SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (20778)6/21/2006 1:02:22 PM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 35834
 
I wonder what the Senators (Kennedy, Durbin, Murtha, etc) who vilify our soldiers will have to say about this? Mostly likely another excuse to cut and run.



To: Sully- who wrote (20778)6/21/2006 3:43:10 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
TORTURERS' HOPE

EXPLOITING OUR DIVISIONS

John Podhoretz
NEW YORK Post
Opinion
June 21, 2006

THE horrific deaths of two American servicemen kidnapped in Iraq on Friday may bring the war into a new phase - and force politicians, media stars and Americans generally to put real meaning behind the meaningless guarantee that "we all support the troops."

Previous American kidnap victims have been unarmed civilians - contractors and journalists who were not trained to kill. The decision to snatch soldiers changes things, which was almost surely the point. Privates Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca, may God protect their souls, were taken from a checkpoint they were manning; one of their comrades in arms, David Babineau, was killed during the assault.

It's one thing to plant improvised explosive devices that wound and kill our armed forces. That kind of attack is what makes this a war. The insurgents can't fight us head on, so they use quick and dirty methods of assault.

But the kidnapping and apparent torture/murder of Privates Tucker and Menchaca may represent a new strategy. If similar kidnap efforts are successful, if this event was not a fluke but an ambitious new tactic to throw Coalition forces off-balance, then things are going to change in Iraq.

Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq likely hopes to make service personnel believe themselves at risk of death by torture from any band of Iraqis they encounter - so that they'll act differently: cautious, suspicious, with the hypervigilance of someone in the midst of a battle. If it works, civilians who mean our armed forces no harm may find themselves shot or killed by mistake as a result of the hair-trigger posture our forces will have to assume to keep themselves safe.

Could anyone blame them?

The answer, of course, is yes. If this is a new strategy, it exists not only to terrorize American and Coalition forces but also to divide them from Iraqis - to sow fear and hostility that will go both ways, to cause an upsurge in resentment and anger toward U.S. forces.

Here at home, we know there is a very serious constituency for stories about Americans committing massacres against Iraqis - from news magazines that print unconfirmed accounts and run them as gospel to congressmen like John Murtha who feel free to say that servicemen and women as yet charged with no offense in the Haditha incident committed murder "in cold blood."

Until now, it has been possible for Murtha and others to say their consuming interest in the alleged misconduct of U.S. forces is a fearless effort to get at the truth of what is going on in Iraq. They claim to speak on behalf of the servicemen and women who are, they believe, fighting in a pointless and useless war.

And even as they do so, they often can't help but draw a complete moral equivalence between the actions of U.S. forces in Iraq and the conduct of the insurgent terrorists. Consider these sentences, published yesterday by the liberal blogger Jeralyn Merritt:


<<< "It's hard to express the sinking feeling this news brings. What can you say to the families of these young men to help reduce their grief? When does it end? Torture is disgraceful. But the United States does not have clean hands." >>>


Before word came that the two Americans of blessed memory were possibly beheaded, the ur-blogger Andrew Sullivan wrote that he prayed for the safety of our soldiers but wondered how America could say it would be wrong for the insurgents to torture our guys when we supposedly torture their guys.

What will such people say about the actions of the military men and women who must do their jobs now in the wake of the unspeakable murders of Tucker and Menchaca?

Will this increasingly passionate refusal to draw distinctions between the actions of Americans at arms and the behavior of Islamofascist monsters continue?

Will they show support for our troops at the moment they most need it - real support, as opposed to crocodile tears and the displays of profound disrespect for their mission? Or will they continue to use any means possible - including harsh judgments of the horrifying split-second choices made by young men in a dangerous situation who have put their lives on the line for the rest of us - to get at the president whom Sullivan, with his typical tone of reserved understatement, yesterday called "shallow, monstrous, weak and petty"?

Will the news media treat our men and women at arms well at such a time by giving them the benefit of the doubt, or will they make another choice?

We shall see whether "I support the troops" is a phrase that means something.

jpodhoretz@gmail.com

nypost.com



To: Sully- who wrote (20778)6/21/2006 5:58:40 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Hue Again (and Again)

Our infrequent excesses vs. the persistent barbarism of our enemies.

By James S. Robbins
National Review Online

Three American soldiers in Iraq have been charged with murder for the deaths of three prisoners of war. Meanwhile two captive American soldiers were slain by insurgents. Privates Kristian Menchaca and Thomas L. Tucker were tortured, killed barbarically, and their bodies left to be found wired with booby traps. For the insurgents it was cause for celebration. “We have executed the Exalted Almighty God's verdict on the two Crusader infidels we captured, by slaughtering them,” the Mujahedin Shura Council stated. “God is great. Glory be to God.”

Any bets on which of these stories has more staying power? My guess is we won’t be hearing much more about Menchaca and Tucker. But the Iraqi prisoner deaths, along with two investigations into alleged illegal killings by Marines at Haditha and Hamdania, are stories that will be with us for a long time to come.

For some reason the infrequent excesses of our own troops make more news and are treated as more significant than the persistent barbarism of our enemies.
To a previous generation the emblem of American shame was My Lai. On March 16, 1968, U.S. troops in Vietnam gunned down hundreds of civilians in this small hamlet, until stopped by other American soldiers who happened on the scene and threatened to open fire if the men did not cease what they were doing.

The My Lai story broke in November, 1969. Around the same time papers were reporting the details of another massacre. In early February 1968, during the Tet Offensive, Viet Cong guerillas rounded up and summarily executed thousands of civilians in the ancient capital of Hue, which was temporarily under their control.
Government officials, businessmen, Catholics, intellectuals, and others deemed socially undesirable were shot down in trenches dug in the city parks, clubbed to death in makeshift prisons, or led away in the countryside to be murdered and thrown into a ravine.

My Lai was a Pulitzer Prize-winning story. The incident at Hue was overshadowed, and soon forgotten. But note the significant differences.
My Lai was an indiscriminate, illegal act on the part of a small group of Americans, and was halted by Americans. When the events came to light, the officers involved were brought up on charges. By contrast, Hue was not an act of excess but the cold-blooded implementation of North Vietnamese policy. Those who committed the act were doing the bidding of their superiors, and had they not been wiped out by U.S. and ARVN forces they would have been hailed as heroes.

So why is it that My Lai has become a byword for brutality while Hue is a footnote? Why will Menchaca and Tucker be forgotten while incidents like those under investigation — or the grotesque theater of Abu Ghraib — will persist, fester, be written about, analyzed, become vehicles for critiques of U.S. policy, the military, or the whole of American culture?

By rights these incidents should demonstrate that we are better than our enemies.
We are civilized, they are barbarians. What we are fighting for is objectively superior to what they are fighting for. Our struggle is legitimate, theirs is not. There is no room for moral relativism in this war. Certainly those who view torture and beheading as acts of piety have no problem seeing it as a black and white conflict. And when faced with extremism of this sort, we should take it at face value.

Those who say that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter should be asked how they define freedom. Those who compare terrorist or guerrilla leaders to George Washington or other Founding Fathers should explain when it was exactly that they ordered the killing of innocents as a method, or even as a matter of expediency. And especially when they ever sought to invoke God’s approval for inflicting agonizing deaths on helpless captives.

I doubt any two other incidents could better illustrate what we are fighting for. In our system, killing prisoners is wrong, and those who do it are punished. In their system, killing prisoners is a blessed act, God’s will made manifest. If nothing else, this latest terrorist atrocity supplies some badly needed perspective. That is, if anyone is paying attention.

— James S. Robbins is senior fellow in national-security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council, a trustee for the Leaders for Liberty Foundation, and author of Last in Their Class: Custer, Picket and the Goats of West Point. Robbins is also an NRO contributor.

article.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (20778)6/21/2006 6:56:59 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Thanks for Nothing

posted by wretchard
The Belmont Club

Amnesty International USA issued the following statement in response to the alleged killing and torture of two U.S. soldiers in Ramadi, Iraq.

