Category Archives: open thread

A possible renewed struggle

Anyone who thinks that the death of Osama Bin Laden will see the end of the terrorism is dreaming. His death will in fact spark new action amongst a group of people who are fanatics. The dream of the caliphate that Osama bin Laden is not a dead dream. It lives on with his successors. According to this news report:

International law enforcement agency Interpol has called for extra vigilance in the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden by US special forces.

The United States has issued security warnings to Americans worldwide, and a top Republican lawmaker briefed by the White House on bin Laden’s death said US security agencies were working to prevent any attacks on the United States or its installations overseas.

“This is a key moment because Al Qaeda has to avenge. This is a terrible defeat for them and they have to move as quickly as they can and it’s up to us to stop them,” said congressman Peter King.

Britain has told its embassies to review their security for fear of reprisals following the killing.

Foreign secretary William Hague says there may be parts of Al Qaeda that try to show they are still in business in the coming weeks.

“This is a very serious blow to Al Qaeda but, like any organisation that has suffered a serious blow, they will want to show in some way that they are still able to operate,” he said.

Mr Hague’s French counterpart, Alain Juppe, also warned against “excessive optimism” in the wake of the killing, saying: “Al Qaeda still exists. There are deputies. There are structures.”

Japan says it is also stepping up security at its military facilities to protect itself against any reprisals.

Similar announcements have also been made by India and Malaysia.

Australian security and intelligence agencies have kept the threat level at medium, saying a terrorist attack is feasible and could happen at any time.

Michael Shore, a former senior CIA officer who helped set up the unit responsible for taking Bin Laden down, says Al Qaeda still presents a very real threat.

“The organisation remains very resilient, they’ll come up with another leader to follow Osama bin Laden and the fight will go on… as it will against the Taliban and other groups around the world,” he said


Daffy’s desperate propaganda

When a small group of people decided to protest the Gadhaffi regime in Benghazi during February 2011, having been inspired by protests in Egypt and Tunisia, they did not expect that Daffy goon snipers would fire upon them.  After the first were killed, more people joined the protests, until eventually thousands joined in… and then they managed to storm the Benghazi fort.  At this juncture they were joined by an army unit plus the interior minister who had defected to their side. It was the beginning.

The response to those initial protests in Benghazi was a springing up of protests in Zintan, Zawiyah, Tripoli, Misrata, Brega etc. etc. The protest movement was widespread. The response from the Daffy goons was deadly.  The uprisings in Tripoli were put down by the posting of foreign mercenary soldiers who were used as snipers – move outside the door, and get killed!!  The Daffy goons moved in on Zawiyah and the people held them off as long as possible. The situation was extremely deadly. This is the scene that was repeated in several regions in Libya. The protests were met with deadly force.

The UN became involved at the point where Daffy Duck had stated that he would show no mercy to the people of Benghazi, and he meant what he was saying. Just in the nick of time resolution 1973 was passed and the French  began the action against the Daffy goons, saving the people of Benghazi from further violence to their human rights. The UN has teams investigating the human rights violations in Libya and by the end of the investigation I suspect that many in the regime will face a trial in the world court for their crimes.

The action of the NATO forces has put a dampener on Daffy’s attempts to put down the protests. Daffy has been prepared to lie, and to get his allies to use propaganda against the NATO forces in an effort to cling to power. He has attempted to use the African Union, Chavez, Russia, China, India and other useful idiots in order to get out his propaganda message. It is always the same one: he pretends that NATO is killing civilians. Not once has the Daffy claims been verified. Even the statement coming from the Vatican was based upon false information that was planted by the regime. It was the alleged killing of civilians during NATO strikes that set off the Russians, and gave the leader of the Arab Union a bit of a hissy fit (he has since withdrawn opposition to the attacks once the record was set straight). He has been attempting to use Chavez to make claims that he is attempting to negotiate peace – why should anyone believe the lying hound Chavez? He tried to use the African Union to make peace negotiations, but of course these negotiations were rebuffed – Gadhaffi has to leave. He sent his Deputy Foreign Minister on a mission to Europe and that ended up with Italy deciding to send aircraft to participate in the NATO strikes.

