The Shotgun Effect

This man is an ass.

Torn from NRO's the Corner

"People sense that there's an agenda afoot here. As somebody, can't remember who, wrote yesterday, "Why is it that the media can show over and over again pictures that could make Arabs hate Americans, but refuse to show pictures that could make Americans hate Arabs?" "

(Emphasis mine.)

WARNING: GRAPHIC

Read it all.

One line from Junkyard Blog's previoius post.

At the risk of sounding overly partisan, many Democrats and elements of the "mainstream" press have taken sides in the war on terrorism. The side they have chosen isn't ours.

Yup.

Read this, read now and ponder hard.

Article here

Brothers Judd blog pointed this out in the IHT, and I think this is another demographic timebomb that will help shape the conflicts of the 21st century, along with Europe's suicide.

The most populous nations in Asia, including China, India and Pakistan, have acted upon their deep cultural preference for sons by culling daughters from their populations through the use of ever more efficient sex selective technologies. Amniocentesis and ultrasound as a precursor to sex selective abortion have been joined by sperm-sorting technologies that increase the probability of conceiving a son.
[...]
The technology to select male offspring before birth began to spread in the late 1980s, and the birth sex ratios began to rise. In China, the official ratio is 117 boys born for every 100 girls, but the reality is probably 120 or more. In India, the official birth sex ratio is 111-114 boys per 100 girls, but spot checks show ratios of up to 156 boys per 100 girls in some locales. For comparison, normal birth sex ratios are 105-107 boys born per 100 girls.
[...]
The bottom line is that there will be appreciably more young men in their societies than young women. Using conservative estimates, in 2020 India will have about 28 million more young males (aged 15 to 34) than young females. In China, the figure will be closer to 30 million; in Pakistan it will probably be 3-5 million.


The comment I left on the brojuddblog was..

I'm curious if there is any such effect in the muslim world as well. Given that muslim culture esteems sons over daughters, it would seem to follow that similar things would be happening among muslim populations. I've heard about the Indian and Chinese issues before, but never any indication of the same among the muslim world.

I wonder why? Is the technology simply not availalbe there or is there a consensus against its use?

In the long term, will this lead to a demographic collapse in China and India of the same type as Europe?

One solution that I think is likely to arise will be something like the "mail-order-brides" of the past. Given that China and India will have higher standards of living than many of the surrounding countries, it would be an attractive proposition for many women in the less developed nations. Of course, this would require the men of China and India to get past some of their traditional racist notions about other countries.

It also appears that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" works in population control as well. Is it just coincidence that the two nations with this problem are ones will very large population pressures?

Response from Orrin Judd was:

BC:

China doesn't face population pressures but population collapse.


ISLAM (not sure where someone found these #s):

Bahrain 1.3 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
Djibouti 1.07 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
Jordan 1.1 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
Kuwait 1.5 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
Oman 1.31 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
Qatar 1.93 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
Saudi Arabia 1.24 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
UAE 1.51 male(s)/female (2000 est.)

Question for MonkeyLeader: What's happening in Kuwait? the stats here imply 1.5 men to 1 female. Does this fit what you saw? Did you see any awareness of the problem and anything being done to address it?


My followup comment on Brojudd:

"Thanks!
I assume that that's the birth ratios. I wonder how many years this has been going on for? How close is the first imbalanced generation to adulthood?

Is there any sign of Egypt or Libya being similarly skewed?

If this trend carries over to the population that Europe is importing, the implications are unpleasant for any sort or peaceful transition to Eurabia."

I was interested to check yesterday where the Toronto Star would report the slaughter of Nick Berg.

(No, I didn't actually buy a Torstar)

Well, they reported it below the fold, with only a small picture of Nick Berg's face, cut from the scene of his imminent execution. the headline referred to this murder as being in revenge for the abuses of Abu Ghirab. A larger report about Abu Ghirab was beside it.

I think this speaks volumes about the Star's slant and priorities.

Isn't it great that arab terrorists use honourless, pathetic, and deprave tactics to progress their causes and then claim these as victories? A victory is smashing a corrupt country to install a democratic and free government. A victory is fighting these dispicable terrorists who kill innocent people.

Where is the media uproar over this beheading of an innocent man? Oh, the media will scream until they are blue over some prisoner abuses (let it be known that none of them have been beheaded, raped, skinned, beat) but when an innocent man gets beheaded on film, there isn't the same uproar. Where's the media on this one?

IRAQ: The Arab Concept of Victory and Beheading Civilians

May 12, 2004: A Sunni Arab terrorist group in Iraq, claiming to be working for al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, displayed a video on an al Qaeda website (the Arab language Muntada al-Ansar Islamist Web site) showing the beheading of American businessman Nick Berg who was apparently kidnapped in Iraq earlier. Berg’s body was found on May 9th outside Baghdad. The beheading was announced as retaliation for the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by American troops. Al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, has been the most active, and most senior, al Qaeda operator in Iraq. The United States is offering a ten million dollars reward for his capture. Many of al-Zarqawi’s followers are in Fallujah and currently fighting American marines.

The Muntada al-Ansar web site regularly announces which terrorist group is claiming responsibility for attacks. The recent suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia were announced on the site. The use of videos of attacks and murders of captives is considered a recruiting tool and good propaganda. The videos are rarely shown on English language web sites, as they are intended for the hard core terrorist audience. Al Qaeda knows that such videos will turn off many in the West, but has found that it does wonders for al Qaeda recruiting and contributions. Al Qaeda has been unable to win any meaningful victories, so they invent success by declaring the slaughter of people via suicide bombings, or beheadings, to be a victory over the enemy. Historically, this doesn’t work, and such atrocities simply inflame the opposition. Consider, for example, the September 11, 2001 attacks and what the United States has done to al Qaeda since then.

Al Qaeda is taking advantage of a uniquely Arab concept of “victory.” Having been on the losing side of history for so many centuries, most Arabs accept just about anything as a “victory.” For example, Saddam Hussein declared himself the winner of the 1991 Gulf War because he was still running Iraq after it was over. Of course, the main, and widely publicized, reason he was still in power was because Arab nations refused to join the coalition to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait unless the U.S. agreed NOT to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. Earlier, Saddam gained much perverse praise from the Arab world for getting Iran to agree to stop the war that had raged between the two nations throughout the 1980s. This war began when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, in an attempt to grab some Iranian oil fields while Iran’s armed forces were in disorder following a revolution in which Islamic radicals overthrew the king (Shah) of Iran. The Iranians quickly got their act together, pushed the Iraqis out of Iran and spent the next eight years trying to get to Saddam. For thousands of years, the Iranians (or Persians or Parthians or whatever) have been pounding Arab armies into the ground. So Saddam’s ability (via the use chemical weapons and billions of dollars worth of Russian arms) to stop (if not exactly defeat) the Iranians, was, to many Arabs, a real victory.

Now all this Iran/Arab stuff plays a special role in Iraq. To the surprise of many Sunni Arabs, the Shia Arabs fought, during the 1980s, to defend Iraq from the Shia Iranians. Actually, about three percent of Irans population is Arab, so in some cases you had Shia Arabs fighting Shia Arabs in this war. But the Iraqi Shia Arabs (over half the population), via a combination of fear, nationalism and financial incentives, were compelled by Saddam (a Sunni Arab) to serve in the war against Iran. What was being played was the race card. The Iranians are an Indo-European people, and have been defeating, and generally lording it over the Arabs, a Semitic people, for thousands of years. Memories are long in this part of the world, and in this case, ethnic memory trumped religion. Normally the Sunni and Shia Moslems do not get along very well. Conservative Sunnis consider the Shia heretics. And the fact that most Shia are Iranians does not help matters either.

Al Qaeda is a basically a Sunni Arab organization that attracts recruits who are not Arabs, but who MUST be Sunni. Al Qaeda was founded by members of the conservative Wahabi form of Islam found in Saudi Arabia. To a Wahabi, even contact with infidels (non-Moslems) is forbidden, and it is the duty of all Moslems to convert or kill the infidels. One should not lose sight of al Qaeda’s core values and goals. When you do focus in on those values and goals, the video of an American civilian being beheaded makes some kind of perverted sense.

Isn't it great that arab terrorists use honourless, pathetic, and deprave tactics to progress their causes and then claim these as victories? A victory is smashing a corrupt country to install a democratic and free government. A victory is fighting these dispicable terrorists who kill innocent people.

Where is the media uproar over this beheading of an innocent man? Oh, the media will scream until they are blue over some prisoner abuses (let it be known that none of them have been beheaded, raped, skinned, beat) but when an innocent man gets beheaded on film, there isn't the same uproar. Where's the media on this one?

IRAQ: The Arab Concept of Victory and Beheading Civilians

May 12, 2004: A Sunni Arab terrorist group in Iraq, claiming to be working for al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, displayed a video on an al Qaeda website (the Arab language Muntada al-Ansar Islamist Web site) showing the beheading of American businessman Nick Berg who was apparently kidnapped in Iraq earlier. Berg’s body was found on May 9th outside Baghdad. The beheading was announced as retaliation for the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by American troops. Al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, has been the most active, and most senior, al Qaeda operator in Iraq. The United States is offering a ten million dollars reward for his capture. Many of al-Zarqawi’s followers are in Fallujah and currently fighting American marines.

The Muntada al-Ansar web site regularly announces which terrorist group is claiming responsibility for attacks. The recent suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia were announced on the site. The use of videos of attacks and murders of captives is considered a recruiting tool and good propaganda. The videos are rarely shown on English language web sites, as they are intended for the hard core terrorist audience. Al Qaeda knows that such videos will turn off many in the West, but has found that it does wonders for al Qaeda recruiting and contributions. Al Qaeda has been unable to win any meaningful victories, so they invent success by declaring the slaughter of people via suicide bombings, or beheadings, to be a victory over the enemy. Historically, this doesn’t work, and such atrocities simply inflame the opposition. Consider, for example, the September 11, 2001 attacks and what the United States has done to al Qaeda since then.

Al Qaeda is taking advantage of a uniquely Arab concept of “victory.” Having been on the losing side of history for so many centuries, most Arabs accept just about anything as a “victory.” For example, Saddam Hussein declared himself the winner of the 1991 Gulf War because he was still running Iraq after it was over. Of course, the main, and widely publicized, reason he was still in power was because Arab nations refused to join the coalition to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait unless the U.S. agreed NOT to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. Earlier, Saddam gained much perverse praise from the Arab world for getting Iran to agree to stop the war that had raged between the two nations throughout the 1980s. This war began when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, in an attempt to grab some Iranian oil fields while Iran’s armed forces were in disorder following a revolution in which Islamic radicals overthrew the king (Shah) of Iran. The Iranians quickly got their act together, pushed the Iraqis out of Iran and spent the next eight years trying to get to Saddam. For thousands of years, the Iranians (or Persians or Parthians or whatever) have been pounding Arab armies into the ground. So Saddam’s ability (via the use chemical weapons and billions of dollars worth of Russian arms) to stop (if not exactly defeat) the Iranians, was, to many Arabs, a real victory.

Now all this Iran/Arab stuff plays a special role in Iraq. To the surprise of many Sunni Arabs, the Shia Arabs fought, during the 1980s, to defend Iraq from the Shia Iranians. Actually, about three percent of Irans population is Arab, so in some cases you had Shia Arabs fighting Shia Arabs in this war. But the Iraqi Shia Arabs (over half the population), via a combination of fear, nationalism and financial incentives, were compelled by Saddam (a Sunni Arab) to serve in the war against Iran. What was being played was the race card. The Iranians are an Indo-European people, and have been defeating, and generally lording it over the Arabs, a Semitic people, for thousands of years. Memories are long in this part of the world, and in this case, ethnic memory trumped religion. Normally the Sunni and Shia Moslems do not get along very well. Conservative Sunnis consider the Shia heretics. And the fact that most Shia are Iranians does not help matters either.

Al Qaeda is a basically a Sunni Arab organization that attracts recruits who are not Arabs, but who MUST be Sunni. Al Qaeda was founded by members of the conservative Wahabi form of Islam found in Saudi Arabia. To a Wahabi, even contact with infidels (non-Moslems) is forbidden, and it is the duty of all Moslems to convert or kill the infidels. One should not lose sight of al Qaeda’s core values and goals. When you do focus in on those values and goals, the video of an American civilian being beheaded makes some kind of perverted sense.

And an Attack Submarine named USS Jimmy Carter

With a length of 453 feet, a beam of 40 feet and a displacement of 12,139 tons (submerged), the Jimmy Carter honors the 39th president of the United States -- the only submarine-qualified man who went on to become the nation's chief executive. As the last and most advanced of the Seawolf class, the Jimmy Carter will have built-in flexibility that gives it the power to prevail in any scenario and against any threat -- from beneath Arctic ice to shallow water.

The most advanced attack submarine in the world- named after the man who wouldn't attack anything if his life and the life of his fellow citizens depended on it- which it often did.

This mockery of the US Navy was undoubtably bought to you by the administration of Bill Clinton.

I can only hope that the Sub's crew can distinguish the sub so much that in the future, the first thing one thinks of when hearing the name "Jimmy Carter" is the sub and not the ex-president.

More appropriate would be naming a white flag after Jimmy, or perhaps the French navy naming their next carrier after him- if it ever gets out of its slip.

9/11 video
9/11 video

9/11 video

9/11 video

9/11 video

9/11 video

9/11 video

9/11 video

Via Damian Penny

In NRO's the Corner, Michael Graham posts;

WHERE WERE THE SADDAM-ERA PRESS RELEASES? [Michael Graham]

"The system is not fair at all," said Malik Dohan, the president of the Iraqi Bar Association. "Aside from the question of torture, people are being held for long periods of time without having their cases reviewed by a court."

I wonder if the Iraqi Bar Association issued any similar complaints regarding Saddam's rape rooms?

I can understand the frustration that Mr.Graham is feeling on this. It is a double standard, and like him, I have little doubt that the President of the Iraqi bar association would never have dared voice such complaints under Saddam, either out of loyalty or self-preservation.

Still, the reaction here is exactly what the US wants. The President of a Bar association should speak out against abuses in the jail system in a civilized nation. Having learned that the US Army is not going to break down his door for making these comments, hopefully he will continue to make such comments even after sovereignty is returned to the Iraqi people.

The true test of success in this regard will be if the Bar president is willing to make the same criticisms of any future iraqi abuses in their new justice system.