<<< "Amnesty International, first and foremost, extends its sincerest condolences to the families of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker for their tragic loss. We are deeply disturbed by reports that these two soldiers were brutally tortured. These reports, if proven true, may rise to the level of war crimes.

Amnesty International condemns the torture or summary killing of anyone who has been taken prisoner and reiterates that such acts are absolutely prohibited in international humanitarian law. This prohibition applies at all times, even during armed conflict. There is no honor or heroism in torturing or killing individuals. Those who order or commit such atrocities must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law without recourse to the death penalty. >>>


The reports, as best I understand them, are that the soldiers were severely tortured before death, their throats slit, after which they were beheaded, then mutilated to the point where only DNA testing could positively identify the bodies. The bodies themselves were then surrounded with antipersonnel devices in a locality frequented by civilians to kill and mutilate anyone who might render assistance or simply catch the unwary.

Let's assign these reports the notation of A. Let's assign the existence of a war crime the notation of B. What I think Amnesty International is saying is that if A then maybe B. However, the truth value of the proposition of the last sentence is not contingent. Rather it is absolute. "Those who order or commit such atrocities must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law without recourse to the death penalty." C. Do C whatever anyone else thinks; whatever else the laws of a sovereign Iraq may specify. C.

My own testament, for the record, are that if I should ever be tortured, have my throat slit, beheaded, mutilated and then have booby traps planted round my corpse so that they might kill any relatives and friends -- should any of this ever happen to me -- that Amnesty International kindly refrain from extending it's "sincerest condolences" and weasely condemnations and offering its insulting and gratuitous advice. I don't want them. I would much rather lie forgotten in some open field than have one of Amnesty International's sick letters on my casket. Not that they would write it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In related news, MosNews is reporting that four Russian diplomats kidnapped earlier in Iraq are reported to have been executed.

<<< A group loyal to al-Qaeda in Iraq said it killed four kidnapped Russian diplomats, the Bloomberg web-site reported on Wednesday quoting an Internet posting found by the Washington-based Search for International Terrorist Entities Institute. Russia did not pay any "attention to the significance of its citizens," says a translation of the message by SITE researchers ... The posting was by a group called the Mujahedeen Shura Council, SITE said on its own Web site. Two days ago the group gave the Russian government 48 hours to pull out of Chechnya and free Muslim prisoners in Russian jails, according to an earlier statement translated into English by SITE. >>>

Diplomats are protected persons and this report, if true, may rise to a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com

news.yahoo.com
disturbed_by_reports_of_brutal_torture_of2_u_s__soldiers133_xml

mosnews.com



To: Sully- who wrote (20778)6/22/2006 8:05:49 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Soldier's Burden

Cox & Forkum



coxandforkum.com



To: Sully- who wrote (20778)6/26/2006 10:53:27 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Another way to frame the story

Betsy's Page

Lorie Byrd has some thoughts on how the media could frame the story if they had more perspective on the war in Iraq. The butchery of the two soldiers kidnapped in Iraq was geared towards getting as much media coverage as possible. The terrorists can't control the government or loyalties of the people in Iraq so they must gain media attention by being as horrific as possible.
    Evidently, the U.S. media does not grasp this concept 
because if they did so many would not have reported the
heinous, barbaric murders of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and
Pfc. Thomas Lowell Tucker in the context of the status of
the war effort in Iraq. Instead they would have focused on
the desperation those in the jihadist movement must be
experiencing to have to sink to such depths of depravity
and brutality in order to draw attention to their cause,
which is experiencing major setbacks every day.
http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2006/06/another-way-to-frame-story.html

wizbangblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (20778)7/11/2006 4:14:07 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
When we first learned about the brutal, unspeakable acts perpetrated on our two American soldiers, Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas Tucker, I wrote my "WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE NOW!?!?!?" post...

