« February 2006 | Main | May 2006 »

March 21, 2006

Free Abdul Rahman

Abdul Rahman is an Afgani man who is being tried for the crime of converting to Christianity.

Please go Here.

Read the article and sign the petition at the top of the page.

I Hate Islam. Period.

- Joatmoaf -

March 21, 2006 at 09:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack

March 20, 2006

NAVCOM Directive

The following directive was issued by the commanding officer of a Naval installation in the Middle East, and it was obviously directed at the Marines.

To: All Commands

Subject: Inappropriate T-Shirts

Ref: ComMidEastFor Inst 16134//24 K

1. The following T-shirts are no longer to be worn on or off base by any military or civilian personnel serving in the Middle East:

* "Eat Pork Or Die" [both English and Arabic versions]

* "Shrine Busters" [Various. Show burning minarets or bomb/artillery shells impacting Islamic shrines. Some with unit logos.]

* "Napalm, Sticks Like Crazy" [Both English and Arabic versions]

* "Goat - it isn't just for breakfast any more." [Both English and Arabic versions]

* "The road to Paradise begins with me." [Mostly Arabic versions but some in English. Some show sniper scope cross-hairs]

* "Guns don't kill people. I kill people." [Both Arabic and English versions]

* "Pork. The other white meat." [Arabic version]

* "Infidel" [English, Arabic and other coalition force languages.]

2. The above T-shirts are to be removed from Post Exchanges upon receipt of this directive.

3. The following signs are to be removed upon receipt of this message:

* "Islamic Religious Services Will Be Held at the Firing Range at 0800 Daily."

* "Do we really need 'smart bombs' to drop on these dumb bastards?"

4. All commands are instructed to implement sensitivity training upon receipt.

I'm fairly certain it wasn't the C.O.s idea. More likely a high ranking civilian complaint.

I say let them wear what they want. They're the ones putting it on the line, not the civilians.

Besides, it's an excellent example of passive Psy-Ops.

Abdul and Habib the potential terrorists see that and they get a clue that, No, we really, truely don't trust them as much as the Media would have them believe.

Could it be possible that they might not be able to casually stroll up to a group of Americans with the intent of blowing themselves up, without first being shot 45 times?

I've worn worse to work and gotten rave reviews. Of course I also know when not to wear such things.

For what it's worth from a former Airdale Squid, Semper Fi Jarheads.
Good job.

- Joatmoaf -

March 20, 2006 at 08:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 17, 2006

CENTCOM's 2006 Posture Statement

"General John P. Abizaid, commander, United States Central Command, puts out an annual statement on the posture of the United States Central Command. This is the 2006 posture statement that discusses various topics on the Global War on Terrorism. Some of the topics include “Nature of the Enemy”, “Situation Overview in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa”, “Other Regional Partnerships” and “Iran and Syria.”

That's part of an e-mail I recieved along with a link. So I click the link and Lo and Behold it's all there.

Situation Overviews and the Strategic Focus in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa just to name 2.

Here are just a few questions that are answered.

What are our goals and accomplishments?

How are we working to achieve them?

Who is helping and how?

What about the enemy? Who are they and how do they operate?

What about potential future problems in the region?

How does Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria or Iran fit into the picture?

If you've got questions about the war this report has answers.

It's longer than a Bill Whittle post and written in such a way that only an Official Document to the U.S. Senate can be. A Masterpiece of Bureaucratic Prose, chock full of important information.

Don't bother reading it if you don't have much spare time, but if you really want to know the skinny on the entire war effort from CENTCOM's perspective (the only perspective that really matters) here's the link.

CENTCOMs 2006 Posture Statement.

- Joatmoaf -

March 17, 2006 at 10:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 14, 2006

Democratic Strategy

From Houston Texas

"Patriot No. 06-04 notes: 'So let's see if we have this straight: The Democrat Party's strategy for success includes raising taxes, abetting terrorists, losing wars, aborting babies, smearing judges, redefining marriage, promoting discrimination and rights for felons. Did we miss anything?' Well, yes—insisting on public education and opposing private education alternatives, suppressing Christianity, promoting secularism and atheism, promoting the breakdown of the family, minimizing penalties for all anti-social behavior while trying to remove guns from law-abiding citizens, supporting eco-terrorists, censoring the Internet, allowing foreign law to rule us, stopping any kind of energy development — just to name a few more."

As you can see there is a reason I'm a Conservative.

I'm sure that some Moderate Democrats will read this and take umbrage at me for painting the whole party with a broad brush. All I can say to that is that you particular people are individuals, singular and and island unto yourselves, as we all are.

But the Democratic Party as a whole, is no longer a party of the People as it shoule be, and it hasn't been since Nixon (who was a VERY good President by the way).
No, the Democratic Party has morphed into something akin to an Elitist Lobby.

Take a random, un-biased poll of 1 million people on the issues that the Democrats champion.
Issues such as the gay right to marry.
O.K I'll give then that since this is America and I don't know of any Federal law that explicatly bans it, but by the same token they should not be allowed to adopt children.

I don't care how loving and caring they would be as parents and it has nothing to do with the possibility of the chid growing up gay.

No, it's a Moral issue.
In my opinion (yes, I speak for those 1 million and more random, un-biased pollsters) the fact that 2 people who decided to get together with their own sex means that they have forfeited certain privileges that are afforded to couples of the opposites sex, i.e.; Babies.

Does this mean I'm a mean spirited poopyhead? Truth be told I am, but not when it comes to serious issues such as this (and others).
I have a practical, common sense point of view, and more importantly, I can keep the emotional aspect out of it.

This post isn't really about the gay adoption thing. That was just one of many Hot Topic items facing the Florida legislature right now, so I thought it would be appropriate. But that was just one example of the many Democratic Party fallacies.

The fact of the matter is they DON'T connect with their constituants.
They DON'T speak, or vote their constituants desires.
And worse of all.
Thay DON'T know. or even care.

Unfortunately the American public has a short attention span and can be very forgiving. Especially when it comes around to election time and the politicians are suddenly, and intensely interested in the voters.

Before you ask...Two things would make a big difference in how things work in Washington.

1. Tort reform laws.
2. A flat tax.

That flat tax alone would virtually eliminate Lobbyist because it would eliminate the tax codes that they hide under.
Millions of lawyers looking for jobs. What's not to like about that?

For what it's worth, there it is.
I was actually going to post another Sniper topic but I'm impulsive.
It can wait awhile. Besides, this is a good post and it makes a valid point.

- Joatmoaf -

March 14, 2006 at 07:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack