http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=Here+We+go! Sat, 18 May 2013 07:33:24 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=Here+We+go! Fri, 17 May 2013 16:47:33 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e73_1368822974 Max Moore Thursday morning after a racially charged graffiti incident targeting Africans was discovered on the walls of Agoura High School the black kids decided to stay home.The remarks, which included "Go back 2 Africa" , "Niggers will pie!!!" , "my dad makes more than your whole family" and Blacks tend to twerk the system" were first spotted over the weekend, but were removed by administrators with white paint before classes Monday. On Wednesday, the names of five black students that would be the "first to die" were written on a bathroom wall. "I was shocked to see my name first on the list," a student told KCAL9's Amy Johnson. Student Danielle Desire said her boyfriend didn't come to school when he found out he was on the "hit list." "It's scary to know that my boyfriend's life is at risk," she said. "He's really nervous. It's scary." Parent Jeffrey Jones said he kept his daughter at home even though she wasn't threatened. "I think the danger is here on campus. I don't want to be one of those parents who regretted sending my daughter to school and something goes wrong," he said. Jones, however, went to the campus himself to look for answers. "No one called us, no one informed us of anything," he said. Principal Larry Miser said the school eventually sent out emails to the parents Wednesday. "Looking back, looking how to better approach this, I think what took us a bit of time was trying to figure out exactly what we had here," he said. The principal also said he's not convinced it's a racially motivated crime. "Sunday afternoon, we started getting some indication this wasn't just simply a hate-type crime...that there may be other ulterior motives...that it wasn't a racial thing that was going on here, but a motivation for someone to get what they wanted. Normally we put this out very quickly to our people, but because of the sensitive nature of where we were going with this, we wanted to take our time," said Misel. Investigators said two to three suspects were caught on camera in connection to the incident. They will now look into those images. "There is security surveillance that was videotaped and we have that in our possession," said Capt. Patrick Davoren of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e73_1368822974 Max Moore Black Kids Take The Day Off After Anti-African Graffiti Found At School - [ AGOURA HILLS, CA ] blacks, whites, graffiti, Africans, Go home, LA Fri, 17 May 2013 12:27:12 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48f_1368806567 Brockk Democratic Party Marches in Washington DC 1928 Fear And IntimidationThe apple does not fall far from the tree Remember your roots Representative Paul Ryan was my guest Thursday and we covered a lot of ground. The transcript will be posted ASAP below. On the question of DOJ's snooping of the House press gallery, Representative Ryan replied to my question about it: "Of course I'm troubled. Are you kidding?" Most of the MSM hasn't figured out yet that if the DOJ can grab the press phone records originating from the House, they can grab any phone record coming out of the Hill. Ryan also comments on the impact on the election of the manipulation of the Benghazi attack by the White House and on the IRS scandal. For additional background on the IRS scandal, read this post and this post by Carol Platt Liebau, and this post by National Review's Kevin Williamson, for background on Benghazi this post by Powerline's John Hinderaker, and for the impact of all the scandals on the president this important column by Peggy Noonan. Transcript of the Paul Ryan interview: HH: Joining me, a member of the Ways And Means Committee, and of course, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Paul Ryan. Congressman, welcome back, good to talk to you. PR: Hey, Hugh, how have you been? Good to see you, or good to be with you, excuse me. I guess I can't see you. Good to hear you. HH: Thank you. I want to begin with what my colleague, Carol Platt Liebau at Townhall.com has pinned as the key thing thus far in the IRS scandal. On August 4th, 2011, Obama appointee Williams Wilkins, who is chief counsel of the IRS, was briefed on the political targeting of conservative groups. Now he's a well-trained lawyer. PR: Right. HH: Could he possibly have learned of this and not informed the White House, in your view, Paul Ryan? PR: We're going to find out. You know, I don't know the answer to the question, but I can tell you this, we're going to find out the answer to these questions. The reason we know about this already is because of the Ways And Means Committee and the oversight and research we've been doing, which prompted the Inspector General report. We had hearings last year in the Ways And Means Committee where we asked the commissioner about this, and they just denied it. And so they have had a couple of opportunities since that moment you just, you know, since then, to affirm, confirm or deny with Congress whether this happened or not. They denied it. So there's a lot we have left to learn. They can try and have disciplinary action, they can call for resignations. Those things are necessary. But they're not enough. And Hugh, this goes much bigger than this. And this is unfortunately the kind of thing you have with a big government and a really bad tax code. And you know, we have a government that's working for itself, not for the people. And the IRS is fishing around people's private lives, it's approving the groups it likes and harassing the groups it doesn't. That's not who we are. HH: Congressman, Peggy Noonan, in a piece that went online minutes ago, and will be in the paper tomorrow, writes we are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. And she writes, as it always comes down to trust, do you trust the President's answers when he's pressed on an uncomfortable story? Do you trust his people to be sober and fair-minded as they go about their work? Do you trust the IRS and the Justice Department? You do not. And it goes on to say look, these are his agencies. The IRS and the Justice Department answer to him. Does he set the tone? PR: Of course he sets the tone. This isn't just about incompetence, though. This is about an overreach. This is about a government that has gone beyond its scope, and this also speaks to the philosophy of government that's at play here in Washington. And if you want to have a government that does everything for you, they've got to know everything about you. If you want to have a government that should be in the position of picking winners and losers, well then, they will pick winners and losers. And so it's not a story just about incompetence. It's about overreach. You know, big government is bad in theory, but it's much worse in practice. And effective government, that is good government that's limited, focuses in on our core duties. So this speaks to more than just, you know, did they do this to conservative groups before an election to try and give themselves an advantage? It also goes beyond that to, you know, bureaucrats are making decisions for us on behalf of government, not on behalf of the people. And so... HH: Now Congressman, I've heard... PR: That's, to me, a bigger, the bigger issue here. HH: I have heard from people that the SEC has targeted Romney/Ryan supporters. I have heard, and I know for a fact about the EPA scandals and the fake ID's, and the selective FOIA requests. I was told by Rob Portman yesterday about the HHS Obamacare fundraising scandal. PR: Right. HH: It's everywhere. How vast is this culture of intimidation and corruption? PR: I get the sense that we're just at the tip of the iceberg here. And this is why we're going to do this methodically, we're going to do this the right way, we're not going to be passioned or partisan. We're going to do our jobs as the representatives of the people, you know, the legislative branch of government doing our Constitutional duty of conducting oversight of the executive branch. The executive branch has clearly overreached. This seems more like a pattern than a couple of one-off events that a couple of rogue people in Cincinnati. It clearly goes bigger than that. And we're going to painstakingly go through this system and find out just how deep this is. But I would say at the core of the system is a government that is spending beyond its reach. HH: Now many hearings have you set aside? And how far into the summer are they scheduled? PR: Well, we're in the middle of planning all of that. And so we're just trying to collect as much information as we can right now in the Ways And Means Committee. There's a lot of people we've got to talk to, a lot of people that have to be deposed, and a lot of evidence that has to be gathered. And so just like a good investigation, you go where the evidence shows you. And here's the point we're trying to get at. We need to restore accountability, trust and transparency to government. And that means you have to get answers. That's what Benghazi is all about, getting to the actual answers so things like this do not happen again. HH: Speaking of Benghazi... PR: Tomorrow, we're holding a hearing in the Ways and Means, we're going to hold the IRS accountable, we're going to ask tough questions, but we're going to keep going. And we also need to ask deeper questions. I hope we don't lose the moment to ask deeper questions. What is the government's role? What should it be doing? And what shouldn't it be doing? We can get this right, and people deserve a government that supports them. Families deserve real security. They deserve a government that treats them equally, and that's not what we're getting right now. HH: Now Congressman, speaking of Benghazi, John Hinkeraker of Powerline is coming up after this, and he's gone through the emails. They're a MacGuffin. They reveal that they intended at the White House to mislead Congress in the election narrative, but they don't tell us