Sutton injured in wreck
By Susan BrinkerStaff Writer
Oklahoma State University basketball coach Eddie Sutton was injured in a vehicle crash Friday afternoon on his way to the Stillwater Regional Airport.
Sutton, 69, was driving to catch the team plane, which was bound for a Saturday basketball game against Texas A&M in College Station, Texas.
Sutton suffered a head injury and was transported to Stillwater Medical Center for evaluation and treatment. He was traveling alone in his vehicle.
The unidentified occupant of the Chevrolet Suburban involved in the wreck sustained minor injuries and was treated and released, according to SPD.
A press conference was held at SMC on Friday night.
“Eddie Sutton was transported here earlier this evening,” said Karen Hendren, SMC chief financial officer.
“He is in good condition and will be admitted overnight for observation.”
Gary Shutt, OSU communications director, visited with Sutton immediately before the conference.
Sutton “is doing well,” Shutt said. “He wants to tell all OSU fans and all the people across the state that he appreciates their thoughts and prayers. He is a little banged up and, of course, he wishes he could be with the team right now.”
When the team was informed of Sutton’s condition, a decision was made to proceed with travel plans. Friday night, the Cowboys were in College Station. Sutton’s son, Sean, head coach-designate, will lead the team today.
The SPD was represented at the press conference by Lt. Ryan McCaghren. He followed up the medical report and confirmed that Sutton had bruises to his face but was in good condition overall and his injuries were not life threatening.
Later Friday, Shutt said he expected Sutton to be released from the hospital Saturday.
OSU President David Schmidly said in a press release he was relieved to learn Sutton and the occupant of the other car were both going to be fine.
“We are grateful there were no serious injures and encouraged by Coach Sutton’s desire to rejoin his team as soon as possible,” Schmidly said. “Our thoughts are with Coach, Patsy and their entire family.”
At 5:45 p.m. on Friday, the Stillwater Police and Fire departments responded to a report of an injury accident in the 3000 block of North Washington.
The preliminary SPD investigation found that Sutton was traveling northbound on Washington in a Dodge Durango. He traveled left of the center line and, upon correcting, struck a Chevrolet Suburban from behind at approximately 60 mph. The posted speed limit is 45 mph.
His vehicle continued northbound approximately one-eighth mile before leaving the roadway and striking a tree.
The investigation will be forwarded to the Payne County District Attorney’s Office for review upon completion to determine if charges are warranted.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to the Sutton family and to the OSU Basketball team. Eddie Sutton has led his Cowboys to the NCAA Tournament numerous times. His lack of presence at todays game against Texas A&M will definitely be felt and missed. He is the true icon of the OSU Cowboys.
The Stars and Stripes
Respect Her, Defend Her, and Cherish what she stands for.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Friday, February 10, 2006
Representative JACK MURTHA
The following has been excerpted from Rep. Murtha's site on www.house.gov:He has used his position to fight for America's men and women in uniform. He is known for his hands-on approach, visiting personnel on bases and during deployments to hear directly about equipment, training, conditions, accommodations and the services available to them and their families. He regularly visits wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Hospital to learn about the needs of the troops deployed in Iraq and gauge the progress of the war from those who know it best - the troops themselves.
(it would seem that Rep. Murtha is getting his information from someone else other than the troops in the field. Their outlook, overall, is posing a completely different picture of the progress in Iraq. This seems to be more of the attitude of the press and certain other members in Congress)
He works to make sure they have every advantage possible when put in harm's way, including protective equipment and weapon systems that are both reliable and state-of-the-art. He has fought to improve computer security and our ability to respond to biological or chemical weapons. Knowing that quality personnel are our military's backbone, he has aggressively advocated better pay, pensions, health-care and quality-of-life amenities as the keys to keeping well-trained people in the service and keeping morale high.
(please explain how Rep. Murtha is keeping the "morale" high within our armed forces. With derogatory statements he has made of the floor of the House, one would get the impression that he is a defeatist rather than a morale builder. How does cutting and running build the morale of our troops, and will such statements help retain military personel in the service. I think not. )
With all do respect to Rep. Murtha and his brave service to the US in Viet Nam, what it sounds like to me is he wants to repeat what happened in Viet Nam. For the "war" in Nam wasn't lost by the troops in the field. On the contrary, the US didn't loose a battle in Nam. The war was lost in Washington D.C. and on the streets of America. The North Vietnamees themselves admitted that the US was kicking their butts on the battlefield, but admitted, happily, that the war was won on the streets of America and in the halls of Congress. For it was there that the people turned against the troops and assisted in bringing forth the downfall of South Viet Nam. If we "cut and run" we will be doing exactly what the terrorist and other democracy hating countries want. For doing so will open the flood gates for terrorist to take a strong hold in the Middle East. It will be a repeat of what happened in Afghanistan after they ran the Russians out of their country and the Taliban and Al Queda took control.
Mr. Murtha, you have led a long and proud life. You have served our country with honor and respect, but maybe it is time for you to sit down and have a little more faith in you soldiers that you are so "proud" of.
Dems: no faith in their leadership
Article from the American Thinker
Greg Richards 2 10 06
An unremarked upon aspect of the fracas over the NSA eavesdropping intelligence program is the implication that Democrats in Congress have no faith in their leadership. In bygone days when there was bipartisanship on foreign policy and security matters – when politics stopped at the water’s edge – it would have been considered standard procedure for the president to work with the leaders of both parties on the relevant Congressional committees, as Bush in fact did in informing Congress about the NSA program.
By expressing such outrage at what the White House actually did – it met with the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees – the Dems are saying that conferring with their leaders in Congress is not sufficient.
What can this mean but that the Dems have no faith in their own leadership? Which brings up the question of whether the public should have any faith in them either.
Greg Richards 2 10 06
An unremarked upon aspect of the fracas over the NSA eavesdropping intelligence program is the implication that Democrats in Congress have no faith in their leadership. In bygone days when there was bipartisanship on foreign policy and security matters – when politics stopped at the water’s edge – it would have been considered standard procedure for the president to work with the leaders of both parties on the relevant Congressional committees, as Bush in fact did in informing Congress about the NSA program.
By expressing such outrage at what the White House actually did – it met with the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees – the Dems are saying that conferring with their leaders in Congress is not sufficient.
What can this mean but that the Dems have no faith in their own leadership? Which brings up the question of whether the public should have any faith in them either.
Bush details foiled 2002 terrorist plot on L.A.
President continues defence of decision to allow agencies to snoop on phone calls
PAUL KORING
WASHINGTON -- Al-Qaeda ordered suicide hijackers to destroy a Los Angeles skyscraper barely a month after the Sept 11, 2001, attacks, but the plot was discovered and thwarted, U.S. President George W. Bush said yesterday.
The disclosure came as Mr. Bush continued his spirited defence of a controversial and secret decision to allow intelligence agencies to snoop on telephone calls in and out of the United States without warrants or court approval.
While Mr. Bush stopped short of saying one of those intercepts uncovered the Los Angeles plot, he said wiretaps are vital to defending the United States from terrorist attacks.
"If someone from al-Qaeda is calling you, we'd like to know why," Mr. Bush has said. Yesterday, he offered previously highly classified details of what he called an example of successful intelligence coupled with international co-operation to thwart terrorist attacks.
"While Americans were still recovering from an unprecedented strike on our homeland, al-Qaeda was already busy planning its next attack," Mr. Bush said. "In October, 2001, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11th attacks, had already set in motion a plan to have terrorist operatives hijack an airplane using shoe bombs to breach the cockpit door and fly the plane into the tallest building on the West Coast," the President said, providing new details of a plot that he first referred to in October.
According to Mr. Bush, South Asians were recruited and trained for the hijacking in Afghanistan. They met with and were approved by al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, then a fugitive after U.S. forces led the ouster of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The plot, however, failed when at least some of them were apprehended by an unidentified South Asian country.
The timing of the planned attack remains unclear. In December of 2001, Richard Reid, a Briton with al-Qaeda links, attempted to detonate a bomb in his shoe aboard a Paris-to-Miami flight. He was restrained by passengers and crew.
In light of what Mr. Bush said yesterday, that seemingly bizarre and disconnected plot may have been a trial run for the Los Angles attack. An identical shoe bomb was supposed to be carried on board another flight that day by another Briton, Sajid Badat, but he backed out.
But if U.S. intelligence didn't know in advance of the Reid-Badat plot, it had apparently intercepted some sort of communication between Mr. Mohammed and Hambali, an Indonesian Muslim extremist and a key al-Qaeda ally in Southeast Asia who uses only one name. Although Hambali wasn't arrested until August of 2003, he apparently had recruited four hijackers for the Los Angeles hijacking.
"Hambali recruited several key operatives who had been training in Afghanistan," Mr. Bush said in a speech at the National Guard Memorial Building. "Once the operatives were recruited, they met with Osama bin Laden, and then began preparations for the West Coast attack."
Both Mr. Mohammed, who was captured in the spring of 2002, and Hambali are believed to be in U.S. custody in one of the secret prisons somewhere beyond the reach of U.S. courts.
Yesterday's speech offered the most complete account to date of a second strike aimed at both coasts, which Mr. Bush vaguely referred to last year when he said that the United States had foiled at least 10 al-Qaeda plots since Sept. 11, 2001.
But details were still sketchy, among them whether the shoe bombs were designed to be taken off and wedged against cockpit doors before being detonated. It was also unclear whether the aircraft to be hijacked were on trans-Pacific flights -- meaning they would be low on fuel when they reached their targets -- or were supposed to be seized shortly after takeoff, as was the case with the four heavily laden jetliners on Sept. 11, 2001.
In his speech, Mr. Bush mistakenly referred to the Los Angles skyscraper as the Liberty Tower. In fact the 310-metre, 73-storey building still popularly known as the Library Tower has been renamed the US Bank Tower.
The President is in the middle of a sustained effort to rally public support for the covert eavesdropping scheme that Democrats, and some Republicans, have condemned as illegal domestic spying.
Mr. Bush insists the intercepts carried out by the shadowy National Security Agency only listened to telephone calls where one party was overseas.
I don't know, do you think it was worth it?
PAUL KORING
WASHINGTON -- Al-Qaeda ordered suicide hijackers to destroy a Los Angeles skyscraper barely a month after the Sept 11, 2001, attacks, but the plot was discovered and thwarted, U.S. President George W. Bush said yesterday.
The disclosure came as Mr. Bush continued his spirited defence of a controversial and secret decision to allow intelligence agencies to snoop on telephone calls in and out of the United States without warrants or court approval.
While Mr. Bush stopped short of saying one of those intercepts uncovered the Los Angeles plot, he said wiretaps are vital to defending the United States from terrorist attacks.
"If someone from al-Qaeda is calling you, we'd like to know why," Mr. Bush has said. Yesterday, he offered previously highly classified details of what he called an example of successful intelligence coupled with international co-operation to thwart terrorist attacks.
"While Americans were still recovering from an unprecedented strike on our homeland, al-Qaeda was already busy planning its next attack," Mr. Bush said. "In October, 2001, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11th attacks, had already set in motion a plan to have terrorist operatives hijack an airplane using shoe bombs to breach the cockpit door and fly the plane into the tallest building on the West Coast," the President said, providing new details of a plot that he first referred to in October.
According to Mr. Bush, South Asians were recruited and trained for the hijacking in Afghanistan. They met with and were approved by al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, then a fugitive after U.S. forces led the ouster of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The plot, however, failed when at least some of them were apprehended by an unidentified South Asian country.
The timing of the planned attack remains unclear. In December of 2001, Richard Reid, a Briton with al-Qaeda links, attempted to detonate a bomb in his shoe aboard a Paris-to-Miami flight. He was restrained by passengers and crew.
In light of what Mr. Bush said yesterday, that seemingly bizarre and disconnected plot may have been a trial run for the Los Angles attack. An identical shoe bomb was supposed to be carried on board another flight that day by another Briton, Sajid Badat, but he backed out.
But if U.S. intelligence didn't know in advance of the Reid-Badat plot, it had apparently intercepted some sort of communication between Mr. Mohammed and Hambali, an Indonesian Muslim extremist and a key al-Qaeda ally in Southeast Asia who uses only one name. Although Hambali wasn't arrested until August of 2003, he apparently had recruited four hijackers for the Los Angeles hijacking.
"Hambali recruited several key operatives who had been training in Afghanistan," Mr. Bush said in a speech at the National Guard Memorial Building. "Once the operatives were recruited, they met with Osama bin Laden, and then began preparations for the West Coast attack."
Both Mr. Mohammed, who was captured in the spring of 2002, and Hambali are believed to be in U.S. custody in one of the secret prisons somewhere beyond the reach of U.S. courts.
Yesterday's speech offered the most complete account to date of a second strike aimed at both coasts, which Mr. Bush vaguely referred to last year when he said that the United States had foiled at least 10 al-Qaeda plots since Sept. 11, 2001.
But details were still sketchy, among them whether the shoe bombs were designed to be taken off and wedged against cockpit doors before being detonated. It was also unclear whether the aircraft to be hijacked were on trans-Pacific flights -- meaning they would be low on fuel when they reached their targets -- or were supposed to be seized shortly after takeoff, as was the case with the four heavily laden jetliners on Sept. 11, 2001.
In his speech, Mr. Bush mistakenly referred to the Los Angles skyscraper as the Liberty Tower. In fact the 310-metre, 73-storey building still popularly known as the Library Tower has been renamed the US Bank Tower.
The President is in the middle of a sustained effort to rally public support for the covert eavesdropping scheme that Democrats, and some Republicans, have condemned as illegal domestic spying.
Mr. Bush insists the intercepts carried out by the shadowy National Security Agency only listened to telephone calls where one party was overseas.
I don't know, do you think it was worth it?
Another FAILURE by the UN !
Annan to Ask for US Troops in Darfur Peace Mission
By Peter Heinlein United Nations, 09 February 2006
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called on the United States and other wealthy countries to contribute manpower and equipment for a new peacekeeping force in Sudan's Darfur region. Mr. Annan will bring up the subject next week when he meets President Bush at the White House.
The secretary-general said Thursday wealthy nations need to take a bigger role in organizing a U.N. force that is due to take over peacekeeping duties in Darfur.
"They will have to commit troops and equipment," he said. "Or if they don't want to do it, help us find the troops and equipment to be able to undertake the mandate they give us."
That mandate came last week from the Security Council. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, in his capacity as Council president for February, issued a statement authorizing the secretary-general to begin contingency planning for a transition from the African Union force now in Darfur to a new, larger and more robust U.N. force.
"The secretariat has not been asking governments for commitments for a U.N. force because it didn't have any authority to do so, so now with this authority clearly in hand through the authority of this presidential statement, they can begin to ask the questions of governments that might be considering participating in the operation in Darfur," he said.
Secretary-General Annan says the Darfur mission will have to be significantly bigger and better equipped than the current 7,000-strong African Union force.
"I would want to see a highly mobile force on the ground in Darfur," he said. "A force that would be able to crisscross the territory in APCs [armored personnel carriers] and jeeps, and would also have tactical air assets to be able to be on the ground when there is an SOS not to arrive after the harm has been done - and to be able to send a message to the militia and the people causing the damage that we have a force that is capable to respond, a force that is everywhere, and a force that will be there on time to prevent them from intimidating and killing the innocent civilians."
The secretary-general says when he meets with President Bush at the White House next week, he will argue that countries with powerful armies will be needed to provide the kind of force necessary to stop the violence in Darfur.