Message 22560991

The overall gist of that rant was that I already knew with near certainty that the MSM would hardly cover this story. I knew with 100% certainty the MSM would NEVER this story with the same zeal that they endlessly hyperventilated on the front page where they intentionally misrepresented the so-called "torture" Americans committed at Abu Ghraib & Guantanamo, or the alleged massacre at Haditha. By now anyone with half a brain knows full well that most Americans have never heard or have already forgotten what the terrorists did to Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker because of the paltry coverage of this brutal atrocity.

You want proof? Ask the next 10 people you talk to who Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker are.

You want more proof? See my next post.



To: Sully- who wrote (20778)7/11/2006 4:14:26 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Cold Fury

Power Line

The terrorists have posted a video of their multiple desecrations of the bodies of Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker, the two American soldiers who were captured in Iraq. The video apparently shows one of the corpses being beheaded; thankfully, it appears that both men were already dead by that point.

The terrorists who were responsible for this atrocity need to be hunted down and killed. When Russian diplomats were murdered by Iraqi terrorists, Vladimir Putin publicly directed Russia's secret service to track down the perpetrators and kill them. And Russia doesn't even have any armed forces in Iraq.

Has our government issued a similar order? Not that we know of. We chose this war; we chose this battlefield; we chose to send men like Menchaca and Tucker to Iraq because we believed it was important to our security. Their brutal murders have exposed, once again, the face of pure evil that we are fighting in this war. They must be avenged, and the American public must know that they have been avenged, not forgotten.

President Bush started this war with the right spirit, when he said, for example, that he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." More recently, he has internalized and repeated the sophisticates' criticisms of some of his early rhetoric. In this instance, he should put that reticence behind him and commit the full resources of this nation to avenging our soldiers' murders. And I'm not talking about capturing the perpetrators and feeding them three religiously appropriate meals a day in Guantanamo Bay.

UPDATE: A friend in Washington decided to research the Washington Post's coverage of the kidnapping and murder of Privates Menchaca and Tucker in comparison with alleged misdeeds by American troops:

<<< I asked my intern to do a little research today because yesterday's WashPost outlook section was just so over-the-top in its anti-American soldier articles.

I asked him to check how many article/editorials the Post did regarding the two soldiers who were grotesquely tortured, Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, Texas and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Ore.

There are 7 news articles in all. 2 or 3 of the articles are actually amalgamations of Iraq-related news stories. There are no editorials. One of the articles actually groups the kidnapping of the 2 soldiers together with a story about US soldiers charged with murdering Iraqis. When I put in a search for the names of the 2 soldiers plus the word "torture" nothing came up. The last of the 7 was published on 6/28/06.

I'm sure you'll be gratified to know that when I typed in the word "Haditha" the search turned up 149 Washington Post hits, including editorials and news items. Since June 19th (the day after the first news story re: the 2 soldiers appeared), there have been 12 items published in WaPo on Haditha, compared to 7 on the soldiers.

When I typed in "Abu Ghraib" the search engine stalled because the search would've returned more than 1000 documents. >>>

I think the over-the-top coverage of Abu Ghraib, the prison where no one died after it was reclaimed from Saddam Hussein, is the definitive proof of the American media's bias against its own soldiers.

