by an air marshal, he mouthed off sarcastically “I was trying to light my shoe on fire.”
I mean, are we really to believe that this guy took his having diplomatic immunity as free rein to crack a joke about need to light his shoe bomb? I’m curious whether under international law a diplomat can be expelled from a host country simply for being a raging c@#k.
What we may be looking at here is the scariest smoke break in aviation history.
Ha! I wonder if AllahPundit will represent him in Court, if he sues the United States Government for false arrest? If he does, somebody better let Liz Cheney know, after all, we have to know who’s defending terrorists; whether real or wanna-be smart asses. 😉 I mean, that is the McCarthyism way, is it not? 😀
Update #6: Our Assclown of the day can be seen here. He is on the right. (H/T to Wizbang for the find…)
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.
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.
I present this video tonight, because I feel it is the right and moral thing to do. While I have all the respect that any sane person could ever muster for our United States Military. I have nothing but disdain for those leaders, past and present, who treat war as some sort of demented game and the lives of our Service men and women as pawns in that game.
I will warn you, the images in this video are extremely disturbing. But that is the point. I want people to see what war truly is, not what the Conservatives and the people who want romance war; would have you believe.
This video, as gritty as it is; is my personal tribute to those who came before me, and those who will come after me and give their lives for this Country of ours. May God Bless them and keep them.
The images depicted here are when our forces stormed the beaches of Normandy.
Lawyers for the father of a Marine who died in Iraq and whose funeral was picketed by anti-gay protesters say a court has ordered him to pay the protesters' appeal costs.
On Friday, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered that Albert Snyder of York, Pa., pay costs associated with Fred Phelps' appeal. Phelps is the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, which conducted protests at the funeral of Snyder's son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, in Westminster in 2006.
Lawyers for Snyder say the Court of Appeals has ordered him to pay $16,510.80 to Phelps for costs relating to the appeal, despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
They say that Snyder is also struggling to come up with fees associated with filing a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court.
“We are extremely disappointed,” said Sean E. Summers, an attorney for Snyder. He added that the U.S. Supreme Court will likely hear the case during its October term and make a decision in June of next year.
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.