"Such a force would require the participation of governments with highly trained troops who are also well-equipped," he said. "It is not going to be easy for the big and powerful countries with armies to delegate to third world countries. They will have to play a part if we are going to stop the carnage that we see in Darfur."
When asked specifically whether he would ask President Bush to send U.S. troops to Darfur, he said, "I will share with him the countries that I think can supply those needs, and that would include the U.S. Yes."
The conflict in Darfur broke out in February 2003. The African Union peacekeeping force was dispatched the following year, but U.N. special envoy Jan Pronk told the Security Council last month that efforts to bring peace to the region had failed.
Aid groups working in Darfur estimate the violence and a related humanitarian crisis have left more than 180,000 people dead, and forced millions more to flee their homes for the safety of refugee camps.
__________________________________________________________________
Does this have the stench and ring of Somalia to it? Seems the UN has failed again. The organization that was created to help make the world a safer place has once again come up empty handed. Over the last two years since the UN became involved in Darfur, there have been numberous reports of various crimes committed by the "African Union Peacekeeping Force". A force that was picked and set up by the UN and its cronies (France and Germany) to bring a hint of peace to a region that has seen millions murdered. Yet here he is asking the "richer countries" to not only provide monetary aide to this "peacekeeping" force, but now he wants the US, Britian, and other larger countries to supply troops under the flag of the UN. Isn't this the same organization that wanted to take over the "rebuilding of Iraq" after the US went in and did away with a vicious dictator. An organization that the Iraqi people wanted nothing to do with, because of their inability to handle the situations prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. This goes back to what John Kerry wanted to do to American forces, put them under the flag of the UN and not go anywhere unless the UN gave its permission or was to "control" all forces being sent somewhere to give it a sense of legality.
The US is already the biggest contributor of medical relief, monetary contribution, and for the biggest part troop size for the UN and other "World Organizations". If one was to take a look at what the US has contributed, through the UN, compared to other "wealthy" countries; you would see that the US provides in upwards of 10 times more. The monetary support alone in as much if not more than most of the major contributors put together. Hmmm...could this be another reason why our deficit is as large as it is?, not to mention the natural disasters that have taken place in the US over the last three years. If the US does send troops support to Darfur, it can not be under the disguise of the UN Flag and operations control. If it does it will be another Somalia, and the US forces will not be welcomed by those it is trying to protect.
Just my thoughts on the matter, so what do you think?
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
So, you think you have the right...
Click on the above photo and read the poem afixed thereupon. Then think about it the next time someone wants to protest what they are doing.
Muslim Uprising
"Terrorists Blow up Eiffel Tower", "Madrid under Terrorist Attack", "Vatican City Suffers Violent Explosion".
Could these be the headlines in tomorrows papers around the world? They definitely could be with things flaring up as they are around the European Continent and in the Middle East. As of late the Muslim World, overall, seems to be in complete kayos. All of this over a few cartoons drawn by one person in a small little European country, IN SEPTEMBER of last year. Cartoons that were then copied and printed in various papers throughout Europe and other countries. But is this really what happened? Sources say not.
These "cartoons" virtually went almost unnoticed at the time of their printing. Those Muslims in the Middle East knew nothing about them until this last week or two. These "cartoons", were brought to the Middle East, distributed, meetings held, cries went out and demonstrations planned. This was not an overnight issue. Thousands of demonstrators did not just start flooding the streets of the world overnight. And if you believe that, then I have some good lake front property in the Artic that you might be interested in.
How could so many Danish Flags just appear overnight, when most in Palestine couldn't find the country in which all this started. Let alone have that many Danish flags at the local drug store? Wake up, this was a well organized, well thought out and well planned demonstration. Planned for weeks in advance by those that hate democratic countries to inflame their puppets. Please don't get me wrong, I will be the first to stand up for the freedom of religion and speech. Freedom of choice and the freedom to worship as your "religion" tells you to. However, when those doing the complaining are ones that are the ones wanting the overthrow of most religions, because they are not Islamic, is somewhat hypocritical at the least.