UPDATE: One of the goofball sites took issue with my statement that "no one died after [Abu Ghraib] was reclaimed from Saddam Hussein," pointing out that there actually was one guy who died there in the course of an interrogation under circumstances that, last I knew, were murky. Actually, other people have died at Abu Ghraib, too; I'm pretty sure several died in the course of a prisoner uprising, for example, and it's likely that some have died there of natural causes. So my sentence was carelessly written. The "over-the-top coverage of Abu Ghraib" I was referring to was the coverage of Lynndie England and her friends' revels with nude pyramids, panties on the head, etc. (News coverage of the incident where the terrorist suspect died was not, to the best of my recollection, disproportionate.) So I'll revise my sentence to say:
    I think the over-the-top coverage of the escapades of 
Lynndie England et al, in which no one died, is the
definitive proof of the American media's bias against its
own soldiers.
What's interesting to me is the hysteria with which liberals react to the suggestion that press coverage of Abu Ghraib [shorthand for the Lynndie England et al episode] was so disproportionate as to show bias against our troops. The emails we got were abusive in the usual LIAR! and IDIOT! way. But none of them had anything rational to say about the point that our correspondent made: the Washington Post has had little to say about the outrages committed against our troops, while it has dwelled at absurd lengths on far less significant offenses committed by American soldiers. And the Post is by no means alone in this regard.

And let's have some sense of proportion here. If we're going to talk about the horrors of Abu Ghraib, let's take just a moment to focus on the real horrors. From John Burns' report in the New York TImes dated January 27, 2003:

    In the unlit blackness of an October night, it took a 
flashlight to pick them out: rust-colored butchers' hooks,
20 or more, each four or five feet long, aligned in rows
along the ceiling of a large hangar-like building. In the
grimmest fortress in Iraq's gulag, on the desert floor 20
miles west of Baghdad, this appeared to be the grimmest
corner of all, the place of mass hangings that have been a
documented part of life under Saddam Hussein.
    At one end of the building at Abu Ghraib prison, a 
whipping wind gusted through open doors. At the far end,
the flashlight picked out a windowed space that appeared
to function as a control room. Baggy trousers of the kind
worn by many Iraqi men were scattered at the edges of the
concrete floor. Some were soiled, as if worn in the last,
humiliating moments of a condemned man's life.
What our correspondent and I decried was the lack of proportionality in much of the mainstream media's coverage of Iraq: a disproportionality so extreme as to indicate bias. If the liberals have anything meaningful to say in response to that point, we haven't yet heard it.

powerlineblog.com

mypetjawa.mu.nu

powerlineblog.com

frontpagemag.com



To: Sully- who wrote (20778)7/11/2006 9:30:25 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The Management of Savagery

Power Line

Mudville Gazette has a must-read post on the al Qaeda video depicting the bodies of the two American soldiers who were reportedly abducted in Iraq. It begins:
    When confronted with savagery one can demonstrate courage 
or flee. The second option is available for a limited time
only. Eventually there will be nowhere to run.
Greyhawk's post needs to be read in its entirety; it makes several distinct and important points. To abstract, very briefly:
    1) This video is consistent with the strategy laid out in 
an important al Qaeda manifesto titled The Management
of Savagery:
    - Brutal killings must be explained in a manner that 
justifies the atrocity.
    - Public opinion must be turned against the enemy 
soldiers.
    - Al Qaeda should be seen as the solution to the 
chaos/savagery - even as they foment more such
atrocities (hence the title).
    These efforts are to be directed at the local Muslim 
population in any conflict. In Iraq, with a majority non-
Sunni population, they will achieve limited success. But
the even more powerful response is desired from the
population of the enemy state - erosion of support for
the effort on the home front.
    2) The video's claim that the murder of the two Americans 
was in retaliation for the alleged rape and murder of
an Iraqi girl, and the murder of several family members,
is in all probability false. al Qaeda learned of this
incident, in all likelihood, from American media as a
result of the military's own investigation.
    3) Happily, it appears most likely from the video that 
the two Americans, Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker,
were not abducted at all, but rather were killed in the
initial attack, along with the third soldier whose body
was left in the vehicle.
In an email to us, Greyhawk writes:

<<< This video offers evidence (if you know where to look) that those soldiers weren't "abducted", but were more likely killed in the original attack. *** Obviously I don't offer this as conclusive proof, but I am confident this was the case. >>>

powerlineblog.com

mudvillegazette.com



To: Sully- who wrote (20778)7/12/2006 1:39:16 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Biased reporting

By Thomas Sowell
TownHall.com
Wednesday, July 12, 2006

The same newspapers and television news programs that are constantly reminding us that some people under indictment "are innocent until proven guilty" are nevertheless hyping the story of American troops accused of rape in Iraq, day in and day out, even though these troops have yet to be proven guilty of anything.

What about all the civilian rapes that are charged -- and even proven -- in the United States? None of them gets this 24/7 coverage in the mainstream media.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example of media hype of unproven charges against American troops.

While military action was still raging in the early days of the Iraq war, there was media condemnation of our troops for not adequately protecting an Iraqi museum from which various items were missing.

When the smoke of battle cleared, it turned out that members of the museum staff had hidden these items for safekeeping during the fighting.

Then there was the incident when a Marine shot a terrorist who was pretending to be asleep and the media turned that into a big scandal until an investigation revealed how these and other tricks used by terrorists had cost the lives of American troops in Iraq.

None of the brutal beheadings of innocent hostages taken by terrorists in Iraq -- and videotaped for distribution throughout the Middle East -- has aroused half the outrage in the mainstream media as unsubstantiated charges made by terrorists imprisoned in Guantanamo.

Nor have most of the media become any more skeptical about charges made by these cutthroats in Guantanamo after the claim that copies of the Koran had been flushed down the toilet at that prison turned out to be a lie.

The idea of trying to flush any book down a toilet ought to have raised suspicions but much of the media treats statements by terrorists and their supporters as true and any denials of wrongdoing by American troops as false and "a coverup."

These are the same liberal media people who claim to be "honoring our troops" when they hype every casualty and make a big production of each landmark death, such as the 1000th American killed in Iraq and then the 2000th.

The multiple-page spread in the New York Times and similarly elaborate coverage of these landmark deaths on liberal television programs show that they had been preparing for these particular deaths for some time.

They may well be disappointed if we don't reach the 3000th American death, since the terrorists have shifted their attacks and now target primarily Iraqi civilians.

We all need to understand the fraudulence of the claim that these media liberals who have been against the military for decades and who have missed no opportunity to smear the military in Iraq are now in the forefront of "honoring" our troops by rubbing our noses in their deaths, day in and day out.

Troops who have won medals for bravery in battle -- including one soldier who won a Congressional Medal of Honor at the cost of his life -- go unmentioned in most of the mainstream media that is focused on our troops as casualties that they can exploit.

A recent study by the Media Research Center found that the three big broadcast news networks -- CBS, ABC, and NBC -- ran 99 stories in 3 and 1/2 hours about the investigation of charges against Marines in the death of Iraqi civilians in Haditha last November.

These remain unproven charges in a country where people on the side of the terrorists include civilian women and children who set off bombs to kill American troops and who can set off lies to discredit those that they do not kill.

But the same networks that lavished 3 and 1/2 hours of coverage of these unproven charges gave less than one hour of coverage of all the American troops who have won medals for bravery under fire.

Every newspaper and every television commentator has a right to criticize any aspect of the war in Iraq or anywhere else. But when they claim to be reporting the news, that does not mean filtering out whatever goes against their editorial views and hyping unsubstantiated claims that discredit the troops.

Those troops deserve the presumption of innocence at least as much as anyone else.

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (20778)7/20/2006 5:16:51 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 


Pfcs. Tucker & Menchaca’s Sadistic Killer Sent to His Eternal Desert Sand Nap

By MsUnderestimated on Iraq
Expose the Left

(Cross-posted from MsUnderestimated)

With all the bad stuff going on in Israel, Lebanon, and Gaza right now, this one seems to have flown right under the radar yesterday. According to reports we all heard, Zarqawi’s replacement, Al Masri, perpetrated this brutality himself. Being the pussy jihadist he was/is, he probably just barked out orders like the dog he is, and had it done by his minions. When we’re told by National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie that someone responsible for the deaths of any of our military men or women over there has been eradicated from the face of this planet, I don’t give a good goddamn if it was Al Masri himself or not (although I’ll take any dead jihadist anyday), but at least we got the bastard(s)!


