Rummy speaks the truth, not gobbledygook
by Mark Steyn.
He expresses my thoughts exactly:
- "Whatever credibility the Plain English Campaign might
once have had, they have blown.
They sound, to put it in
plain English, like a bunch of smug tossers."
The Chatham House Prize
(Royal Institute of International Affairs, the UK think tank).
for contribution to international relations
has been awarded to some appalling characters, including:
Number of photos showing US forces looking heroic: 0
Number of photos showing US forces helping Iraqi civilians: 0
Number of photos showing Iraqis expressing support for US forces: 0
Number of photos showing Iraqis expressing opposition to insurgents: 0
The Jawa Report:
"No photos show U.S. troops rebuilding Iraq. No photos show U.S. troops playing with kids in the street. No photos show the results of the first democratic election in Iraq. No photos show the thousands of freed prisoners from Saddam's tyrranical rule."
an Iraqi photojournalist
who was one of the Associated Press team that won the 2005 Pulitzer,
was detained by the U.S. military in 2006 and
accused of working with the Iraqi resistance.
He was freed in 2008.
Strangely enough, this 11,000-word, three-part story
failed to mention the most famous event connected to the mosque
- the sermon in 1994
that inspired a man to go out and shoot Jewish children.
Another Pulitzer Prize Disgrace: Puff piece on mosque that inspired murder further tarnishes the 'Times',
Jonathan Tobin, April 23, 2007:
"Halberstam's mother, Devorah, related that she called Elliot to ask why she had omitted the story of her son's murder from the feature on the mosque. Elliot replied that
"she knew nothing about it".
The result is not only shoddy journalism; it is a politically inspired muddle that leaves us knowing only those elements of the life of Shata and his mosque that he wishes to present to us.
That a travesty such as Elliot's "imam" would bring a Pulitzer is a disgrace that again taints the reputation of both the prizes and the Times."
received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1976.
"Right now, I would love to kill George Bush."
"Right now, I could kill George Bush. No, I don't mean that. How could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that.""The Muslim world right now is suffering beyond belief",
said this idiot.
And apparently it is Bush's fault,
rather than the fault of Islamism.
Barack Obama, who has achieved nothing, wins
the Nobel Peace Prize 2009 as soon as he arrives in office.
You couldn't make it up.
Well, he is the World's Greatest Lefty, I suppose.
"He's Becoming Jimmy Carter Faster Than Jimmy Carter Did."
"Well, the Nobel Prize committee would with this decision have forfeited its reputation for seriousness if it had a reputation for seriousness."
Mark Steyn, October 9, 2009:
"There's something almost quaintly vieux chapeau
about the Nobel decision, as if the hopeychangey bumper stickers were shipped surface mail to Oslo and only arrived last week. Everywhere else, they're peeling off".
"the award only aids the right's arguments that Obamamania bears no relation to reality.
the Nobel Committee is actually just highlighting the gap that conservatives have long highlighted: between Obamamania as global hype and Obama's actual accomplishments."
"This Peace Prize will discredit the Nobel Committee and European Leftists as well as Mr. Obama. I don't see how things can get much better than that."
says this is pre-emptive for a reason:
"with this 'award' the elites of the world are urging Obama, THE MAN OF PEACE, to not do the surge in Afghanistan, not take action against Iran and its nuclear program and to basically continue his intentions to emasculate the United States. They love a weakened, neutered U.S and this is their way of promoting that concept."
Victor Davis Hanson, October 11, 2009:
"the Obama Prize represents two recent larger Nobel trends: 1) an effort to curtail American foreign policy in favor of international deference (as in the case of rewarding Carter and Gore for their defamation of Bush in their opposition to Iraq); 2) a general disconnect from accomplishment in favor of leftist intentions, as in the case of Elbaradei or
who accomplished essentially nothing".
"Apparently Nobel prizes now being awarded to anyone who is not George Bush."
The Nobel Peace Prize Generator:
"Our prestigious award is given out to individuals with good intentions.
If you would like to be considered for a Nobel Peace Prize for things you plan to do in the future, please select the appropriate option below."
"Obama said he will attend the ceremony in Oslo if he's not too busy with the two wars he's conducting."
Michelle Obama spoof:
"Everyone around here is simply stunned. No one really expected this for another 3 years."
"The president's honest attempt to promote world peace through the same methods taught by Jesus Christ are met with contempt by a country whose collective consciousness is extraordinarily fearful and at times, sacrilegious. In one of the most telling moments of the past nine months, the skepticism that the President was met with after his compassionate speech in Cairo
was shocking. He conceded nothing in that speech but love. This is the route that is prescribed to us by all of the great prophets in the Bible, Qur'an and the Torah. The president stood in front of the world and made the bold statement of fact that America would like to operate from a place of love.
Our progressive president is so loving that the whole world is praying for us to lift ourselves up, yet we are still so afraid.
If we allow leaders of a political party that only know one word, and that is "no," to work against the best interests of our country, we will not only be found guilty of charge four, we will be sentenced by God to self-destruction."
When I've stopped laughing, I would reply:
That's all very well.
But will this "love"
lead to more jihadi killing, or less?
Will it lead to more tyranny in the world, or less?
(Consider how Ronald Reagan hugely reduced tyranny in the world, not increased it.)
Will this "love" lead to Iran abandoning nuclear weapons, or
It's an empirical question.
You don't seem to care about results, only about intentions.
The Nobel Committee is the same.
They don't care about results either.
Russell Simmons, August 23, 2010, absurdly claims that:
"the overriding theme of Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Abraham and Lord Buddha was to love all people of all races and all religions."
Of course, he neither knows nor cares what Muhammad or Abraham actually believed.
Russell Simmons, September 2012, says that films that mock the Prophet Mohammed should be illegal.
Not bad at all.
Shortly after being given this ridiculous Nobel,
he made the difficult decision of the Afghan surge (having himself
opposed the Iraq surge when in opposition).
He then defends this decision in front of a sceptical Oslo audience.
He says he admires Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
"But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."
John Hannah, 10 Dec 2009:
"at its core, what really mattered ... is that President Barack Obama went before an international audience for the first time in his young presidency and, rather than giving them what they wanted to hear, told them what they needed to hear about the enduring indispensability of American power and principle in a deeply troubled and flawed world."
Alinsky Does Afghanistan, by Andrew C. McCarthy, December 4, 2009, warns us not to get too excited about Obama's Afghan surge.
Obama's heart isn't in it, he says.
"We're nation building in a place we'd have to occupy for a century to build a nation, but we're not occupiers, and we'll be calling it a wrap in 18 months."
The 2011 Nobel Peace Prize went to
a Yemeni Islamist
"human rights" activist.
How can an Islamist support
Islamism and sharia are entirely opposed to the concept of human rights.
She is a member of the human rights hating
How can a Muslim Brotherhood member support
(Some people say she is just "linked to" the Muslim Brotherhood,
but the Muslim Brotherhood say she is a member. See below.)
Al-Awlaki was killed immediately after he left the house of Salem Saleh Afrag,
brother of Khamis Afrag, a leading member of Islah.
Weeks later, the Nobel prize is awarded to a senior member of Islah!
The above article says Islah shelters Al Qaeda fighters on an ongoing basis:
"Al-Okaimi is a member of parliament and chairman of Islah. Many Al-Qaeda operatives including Egyptians, Algerians and Libyans are supposedly still hiding in the farm of Al-Okaimi until now, according to local sources."
Counter-jihad blogger about Yemen,
defends Karman, though.
That may be so, but Karman is not a secular liberal in the Islah coalition.
She is part of the
wing of Islah.
"acres and acres of daylight between" Karman and al-Zindani.
I find this unconvincing.
Why are they in the same party then?
I suspect that
understands what she stands for,
is being misled.
In a comment on the latter link, Novak said on 7 Oct 2011:
"so far the US, the Yemeni government, the Shiite party and the Socialist Party congratulated her
- but the Islah party has not, She is technically a member of the leadership council, because she is so popular, but the party trashed her for a while because she is so progressive".
"Islah hails Yemeni Nobel Prize winner", 8 Oct 2011.
"Head of the main Yemeni opposition party, Islah, Mohammad Al-Yadomi congratulated on Friday Tawkol Karman for wining Nobel prize".
The Muslim Brotherhood also warmly congratulated her.
But this is not enough.
Someone needs to contact Karman and ask her some tough questions:
If she opposes Al Qaeda, why is she in an Al Qaeda linked party?
Anwar Al-Awlaki was sheltered by her party shortly before he was killed by a drone strike in Sept 2011.
Does she oppose jihad?
Does she oppose Hamas?
(Her party leader
Zindani raises funds for Hamas.)
Does she oppose sharia?
If she opposes sharia, why is she in the Muslim Brotherhood?
Novak says that her party
"Islah ... encompasses tribal elements, political and Islamic reformists, progressive students, anti-regime activists, Muslim Brotherhood and more fundamentalist Salafis."
Maybe so, but she is in the Muslim Brotherhood wing of Islah.
Does she support the rights of Muslims to leave the religion?
Does she support the rights of atheists, apostates and gays?
Does she support press freedom for critics of Islam?
Would sites like the Jawa Report and Jihad Watch be legal in her Yemen?
He says about Karman's moderate and even brave positions on many things:
"Although these are admirable causes, the fact remains that Karman chooses to sit on the Shura Council of Islah, the Yemeni branch of the Muslim Brotherhood."
"She may argue that Islah is the most viable alternative to Saleh, but the opposition umbrella group to which Islah belongs is diverse. Why stick with Islah? If she feels that the other parties are no better, then why not create her own?"
Michael Rubin, 9 Oct 2011, thinks the promotion of the Muslim Brotherhood by the Nobel committee is deliberate:
"While most Nobel prizes
are based on a life’s work whose value is apparent in hindsight, the Nobel Peace Prize is selected by a committee of Norwegian politicians, who base their choice upon a political agenda in the present. The agenda here is trying to counter the notion the Muslim Brotherhood, whose record of Islamist terrorism predates even Israel’s foundation, might hijack the Arab Spring demonstrations to usher in a situation of one-man, one-vote, one-time."
celebrates their Nobel Peace Prize 2011 on their Twitter feed, 7 Oct 2011.
They say Tawakel Karman is actually a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Stalin Peace Prize,
later re-named the Lenin Peace Prize.
That's right, a "peace" prize named after two genocidal butchers.
Recipients of this disgusting award include:
Picasso, Hewlett Johnson, Pablo Neruda,
Paul Robeson, Bertolt Brecht, W.E.B. DuBois, Fidel Castro,
Nelson Mandela, Linus Pauling and Angela Davis.
The "Lenin Prize" was revived in 2009
in honour of
the lifelong supporter of tyranny
had a witty reply.
He invented a
"Pol Pot Prize",
which he awarded to Mattias Gardell.
"Also next year's Pol Pot Prize will be given to Mattias Gardell, provided there will be no other scholar more naďve or lacking more historic knowledge, but that seems unlikely".
After he went mad and became a far left-winger, Charles Johnson started trying to
disown everything LGF did in the past. Here in Aug 2010 the new moonbat version of Johnson says he
the 2006 award to John Bolton!
I voted for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer and Michael Yon.
I voted for Mark Steyn.
Winner: General David Petraeus.
Who I block:
I will debate almost anyone.
I love ideas.
I will not debate (and will block) people who do the following:
(a) Make threats.
(b) Accuse me of crimes.
(c) Comment on my appearance.
(d) Drag in stuff about me not related to the topic. (My professional career, my personal life.)
(e) Complain to my employer.
Yes, people do all these things.