I have no problem with the studying and worshiping of Islamic beliefs. What I do have a problem with is when these few extremists try to inflame others. For the most part the study of Islam is peaceful and the teachings are that similar to those of the Bible. Both believe in one "God". Both believe in (for the better part) "loving thy neighbor". Both seek peace in the world. However, there are some on BOTH sides of the aisle that would love to see the other go down in flames. Personally, I do not find the cartoons objectionable, except for one (the turbin bomb). I understand that all of these cartoons might be somewhat objectionable to the Muslim world, but at the same time where are the outcries from the Muslim world to the be headings of hostages in Iraq? The "cartoons" showing democratic countries as being "infidels" and wanting to overthrow free countries world wide?
This is just another attempt by those "extremist" in the Muslim world to bring more to their into their fold. More human bombers, more attempts at overthrowing the free world, and having their own way. Freedom of speech is one thing that these extremists want, and under most countries they do. They are free to make extreme comments about other countries and draw characters resembling a wide variety of symbols in the free world. Yet they are suppose to be untouchable. Now I am not a Bible thumping, hell and damn fire type of a person. I do believe in the Bible. I do believe that others have the right to worship as their religion sees fit. But I do believe that if you inflame a group of worshipers you best be prepared for the slap coming from the other side.
Muslims hold close the depiction (or lack thereof) of Allah, as they should. But just the same as "Christians" hold close their depictions of Christ, they must know that it is a two way street. In a free world you have the right to pick the religion you decide to worship, and rightly so. But with this kind of extremism taking place, it makes you wonder how much longer it will continue.
It is true that most of the Muslim world despises the US. Yet Europe has, by means of appeasements, allowed certain extremists of the Muslim religion to go unchecked or unfettered and just like the US allowed them to come into their countries and become an active part in their communities, and share in the wealth (so to speak) that goes with living in those countries. Europe has gone out of its way to appease some of these extremist groups. They have changed the courses of their governments to keep from inflaming certain groups. They have made concessions within their laws for them and turned their back on other countries that have not taken these extreme measures. Outside of Madrid, the European countries have gone untouched as far as terrorists attacks go. However, as so stated by many in the Muslim world, if they (the countries that ran these cartoons) do not make drastic changes in their "freedoms" they too could fall under the attacks of extremists. In other words they could have their own "9/11's" as America did.
Now, knowing that most of the European continent has snubbed the US in their efforts to remove certain extremist groups around the world, who will the Europeans turn to for assistance in protecting themselves? Undoubtedly it will be the United States, and, as in the past, the US will come to their aide. As it had done twice in the last century. In these delicate times in which we live, the world needs to wake up and smell the towers burning. By coddling these extremest groups they are opening themselves up for a world of hurt. Will the US be there to answer their plea for assistance? No one will know till it happens. But chances are high that we will. If you look at the "real world", most European countries have not defense. Most have followed France (yet they have no real defense to offer others). Since the downgrading of America in its roll as a member of NATO, and various countries "kicking" us out all together. They are basically stripped of all defenses. The COLD WAR ended and they didn't want us around any more, which is fine. Now that things are heating up, who can they turn to for protection? Russia? Maybe, but not likely unless France threatens the smaller countries if they don't go along.
Yes, the world is changing. Is a major clash with these extremist group at hand? Only time will tell. If cooler heads do not prevail, WWII will look like a walk in the park. I say to the European countries, that have given in to the extremists demands, get a back bone and start doing something that is for the good of your country and the world. Stop appeasing them just because they threaten you. Sooner or later you will need to stand up and defend YOUR right to be free, and stop depending on others to come pull you butts out of the fire. But, that being said, I can pretty much bet that they will concede and give into these bad boys once again. And again, and again, till they are being ruled by them. While some of the cartoons were offensive, they are just the drawings of one man, not the world. For a peace loving people, according to their Koran, they sure do want to see a lot of people dead and governments overthrown. So wake up world and smell the coffee. Or it may be to late and the headlines could read as those at the top of this post.
Could these be the headlines in tomorrows papers around the world? They definitely could be with things flaring up as they are around the European Continent and in the Middle East. As of late the Muslim World, overall, seems to be in complete kayos. All of this over a few cartoons drawn by one person in a small little European country, IN SEPTEMBER of last year. Cartoons that were then copied and printed in various papers throughout Europe and other countries. But is this really what happened? Sources say not.
These "cartoons" virtually went almost unnoticed at the time of their printing. Those Muslims in the Middle East knew nothing about them until this last week or two. These "cartoons", were brought to the Middle East, distributed, meetings held, cries went out and demonstrations planned. This was not an overnight issue. Thousands of demonstrators did not just start flooding the streets of the world overnight. And if you believe that, then I have some good lake front property in the Artic that you might be interested in.
How could so many Danish Flags just appear overnight, when most in Palestine couldn't find the country in which all this started. Let alone have that many Danish flags at the local drug store? Wake up, this was a well organized, well thought out and well planned demonstration. Planned for weeks in advance by those that hate democratic countries to inflame their puppets. Please don't get me wrong, I will be the first to stand up for the freedom of religion and speech. Freedom of choice and the freedom to worship as your "religion" tells you to. However, when those doing the complaining are ones that are the ones wanting the overthrow of most religions, because they are not Islamic, is somewhat hypocritical at the least.
I have no problem with the studying and worshiping of Islamic beliefs. What I do have a problem with is when these few extremists try to inflame others. For the most part the study of Islam is peaceful and the teachings are that similar to those of the Bible. Both believe in one "God". Both believe in (for the better part) "loving thy neighbor". Both seek peace in the world. However, there are some on BOTH sides of the aisle that would love to see the other go down in flames. Personally, I do not find the cartoons objectionable, except for one (the turbin bomb). I understand that all of these cartoons might be somewhat objectionable to the Muslim world, but at the same time where are the outcries from the Muslim world to the be headings of hostages in Iraq? The "cartoons" showing democratic countries as being "infidels" and wanting to overthrow free countries world wide?
This is just another attempt by those "extremist" in the Muslim world to bring more to their into their fold. More human bombers, more attempts at overthrowing the free world, and having their own way. Freedom of speech is one thing that these extremists want, and under most countries they do. They are free to make extreme comments about other countries and draw characters resembling a wide variety of symbols in the free world. Yet they are suppose to be untouchable. Now I am not a Bible thumping, hell and damn fire type of a person. I do believe in the Bible. I do believe that others have the right to worship as their religion sees fit. But I do believe that if you inflame a group of worshipers you best be prepared for the slap coming from the other side.
Muslims hold close the depiction (or lack thereof) of Allah, as they should. But just the same as "Christians" hold close their depictions of Christ, they must know that it is a two way street. In a free world you have the right to pick the religion you decide to worship, and rightly so. But with this kind of extremism taking place, it makes you wonder how much longer it will continue.
It is true that most of the Muslim world despises the US. Yet Europe has, by means of appeasements, allowed certain extremists of the Muslim religion to go unchecked or unfettered and just like the US allowed them to come into their countries and become an active part in their communities, and share in the wealth (so to speak) that goes with living in those countries. Europe has gone out of its way to appease some of these extremist groups. They have changed the courses of their governments to keep from inflaming certain groups. They have made concessions within their laws for them and turned their back on other countries that have not taken these extreme measures. Outside of Madrid, the European countries have gone untouched as far as terrorists attacks go. However, as so stated by many in the Muslim world, if they (the countries that ran these cartoons) do not make drastic changes in their "freedoms" they too could fall under the attacks of extremists. In other words they could have their own "9/11's" as America did.
Now, knowing that most of the European continent has snubbed the US in their efforts to remove certain extremist groups around the world, who will the Europeans turn to for assistance in protecting themselves? Undoubtedly it will be the United States, and, as in the past, the US will come to their aide. As it had done twice in the last century. In these delicate times in which we live, the world needs to wake up and smell the towers burning. By coddling these extremest groups they are opening themselves up for a world of hurt. Will the US be there to answer their plea for assistance? No one will know till it happens. But chances are high that we will. If you look at the "real world", most European countries have not defense. Most have followed France (yet they have no real defense to offer others). Since the downgrading of America in its roll as a member of NATO, and various countries "kicking" us out all together. They are basically stripped of all defenses. The COLD WAR ended and they didn't want us around any more, which is fine. Now that things are heating up, who can they turn to for protection? Russia? Maybe, but not likely unless France threatens the smaller countries if they don't go along.
Yes, the world is changing. Is a major clash with these extremist group at hand? Only time will tell. If cooler heads do not prevail, WWII will look like a walk in the park. I say to the European countries, that have given in to the extremists demands, get a back bone and start doing something that is for the good of your country and the world. Stop appeasing them just because they threaten you. Sooner or later you will need to stand up and defend YOUR right to be free, and stop depending on others to come pull you butts out of the fire. But, that being said, I can pretty much bet that they will concede and give into these bad boys once again. And again, and again, till they are being ruled by them. While some of the cartoons were offensive, they are just the drawings of one man, not the world. For a peace loving people, according to their Koran, they sure do want to see a lot of people dead and governments overthrown. So wake up world and smell the coffee. Or it may be to late and the headlines could read as those at the top of this post.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Pittsburgh Steelers - Champions (or are they really)
Pittsburgh wins Super Bowl XL 21 - 10 over Seattle. That's what the headlines will read tomorrow. But were they really the champions? Now I know I will probably get completely bashed for this but here goes. If you watched the game your answer will probably be different than the headlines. There were so many missed calls, bad calls and just plain poor officiating. For this to take place in a Championship game is indeed shameful. And the go ahead TD given to the Steelers in the first half was just the start of the poor calls that were to be made throughout the game.
Now I know what you are going to say..."don't be a poor looser, your team lost and your just mad". Wrong answer, number one, I didn't have a team in the Super Bowl. I was neither for the Steelers or the Seahawks. I watched the game as a fan of the sport of football and that is all. But the way this game was called is just outrageous. I have seen better officiating in high school games by officials that had never refereed a game before. It is a sad thing to think that a game of this magnitude was decided by officials, not the players. There should be an investigation into the officials, for surely this was not the best that the league could offer up. Take away the TD given to Pittsburgh, add the TD and pass reception to the one yard line for the Seahawks to go ahead in the third, and add the TD that was taken away for the "offensive pass interference" that didn't happen and the Seahawks were the real winners. Add the holding calls, and the blocks below the waste against Pittsburgh that weren't called and the out come of this game is different.
There is always some bad calls by officials in games, but this one was entrenched with them. Congrats to the Steelers for a "good" game and celebrate while you can. As for those that really watched the game in an unbiased status, the outcome is seen in a much different light. OK, Steeler fans give it your best shot.
Now I know what you are going to say..."don't be a poor looser, your team lost and your just mad". Wrong answer, number one, I didn't have a team in the Super Bowl. I was neither for the Steelers or the Seahawks. I watched the game as a fan of the sport of football and that is all. But the way this game was called is just outrageous. I have seen better officiating in high school games by officials that had never refereed a game before. It is a sad thing to think that a game of this magnitude was decided by officials, not the players. There should be an investigation into the officials, for surely this was not the best that the league could offer up. Take away the TD given to Pittsburgh, add the TD and pass reception to the one yard line for the Seahawks to go ahead in the third, and add the TD that was taken away for the "offensive pass interference" that didn't happen and the Seahawks were the real winners. Add the holding calls, and the blocks below the waste against Pittsburgh that weren't called and the out come of this game is different.
There is always some bad calls by officials in games, but this one was entrenched with them. Congrats to the Steelers for a "good" game and celebrate while you can. As for those that really watched the game in an unbiased status, the outcome is seen in a much different light. OK, Steeler fans give it your best shot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
