There is nothing to negotiate with Islamists

* doug farrah:

"What, then, to be gained from negotiating with the Mullahs in Iran? Again, nothing. They are divinely sanctioned to lie, mislead, obfuscate and do whatever necessary to achieve their goal-the implementation of their interpretation of divine law (different from the Sunni version, but just as absolutist.)

These principles of divine rule and sharia are not negotiable to Islamists. They are a matter of life and death, heaven and hell, rational in their own terms. Liberal democracies like to look for ways to find common ground and negotiate solutions. That formula has served well for several centuries. But it is, in the context of Islamists, and irrational response to what, to them, are rational actions.

There is nothing to negotiate with Islamists. They want what they believe will bring them eternal salvation. Unfortunately, that means our destruction. There is really little to talk about."

* some random wingnut:

"The fascists at the ACLU consider something that "undermines the teaching of evolution" to be "state endorsement of religion?"

It seems to me that any action barring the "undermining" of something is in and of itself a religious sentiment.

Once again, the Federal courts have endorsed the Federal Religion of Atheism. Chaulk that up as one more reason to keep your children the heck out of "gub'mint" schools!"

* strroute:

"(And I think I would have gone nuts if I'd heard one more rendition of "Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree" -- which seems to have been chosen as the official compromise theme song in the War on Christmas armistice talks.)"

heh. I was actually saved from xmas carols by a dear reader who sent me some cds. (thnk you, dearest) - i'm now listening to Dulces Pontes.

* Mizgin on the AP article about 'Turkish Hezbollah':

The AP article is pure propaganda. From what I have heard, Iran lent some initial assistance to Turkey in encouraging Turkish Hezbollah, but it pulled out of the arrangement not long afterwards. Rumor has it that Turkish Hezbollah was too violent for the mullahs but, practically speaking, they probably didn't want any "imports" into the Kurdish population under Iranian occupation. It is also stupid for AP to say that Turkish Hezbollah's rise "parallels developments across the broader Muslim world." Not true. Turkish Hezbollah's rise paralleled PKK's successes. THAT was the sole purpose for the Ankara regime to encourage, direct, train, and arm Turkish Hezbollah. THAT was the sole purpose for purging Turkish Hezbollah in 2000, after PKK declared a ceasefire and the Ankara regime wrongly thought that PKK was dead. The pashas didn't need Turkish Hezbollah anymore.

Çiller even admitted publicly that she signed the order to dispense weapons to Turkish Hezbollah from TSK installations in Turkish-occupied Kurdistan. Check Steven Kinzer's Crescent and Star for that . . . and Kinzer is no friend of Kurds. Think about Çiller. Who do you think told her to give weapons to Turkish Hezbollah?

Turkish Hezbollah is backed solely by the Ankara regime, specifically by the military. For example, Turkish Hezbollah has been big in Çewlik (Bingöl). Çewlik is where the shooter in the Council of State attack last May comes from. The area is, therefore, also known as having MHP (Gray Wolf) activity. Both the Gray Wolves and Turkish Hezbollah work for the Deep State.

Plus, bear in mind that the Turkish Hezbollah freaks are also the kinds of freaks that move between Turkey and places like Chechnya. The Ankara regime is well aware of this fact too, and when these freaks come back to Turkey (which they ALWAYS do), they continue their activities inside Turkey, which shows Ulsever's comments as the bullshit that they are. The only thing that the Ankara regime is truly worried about is the bit about Turkish Hezbollah being "manipulated by larger powers."

* wapo:

"Yesterday, the full White House press corps got the chance, at a presidential news conference, to get the newly introspective Bush to talk more about his microphone, his sleep and his innermost thoughts. The results were unsatisfying.

"You said this week that your microphone has never been louder," the Baltimore Sun's Julie Davis reminded him. She pointed out that "use of the presidential microphone hasn't yielded the results that you wanted," and wondered "why you think your microphone is any louder and how you plan to use it differently."

"Yes," the president said into the microphone. "Microphone being loud means -- is that I'm able to help focus people's attentions on important issues.""