ZombieTime has some good whackjob photos (& this good one above) from the Pro-Palestinian rallies today.
zombietime.com

The absolute barbarity and cruelty visited upon Menchaca and Tucker is unspeakable, and should be condemned by all free nations. However, we know the peace-at-any-price idiots in the U.S., along with the Euroweenies, are too politically-correct to condemn the true vicious bastards inhabiting our planet these days. Besides, they’re too busy blaming the United States for every act of violence around the world.

Here’s the AP story from yesterday:

<<< Man blamed for murdering Oregon, Texas soldiers is killed

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP)—A Jordanian who killed two U.S. soldiers last month was fatally wounded in a clash with security forces, a senior Iraqi official said Tuesday.

Diyar Ismail Mahmoud, known as Abu al-Afghani, was identified as the killer of the two soldiers, National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie told reporters. The two soldiers’ mutilated bodies were found after they were captured in a clash near Youssifiyah, southwest of Baghdad.

A third American was killed in the clash.

Al-Rubaie did not say when Mahmoud was wounded or died.

The bodies of two soldiers from the 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division were found on June 19 not far from a checkpoint on the Euphrates river south of Baghdad where they were abducted.

The discovery of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca of Houston and Pfc. Thomas Tucker of Madras, Ore.—both of whom were badly mutilated and at least one beheaded—came after exhaustive searches with thousands of soldiers fanning out in an area south of Baghdad known as the “Triangle of Death” because of frequent attacks.

A third soldier, David J. Babineau, 25, of Springfield, Mass., was found dead at the checkpoint where the soldiers were killed two days before.

The three were assigned to the 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment—the same unit as five soldiers and one former Army private now facing charges in the alleged rape and murder of a teenage girl in Mahmoudiya last March.

The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella of extremist groups, claimed in an Internet statement that the three soldiers were killed last month in retaliation for the rape-murder. U.S. officials say they have no evidence to substantiate the claim.

The killing of the Americans followed the June 7 death of al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a U.S. airstrike northeast of Baghdad. Mahmoud was a top al-Zarqawi lieutenant, al-Rubaie said.

During the news conference, al-Rubaie also said security forces detained the leaders of the Omar Brigade group, a wing of al-Qaida in Iraq that had claimed to have carried many deadly attacks throughout the country.

He identified the group’s leader as Jassim Mohammed, known as Abu Othman, his deputy Abu Aisha, who was in charge of financing the group, and Abu Ihab, who was in charge of recruitment. The fourth was Abu Islam, who was in charge of religious affairs, al-Rubaie said.

“The Omar Brigade is one of the death squads,” al-Rubaie said, adding that the group was responsible for the deadly bombing in Baghdad’s eastern neighborhood of Sadr City on July 1 that killed 66 people.

Al-Qaida in Iraq announced last year that it had formed the Omar Brigade to fight the Shiite militias. The group claimed to have killed many Shiite militia leaders since then.

He refused to say where they were detained for security reasons but added that the operation was carried out by Iraqi and multinational troops.

“This is a major blow to al-Qaida itself because this is a division that was trying to drive a wedge between Shiites and Sunnis,” he said. >>>

And yes, we cannot forget about the death of soldier, David J. Babineau, who was shot at the site of the intial abduction, by all accounts.

The one thing I can say is the only good jihadist is a dead jihadist. And yes, not all Muslims are terrorists; however, all terrorists responsible for most of the clashes in the modern ages have been Muslim. These vermin must be exterminated, and I for one am happy that Israel is wiping the mideast floor with Hezbollah’s bloody carcasses.

May God bless our troops, our President, and the United Glorious States of America!

GO ISRAEL! And to Pres. Bush….it’s time to COWBOY UP!

feeds.feedburner.com

msunderestimated.com

msunderestimated.com

msunderestimated.com

newsreview.info