Daffy Duck’s goons have been shelling the civilian areas of Misrata. Hundreds of civilians have died at the hands of the Daffy goons. He had Misrata cut off with the situation being quite desperate, but in the end the goons were pushed back sufficiently for the rebels to retain control of the city, as well as maintaining the control of the port. There have been some evacuations from Misrata, and yes, some equipment has filtered into the town.  However, it is the use of cluster bombs and now the mining of the waters around the port of Misrata that should make people recoil in horror over what Daffy Duck has been doing to his own people in Libya.

These deadly actions by Daffy Duck has not stopped the propaganda from flowing. There has been a never ending flow of propaganda. At first there were promises of a ceasefire. Oh yes, did I mention that when NATO threatened action Daffy declared a ceasefire, and promptly ignored it by firing upon Benghazi? This has been repeated several times in the past few weeks. Now comes the latest in propaganda ploys from Daffy Duck:

He wants to negotiate yet another worthless ceasefire. He wants NATO to stop the bombing.  Here is the latest in a string of lying propaganda from the terrorist Moammar Gadhaffi:

“(Libya) is ready until now to enter a ceasefire … but a ceasefire cannot be from one side,” Mr Gaddafi said, speaking from behind a desk and aided by reams of papers covered in what appeared to be hand-written notes.

“We were the first to welcome a ceasefire and we were the first to accept a ceasefire … but the crusader NATO attack has not stopped,” he said.

“The gate to peace is open.”

What a lying piece of the proverbial mushroom fodder. Truly, this is the man who claims a ceasefire, and then keeps firing. It is not NATO that has refused to stop it is Moammar Gadhaffi who has been stalling for time in order to implement his next diabolical attack upon his own people who will not stop.  The man is getting more and more desperate and he is sounding extremely desperate. He blames NATO, but NATO was not responsible for those mines that have been found in the waters of Misrata!!!!! The mining of the port of Misrata is against International Law, something that is not respected by the terrorist and terrorist sponsor, Moammar Gahdaffi.

The BBC, reporting on the same story gives a slightly different and chilling picture regarding the latest propaganda move from Daffy Duck:

State media later implied that Nato strikes had targeted Col Gaddafi while he was speaking.

Meanwhile, Libya said it will not allow any more sea deliveries to the besieged western city of Misrata.

Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim also said rebels in the city would be given four days to lay down their arms in return for an amnesty.

If they continued to fight they would face “total fire” he said.

His comments came after Nato said forces loyal to Col Gaddafi had been trying to lay mines off Misrata.

These threats are exactly like the “no mercy” threats uttered against Benghazi. Don’t talk to me about the possibility of some individuals been remotely connected to AQ who are now fighting to save the lives of their townspeople, their families and even their own lives.  The freedom fighters are fighting for their lives, and they are fighting the real terrorist who has used obsfucation like it is a fine art. After all, who do you think started those AQ rumours? It was Daffy Duck who was giving a false impression about those who had been protesting.

 You will find more disturbing stories about how the Daffy Duck regime is treating people in Tripoli here.


Why did Barry Soetoro decide to wave around his fake BC, claiming that it was the original copy from HDOH right now? Why was he trying to divert attention? There are a few theories, including his fear that people are listening to Donald Trump, and that the Jerome Corsi book would cause him a lot of damage.  However, there is probably another reason that he wanted to divert attention. It has to do with his father.

Taking Barry at his word, (although I still think Barry does not act like a man born as a Leo), that he was born August 4, 1961, means that I accept that Barry’s father is the randy Barack Obama Sr. It seems that Barry Sr. was a bit of a ladies man when he was away from home, especially with white radical women fawning all over him.

The UK paper The Guardian reports on the release of documents under FOI legislation to investigative journalist Heather Smathers. It seems that Barry Sr. was warned about his bed hopping when he was in Hawaii. The immigration dept was suspicious of the fact that he “married” an American citizen, and they were watching to see if there was evidence of them living together.  Also, it seems that Harvard was keen to get rid of their “star” Kenyan student when he had completed his exams, but not his thesis for his doctorate.

Rather than taking at face value the comment from the Guardian about how Obama Sr. was treated, I would suggest reading the underlying documents that are linked to the article. They are fascinating to say the least. He was involved with several young women at Harvard. The authorities were aware of the “marriage” and Barry’s birth. They also warn that the marriage might not be legitimate (thinking that perhaps it was a means to stay in the country).

It is clear that the document being waved about is not the long form birth certificate. It is a forgery, and not a very good one. This probably means that the real certificate held by Barry has been altered to the name Soetoro. Such an alteration would explain why he does not want it to be seen, and why he stated that his mother did not have the evidence to make a claim on Sr.’s estate, when in fact the Immigration department had very good documents on Barry Sr.

Could it be that Barry created the diversion to cover up the release of the documents relating to his father? I do not know. However, you can have a look at the documents at this link.


A good post at NoQuarter to read and discuss

Found this link to NoQuarter and thought that it was very good. There are a number of points that have been made, and yes I think all are worthwhile points. When you have finished reading the NoQuarter post, please have a look at this one by Kyle-Ann Shriver at American Thinker.

Whilst some of you have the strange idea that I somehow trashed Donald Trump, when I expressed an opinion that I did not necessarily think he would make a good President, there are others who have been willing to remain open minded, and to keep with the wait and see option.   Also, I happen to be delighted that the Donald is making such a big splash at the present time. He is doing what no Republican politician has been able to do in the past two years – make the LSM actually do some work to justify their own bullishness and their cover-up of the appalling record of B.H. Øbama.  There has been a coverup and Trump has been the one to challenge the media clowns on what they have done. No wonder they are frightened of him. Also, Trump is causing people like Karl Rove to shudder, because there is something in the background about why it was that Øbama was never vetted properly as a candidate. Could it be that the Republicans want to run Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal? Personally, I would have no problem with either of these men, except that they are not NBC. I do not doubt their loyalty to the USA though, which is not the case with the Marxist in the White House.

The Donald has been bashed from both sides of the spectrum. The “conservatives” are no doubt upset that their pet for the Presidential election (Mittens Romney, Tim Pawlenty) is being overlooked, and the left-wing are just acting normal, using their Alinsky methods to attack anyone who gets in the way of them destroying the USA.

My personal view here is that even if the Donald does not end up as the Republican Presidential candidate, this is an opportunity for people to fully participate in the election process like never before. Your country does things differently from my own, and you have those primaries. You also have non-compulsory voting. It means you have to get off your butt to vote. The thing is, you need to start doing your research right now, and you need to be willing to fully participate in the process if you want to stop Østupid from getting a second term as POTUS.

There have been a number of people who are expressing interest in running as the Republican candidate. Most of them have weaknesses that possibly outweigh their strengths. Some of them, like Mittens Romney have baggage that could make them unelectable. However, in the case of Mittens, he thinks it is “his turn” for the Republican nomination. This is your opportunity to vet each of the candidates so that the best candidate, rather than the “his turn” candidate becomes the nominee. Others, like Tim Pawlenty, work behind the scenes doing all of the bashing of those other potential candidates. There are some such as Allahpundit at HotAir who seem all too willing to bash people like Donald Trump and Sarah Palin because they want Tim Pawlenty to be the Republican nominee.

The vetting process this time needs to be thorough, it needs to be based upon a wide range of issues, and not on the narrow ones. Candidates such as Gary Johnson would gain on fiscal responsibility, but would not get ticks for social conservative values, yet he might appeal to the wider audience of Libertarian and Independent voters because of his stances on a variety of issues that are offensive to those in your Bible belt. However, Gary Johnson is lacking in a very vital area – foreign relations.  He needs to rethink his positions on some issues, but I do not see him as the Republican nominee anyway.

Whilst I do not believe that Sarah Palin is unelectable, I do see that she has had an uphill battle to gain acceptance and like Donald Trump she has been mercilessly bashed by the media, some Republicans, and of course by the left-wing. Her appeal to most has been the fact that she is “of the people”, and I see that Donald Trump has that same appeal.  Both of these candidates need to be thoroughly vetted if they are to be taken seriously.

Meanwhile, let the Donald make his points to the media because he is doing a great service in bringing those issues to the media, and pointing up how the media has been so slack by not dealing with all of the corruption behind the Øbama name. If the media starts bringing up issues about Trump, then you need to fight back twice as hard in bringing out the Øbama obsfucation and corruption.

The AA population does not make up a majority of those who vote. The Marxist-Progressive element within the population are not a majority of the voters. The election of the next USA President will depend upon getting Republicans and Independetnts out to vote in large numbers against Øbama.


Østupid gets an F for his foreign policy failures

Ok so it is not really an F, but two op-eds written by two potential Republican candidates for the 2012 Presidential race. One was written by Mittens Romney, and the other by John Bolton. The analysis itself comes from the Daily Caller and it also shows the latest polling results relating to Østupid’s Libyan policy.

Now I have not been shy about the fact that I support the need for a no-fly zone. I am critical of the way that the thing has been handled by the White House Adminisration. It is a shambles because of the drawing back of the American military from the main action and the handing over of the command to NATO forces. I think that was a mistake, and even though I see the need for the action, I fear that the whole thing will get bogged down unless there is more decisive action. In fact that is what is wrong – the indeciveness of Østupid has put any success of the operation in jeopardy.

Here are some of the points raised in the Daily Caller article:

An ABC poll released Wednesday found that 49 percent of the public disapproves of the way Obama is handling the situation in Libya, while just 42 percent approve. A Rasmussen poll of likely voters found a slightly more unpleasant situation for the president: 37 percent called Obama’s handling of Libya ‘good’ or ‘excellent,’ while 60 percent called it ‘fair’ or ‘poor.’

Bolton wrote in his op-ed that Libya risked becoming a “quagmire” like the Vietnam War and said that in “demanding Moammar Gadhafi’s ouster while restricting U.S. military force to the more limited objective of protecting civilians, Barack Obama has set himself up for massive strategic failure.” (President Obama wrote that Gaddafi’s ouster was necessary for Libya’s future in a joint op-ed with British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.) Bolton argued that the president needed to declare ousting Gaddafi to be the goal of the military operation, authorize the military to use the necessary force to do that, and “return to active strike missions.”

Romney also attacked Obama for the lack of clarity in defining the mission.

“It is apparent that our military is engaged in much more than enforcing a no-fly zone,” he wrote. “What we are watching in real time is another example of mission creep and mission muddle.”

But unlike Bolton, Romney does not support increased involvement. “I support that specific, limited mission,” he wrote.

Read more:

I have one question for Mittens Romney: what strategic rationale? That is something that is missing. It is simply not there.


Thy name is Hypocrisy

The Greenroom has up a post and I tend to agree with the comments from the author. It seems that the ditherer-in-chief has finally noticed that Assad in Syria is also killing his own people.

I have been watching the Syrian situation, and it seems that there are more protester deaths than in Egypt and Tunisia but far fewer than the deaths and injuries in Libya, and probably in Yemen as well. The ditherer-in-chief obviously did not want to interrupt  his constant vacations and golfing in order to at least send a stern message to Syria that killing unarmed civilians is not an option. Hosni Muburak did far less during the “revolution” than has been committed by Assad, yet Østupid forced the situation demanding that Muburak must go. Well it was not up to him to make that demand upon Muburak!!

In a few of my posts I have touched upon the violence in Syria and I have touched upon the issue of who might be behind the uprising. That one is still not very clear to me, but it is probably Islamists who are a part of the uprising. Syria is an ally of Iran, and Syria has been funding Nasrallah in Lebanon, acting as a go-between for Iran to fund Hezbollah. The ethnic mix in Syria seems to be the trigger for the uprising because the Ba’ath Party which is in control seem to be the minority. It is interesting to note that the Ba’athists seem to be a minority yet they control the majority. Either way, the one thing that we know about Syria and Assad in particular is that Syria is a sponsor of terrorism. I doubt that MB has had much influence in Syria.

The weakness of the condemnation, which came not directly from the ditherer-in-chief but from a minor official, goes to show that Østupid is in fact supporting these terrorists from afar. People wanted someone who was not George W. Bush, well you got him. This man is a direct opposite from Bush because he is not attempting to combat the terrorism, but is in fact supporting terrorists.

On top of the extremely weak and PP condemnation of Assad, there has been no mention of condemnation against other Arab governments that have crackd down on protesters. The Yemen situation, for example has yet to be resolved. In Yemen, though the elements appear to be Al Qaeda related, and perhaps pressure is also from MB. 

There is no rhyme or reason to the approach on the Middle East. It seems that in the one country where the Government was the most friendly, the pressure to force the leader out was the heaviest. The effort in Libya, where the leader is an absolute mongrel is half-hearted. Then there is the approach in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where the damage being done will have consequences for many years to come. I keep saying I am against those drone attacks, especially when it is invititing outrage amongst the civilian population in Pakistan – those attacks make for good propaganda against the USA.  Given that these people are not well educated and are easily led by a bunch of radical imams, it means a whol new generation of willing jihadis.



Goldman Sachs lied

Just saw this article. I have not read it properly and will probably take up the subject on one of my other blogs. I just thought that you might like to read the article and then discuss if you desire: