
Seems to me that shooting is the LEAST horrible fate looters could face inside!

The Sudanese government is playing a game, the same one they've played throughout Sudan for 20 years. They claim to want peace, but will try to fix the negotiations to get what they really want - despotic control over the people of Darfur and the power to begin the genocide again anytime the international community looks away.They then explain that one of their fund-raising efforts is to help raise awareness of the situation and increase the public awarenss, media coverage, and thus negotiating leverage of the people of Darfur.
Only one thing can stop them: a peace agreement that gives real power to the people of Darfur through representation in government and a fair share of Sudan's resources. To get this, the Darfurians need international support - our support.
The cameraman in question was
shot by soldiers in my son's unit. First hand reports are that the moron sped
into the middle of a firefight, jumped out of his car and threw up to his
shoulder a TV or Movie camera with a sound boom and telephoto lens.
It was [understandably
considering the circumstances] mistaken for an RPG and the moron quickly became
the late moron.
Incidentally, this crew was
told beforehand NOT to go into the area of the firefight, as it was entirely too
dangerous.
After a post-battle
debriefing and investigation, the soldiers were determined to have adhered
properly to the rules of engagement, and were found innocent of any
wrongdoing.
Actually, the first hand
report was: "Some dumb b**tard came up to us in a speeding car, jumped out and
pointed his camera at us. We thought it was an RPG and lit him up."
Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades and Vulture Six.
Supporters of Israel knew this would happen. We knew that the capitulation of Gaza would not bring peace. We knew that it was a mere Lebensraum ploy, and that with each Israeli concession, the demand from the Palestinians would be "more!" We knew that this would not bring peace.
And the Palestinians agreed with us. They said as much. And now they've backed their words with deeds -- dark deeds.
Understand one thing, and be very clear about it. The violence in Israel will not end when the Israelis abandon Gaza. It will not end when there is no Israeli left in The West Bank, in the Golan Heights, or in Jerusalem. The forces carrying out these bloody attacks will not rest until there remains not a single jew in all of what is now the State of Israel. Indeed, many of them will feel the restless itch of the trigger finger, the allure of the Cemtex, so long as there exists any Jewry on the entire planet.
The time for appeasement is at an end. It is time to recognize that no amount of surrender will ever bring real peace.
But last night we tried peas. That was a No Go. And while The Feared Redhead and I have agreed not to express our own personal distaste for any food in his presence, so as to avoid biasing his decision, neither of us like peas, either. In fact, the baby food peas were making TFR sick just trying to serve therm, so when it became obvious he wasn't going to keep them in, it was no skin off our noses.
We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability,"..."We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," ..."It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
A misplaced moral squeamishness should not stop the president from talking about assassination. ... If we can kill [him], we should. ... What's unlawful and unpopular with the allies is not necessarily immoral. ... The president would no doubt pay a heavy political price if the operation failed but he would be a huge winner if he succeeded.
?
If you answered "George Stephanopoulis", you win a prize!
Stephanopoulis's comment drew a rebuke in the article from Chris Matthews, but beyond that, I don't recall nearly the furor being raised by that comment that Robertson has caused. In fact, these days, George is one of the Democrats' point man in media circles.
So what's the difference between the two? Some would argue it's Robertson's position as a leader in Evangelical Christian circles, and the bad light in which it casts us. But just doesn't cut it, because Robertson's "fan base" within the Church has been slipping for some time -- for both religious and political reasons. His influence over and position as a voice for Evangelicals isn't nearly what it used to be. But he's still watched like a hawk by those outside the Church, especially the detractors of Evangelicalism. As I stated over at Ken's Blog, I suspect that the reason for this is that as long as they can characterize Robertson as our leader, the media and the left can summarily dismiss all conservative Christians as being as "loony as Robertson", without having to consider our points. As I said, he's a living, breathing, walking, talking straw man.
Furthermore, as I've mentioned before, Robertson was not appealing to religious authority as his reason for espousing the view he did. He was speaking on a practical matter, not a theological one.
And the irony is, in this case, he's absolutely right. And so was Stephanopoulis. Or at least, if he was wrong, it was in that this may not be the time and place to assasinate Chavez. But that doesn't mean it will never be the time and place. Yes, you heard me, I'm saying that I think that in certain specific situations, assassination is a valid strategic weapon. For example, the ambush of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, or the bombing of Saddam's presidential palace.
There's a story that's part of Churchillian apocrypha -- sometimes related as being told BY Winston, about an anonymous man and an anonymous woman, sometimes in the story Churchill is the man. Either way, the gist of the story is that the man in story asks the woman if she would sleep with him for a million pounds. After a shocked pause, she admits that yes, she supposes she would. He then asks her if she would sleep with him for ONE pound. She indignantly asks him wehat kind of woman he thinks she is! His reply is, "Madame, we have already determined what kind of woman you are. Now we are merely negotiating a price."
The same principle applies to assasination. I believe that in certain situations, the pplication of deadly force, the taking of one or more humann lives to defend other humans, is justifiable. That means a criminal in the act of murdering an innocent victim, that means an enemy soldier aiming at your platoon mate, and that certainly means the commander in chief of an enemy force. In for a penny, in for a pound. That doesn't mean I think assasination should be a commonly used option, nor an easily reached conclusion. Like any decision to take a life, it is not an easy one to make, and must be weighed as carefully as the situation allows against other options. But once you've established that deadly force CAN be justifiable, you cannot summarily rule it out.
UPDATE:
I Scooped my Blogfather!
Fortunately, thanks to my fellow Bloggers Coyote, Sailor Republica and Gullyborg, I am getting a look at what other conservative Oregonians think, where I agree and disagree with them, what the state of the party is in this state, and who to keep an eye on.
So when all THREE of them, along with Blogger Daniel support the same candidate, and give some compelling reasons why, I sit up and take notice.
That's why, after reading their comments, I am joining them in supporting Jason Atkinson for Governor.
Despite being a "Mindless Christian Conservative", I don't watch Robertson daily -- or even on a regular basis. I do watch his show occasionally, and TFR enjoys it a bit more than me, more for the inspirational sections than anything else. And by no means do I agree with much of what Robertson says -- from a theological perspective or from a political. I don't even agree with him on this issue.
And while I think this is a bad idea and that Christians are going to catch flak for this comment, I don't think that a political pundit represents himself as a Christian advocating assassination of one individual for strategic reasons is quite the same as a group of Mullahs advocating Jihad simply because the targets are dirty infidels who don't worship the right god.
Furthermore, I have a question for Scott. Let's agree for the moment that it would be wrong for the United States government to assassinate Chavez simply because we don't like his politics or his foreign policy towards the US. Let's agree that even though he's openly hostile and hateful towards the US, it would be political and diplomatic suicide to assassinate him even if he openly declares himself our enemy. I'll grant you, and even agree with you, that it would be stupid, arrogant, and probably illegal right now to even consider Robertson's advice.
My question is, if it became apparent that Venezuela were actively supporting terrorist groups like Al Quaeda, if it was provable, say (for the sake of argument) to a degree even admissable in a court of law that he was providing aid and comfort to enemies of the United States and actively encouragin them or even supplying them with the resources needed to carry out terrorist attacks on the United States or its citizens, if that were the case, then how would assassinating him be any different than bombing the Presidential Palace in Baghdad in attempt to kill Saddam Hussein?
Electric Screwdriver
1 oz. vodka
1/2 oz. Grand Marnier
3 oz. orange juice
2 oz. ruby red grapefruit juice
1 cup ice
Combine all ingredients in shaker, shake well, serve over ice in an Old Fashioned. Garnish with a lime wedge.