where this, the video narrative came from. You were living in the middle of that campaign. As you look back at this, how great a degree of deception was being practiced and organized at Team Obama concerning Benghazi? PR: Well, I mean, now what I know, I didn't know this then, of course, but what I know now is that there was clearly an attempt to dissuade the country from thinking this was terrorism. The question is who made the decision to tell our U.N. ambassador to go on the Sunday shows and say this was just some spontaneous mob, there's nothing to see here, don't worry about it, it's not terrorism. And then there are the issues, the even bigger issues, which is what could have been done to save these lives that evening, especially the two guys who were killed later on, and what wasn't done, and why were those decisions made. And then who's decision was it to basically put out information that they knew not to be true? We heard that from the campaign. I don't want to sound like some sore loser about the campaign, but I don't want my government, as an American citizen, telling me things that they know aren't true. I don't want my government picking winners and losers for IRS oversight to harass people because of their political views. That's what a banana republic does. That's not what the United States of America should be doing. And so if we want to make sure that this kind of banana republic thuggish behavior doesn't continue, then we in the Congress are going to do our jobs and hold people accountable. HH: I'm not asking you to be sour grapes here, and I heard you say that. But do you believe the manipulation of the Benghazi story resulted, impacted the election outcome? PR: Well, I think, of course, I think it had impacts. I can't say whether this was, I don't know that anybody could say that it was the factor. I don't think that you could say that. But if people knew all of these facts that we now know, and there's more to find out, then, if we knew then what we know now, do I think that could have changed some opinion? Do I think that would have changed the direction of public opinion? Sure. Of course. But I can't, I have no idea whether it would have changed the outcome or not. HH: Your colleague, Devin Nunes, was on the program yesterday, and brought to my attention what I had not realized, which is the extent of this snooping on AP reached the House of Representatives. PR: Yeah. HH: And he used the wrong term. He said wiretapping. He meant snooping, because they just swept up the phone records. Does that shock you that the DOJ without a court order and on their own initiative, swept up the phone records of the House of Representatives? PR: Well, it's the Cloak Room, excuse me, it's not the Cloak room where members of Congress used the phones. They call it the Press Gallery, which is not far from the Cloak Room. It's in the same House floor, it's off the House floor. But my understanding is they took the records of the House Press Gallery AP. Members of Congress use the phones in what we call the Cloak Room. I don't think they took those records. So I don't think you could say they swept up the records of members of Congress' phone calls. They took the records of AP reporters in the House Gallery who were doing, were reporting on Congress. HH: But if they can do that, if they can go into the House, can't... PR: Yeah, look, I'm not making an excuse. I'm just trying to make sure that we're accurate here. HH: Does it trouble you? PR: Of course it troubles me. Are you kidding me? Look, this is why, again, the point I'm trying to make here is let's not think of this as just, oh gosh, some bad people at the IRS did those dumb things, and then oh, some overzealous prosecutor at the Justice Department did that, and oh, gosh, you know, some low level person at the State Department did this. We should not be thinking like that. We should be thinking this is what you get with big government in practice. This is what you get when you have a government that just has gone beyond its moorings, that has gone beyond its scope, and this is the kind of government you get with progressive politics. And that's just not in keeping with our Constitution. That's not what we deserve. We want equality under the law, and that's not what we're getting, whether we're a reporter, a taxpayer, or a citizen. HH: Congressman Paul Ryan, we will be watching the Ways And Means Committee hearing tomorrow with great, great interest. Thanks for joining us. End of interview. http://www.hughhewitt.com/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48f_1368806567 Brockk Democratic Party Marches in Washington DC 1928 Fear,Intimidation Fri, 17 May 2013 10:31:46 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a0c_1368800021 m16carbine How Qatar seized control of the Syrian revolution By Roula Khalaf and Abigail Fielding-Smith As the Arab world's bloodiest conflict grinds on, Qatar has emerged as a driving force: pouring in tens of millions of dollars to arm the rebels. Yet it also stands accused of dividing them - and of positioning itself for even greater influence in the post-Assad era. FT investigation by Roula Khalaf and Abigail Fielding-Smith A short drive from the rising skyscrapers of Doha's West Bay, emblems of the once-sleepy Qatari capital's frenetic growth, the three-starred flag of the Syrian revolution can be seen fluttering over a modern villa guarded by police cars. The villa is the new Syrian Arab Republic embassy in Qatar , representing not the regime of Bashar al-Assad , but opponents fighting for his removal. It is the only such embassy in the world, inaugurated by a Qatari minister two months ago with the usual diplomatic pomp, after hard lobbying by Qatar led the 22-member Arab League to hand over Syria's seat to the opposition. The diplomats working inside have recourse to neither a government nor a bureaucracy to serve Syrians abroad, lacking even the means to renew a passport. "Maybe soon," mutters a hopeful junior diplomat. But Qatar is not a country that allows details to get in the way of ambition. The opening of the embassy was a theatrical expression of this small, massively rich country's single-minded lurch into Syria's crisis . When it comes to backing Syria's rebels, no one can claim more credit than the gas-rich Gulf state. Whether in terms of armaments or financial support for dissidents, diplomatic manoeuvring or lobbying, Qatar has been in the lead, readily disgorging its gas-generated wealth in the pursuit of the downfall of Assad. Yet, as the Arab world's bloodiest uprising grinds on into its third year, Qatar finds itself pulled into a complicated and fractured conflict, the outcome of which has a decreasing ability to influence, while simultaneously becoming a high-profile scapegoat for participants on both sides. Among the Syrian regime's numerous but fragmented opponents the small Gulf state evokes a surprisingly ambivalent - and often overtly hostile - response. In the shell-blasted areas of rebel-held Syria, few appear to be aware of the vast sums that Qatar has contributed - estimated by rebel and diplomatic sources to be about $1bn, but put by people close to the Qatar government at as much as $3bn. However, a perception is taking root among growing numbers of Syrians that Qatar is using its financial muscle to develop networks of loyalty among rebels and set the stage for influence in a post-Assad era. "Qatar has a lot of money and buys everything with money, and it can put its fingerprints on it," says a rebel officer from the northern province of Idlib interviewed by the FT. Khalid al-Attiyah, Qatar's minister of state for foreign affairs, and the point man on Syria, dismisses this criticism as nothing more than noise. "We're a state, we're mature ... If we were concerned about what people say, we wouldn't be here today and Qatar wouldn't be as prosperous." But Qatar's role in Syria seems uncharacteristically prominent for a country that lacks the diplomatic experience and traditional heavyweight status of a more discreet Saudi Arabia. To some extent, the fact that Qatar is so exposed reflects the reluctance of western governments to intervene in Syria. However, for Qatar, Syria is also the culmination of an opportunistic foreign policy which saw Doha become the unlikely backer of other Arab revolts in north Africa - and a friend of those who emerge as winners, in most cases Islamists. Qatar's ruling family, the al-Thanis, have no ideological or religious affinity with the Islamists - they are simply not choosy about the beliefs held by useful friends. Qatar has supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Tunisia's Islamist al-Nahda party, which won the first elections after the popular revolts. Some politicians in the region believe the emir is trying to position himself as the "Islamist Abdel Nasser", as one Arab politician put it, referring to the late Egyptian president and the Arab world's only true pan-Arab leader. Most of Doha's neighbours in the Gulf are hostile to the Islamist trend in the region, but this is of little consequence to a state that takes pleasure in being contrarian. Nor are the al-Thanis embarrassed by the contradictions of an autocracy cheerleading for revolution. "The Qataris say if there's a tsunami coming your way you ride it, not let it hit you," says a western diplomat describing Qatar's attitude towards Islamists. It is this kind of dynamism and risk-taking at an executive level that has enabled Doha to act as a regional power only a few years after being a diplomatic nobody. But the military stalemate of the Syrian uprising, in which more than 70,000 people have died, has also revealed the recklessness and political impotence that ultimately undermine Qatar's objectives. "The Qataris are overextended - their system runs on a few people at the top, and there isn't much in terms of a bureaucracy," comments another diplomat. In the case of Syria, those key players have been the emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, his son and crown prince, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad, the prime minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim, plus Attiyah, the minister for foreign affairs. As the Qataris have attempted to unite the political opposition by championing the formation of the Syrian National Coalition (the main front) they have been accused of dividing it - just as their efforts to shape a fragmented rebel army into a more coherent form by helping to unify the brigades under one command have contributed to its incoherence. Not all of the criticism is fair. Partly it is driven by the irritation of many Arabs, at both state and street level, with what they see as an ambitious, nouveau riche state overreaching itself. "You can criticise them for hijacking the opposition but who else is helping?" acknowledges an independent-minded Syrian opposition member who, like many others in the region who were interviewed for this article, requested anonymity. But the disapproval levelled at Qatar is pervasive. A senior rebel commander who has dealt with the Qataris suggests that Doha should look long and hard at why its role has also sparked so much animosity. "After two years it is time for everyone involved in Syria to review their actions and engage in self-correction," he says. . . . For Sheikh Hamad, the 61-year-old emir who has ruled Qatar since 1995 after deposing his father, the road to Damascus has involved a spectacular U-turn. It wasn't long ago that Bashar al-Assad and his wife Asma were regular visitors to Doha, as guests of the emir and his second wife, Sheikha Moza. Qatari institutions were big investors in Syria, with a $5bn joint holding company set up in 2008 to develop everything from power stations to hotels. The emir also championed the international rehabilitation of Assad during his gradual ostracisation by the US, Europe and his Arab peers; Sheikh Hamad was instrumental in restoring Syrian relations with France in the years before the uprising, when he counted the former president Nicolas Sarkozy as a friend. Back then Syria was part of an alliance - with Iran and Lebanon's Hizbollah - that seemed on the ascendant, and Qatar, with typical pragmatism and opportunism, saw a chance to ride the wave as well as to moderate Assad's policies. When the Syrian revolt erupted in March 2011, Qatar, like Turkey, reacted cautiously; Al Jazeera, the Qatari-owned television channel, was criticised for downplaying the first protests. Behind the scenes, both the emir and crown prince Sheikh Tamim advised Assad against a military solution. But when prime minister Hamad bin Jassim went to visit Assad a month after the outbreak of protests, it became clear to Qatar that the Syrian hardman wanted "to kill people", as bin Jassim recently recalled at a Brookings Institution meeting. One person who influenced the emir's thinking at the time is Azmi Bishara , a prominent former Arab Israeli MP, exiled in Qatar (like many other Arab dissidents) after the Israeli government accused him of passing information to the Lebanese group Hizbollah during Israel's onslaught on Lebanon in 2006 - a charge Bishara denies. An adviser to the emir and the crown prince, Bishara has become something of a court intellectual in Doha. He is said to have been involved in the formation of the Syrian National Coalition, now the main opposition umbrella group, and to have been used to "test" opposition figures. He, too, had known Bashar al-Assad well, but then became an avid enthusiast of Arab revolts and the people's thirst for democracy. Writing in July 2011, Bishara said that Assad could have stayed in power had he led the reforms that people wanted: "The regime chose not to change, and so the people will change it." (Bishara was not available for comment.) Although the emir did not make his position public until Saudi Arabia broke its silence over Syria in August 2011, the conviction took hold in Qatar throughout that bloody first summer that Syria's was as much a revolution as anywhere else in the region. Following the pattern of the other Arab uprisings, Qatar's instinct was to bet on the opposition. In January 2012, the emir told a US television network that Arab troops should be sent to Syria "to stop the killings". Doha's leaders were particularly emboldened by the revolt in Libya, where Qatar had played the lead Arab role in the Nato-led intervention. Although they knew that Assad's downfall would not be as easy as Muammer Gaddafi's, they expected western partners would eventually step in on the side of the opposition. One senior Qatari official suggested in late 2012 that Syria would go the way of Libya, but over a much longer term. Assad's removal, after all, served the strategic purpose of weakening Iran, his closest regional ally. So far at least, this gamble has proved a miscalculation. "We didn't want to take the lead. We begged a lot of countries to start to take the lead and we'll be in the back seat. But we find ourselves in the front seat," lamented prime minister bin Jassim recently. Even within the Arab world, Qatar found much stronger resistance to action than was the case with Libya. "Before we get disappointed by the west, we should ask ourselves as an Arab nation what we've done - it is an Arab issue in the first place," says Attiyah, the minister for foreign affairs. In the years before the Arab uprisings, Qatar had cultivated its role as a mediator, capable of talking to all sides on the divisions that polarised the Middle East. It hosted the US's biggest military air base in the region, while maintaining cordial relations with Iran; it held contacts with Israel while simultaneously backing the Palestinian group Hamas and Lebanon's Hizbollah. On Syria, Qatar soon emerged as one of the few angry voices at Arab summits, pushing for a tougher line. "In Syria, Qatar became an active protagonist," says a western diplomat. Having worked to become a kind of Norway of the Gulf, he adds, it also wanted to be "the Gulf version of the UK and France, and you can't be both at the same time". . . . Ahfad al-Rasoul is a source of envy among other brigades fighting in Syria. A relatively new player put together from several fighting groups, it is often linked to the gas riches of Qatar. Ahfad al-Rasoul is one of the few fighting coalitions in Syria that can be considered "effective", boasts Khaled, a smartly dressed, laptop-carrying "liaison" officer for the group, interviewed by the FT in southern Turkey, near the Syrian border. Not so, says Abu Samer, a commander from a rival group, who complains about shortages of weapons and ammunition. "If I was getting 15 per cent of what they're getting, I'd do a lot," he grumbles. Though Khaled insists his battalion's good fortunes are thanks to a mix of funding sources, others such as Abu Samer see the hand of Qatar at work. Supporting the armed rebellion was the inevitable next stage of Qatar's deepening involvement in Syria. By early 2012, as peaceful protests gave way to an armed opposition, Qatar was scouring around for light weaponry, buying arms in Libya and in eastern European states, and flying them to Turkey, where intelligence services helped deliver them across the border. At first, say people with direct knowledge of the arms shipments, Qatar worked through Turkish intelligence to identify recipients, and then, as Saudi Arabia joined the covert military effort, through Lebanese mediators. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks arms transfers, says that between April 2012 and March this year, more than 70 military cargo flights from Qatar landed in Turkey. Elizabeth O'Bagy, an analyst at the US Institute for the Study of War, which has published extensive studies of Syria's fragmented rebel movement, says that as the conflict progressed, the Qataris worked through members of the exiled Muslim Brotherhood to identify rebel factions that should be supported. For example, she says, that is how they linked up with the Farouq brigades, one of the largest and more mainstream factions. Meanwhile, opposition sources say the Qataris have also sent their own special forces to find insurgent groups, and people involved in the weapons business say a Qatari general has been the point man on arms deliveries, travelling to the "operations" room that was set up first in Istanbul and then in Ankara. However, it is difficult to point to rebel brigades that are exclusively Qatari-funded or backed. Ahfad al-Rasoul, for example, is also thought to be receiving support from Saudi Arabia. Equally, the erratic and limited nature of weapons shipments means that even recipients of Qatari support are not always aware of Doha's role. Mahmoud Marrouch, a young fighter from Liwaa al-Tawhid, the rural Aleppo group that is believed to have been a major recipient of Qatari arms, says Qatar is like the rest of the world - promising weapons but not delivering. What the fighters have, he says, was seized from regime bases, or purchased on the black market. "The Qataris and the Saudis need a green light from America to help us," he adds. A rebel leader in the northern Aleppo province, who works with Liwaa al-Tawhid, says he has also received a Saudi intermediary who goes around rebel-held areas distributing funds. "Groups get funding from both Qatar and Saudi Arabia and they deceive sponsors sometimes," comments O'Bagy. Indeed, if Qatar is, as its detractors say, seeking to build up a proxy force in Syria to implement its regional agenda, it is doing so in an environment which is not conducive to either loyalty or cohesion. With so many different outside sources of sponsorship and no stable organisational structures, rebel groups lurch from alliance to alliance and continually rebrand themselves in the search for support. Ironically, although the relationship between Riyadh and Doha has long been characterised by mutual suspicion, in many ways they have worked very closely on Syria. However, a crucial division over the Muslim Brotherhood has undoubtedly led to the pursuit of divergent agendas on the Syrian battlefield, with harmful consequences for an opposition in desperate need of unity. For the Saudis, the handful of secular rebel factions, plus the Salafi groups that espouse a stricter Wahabi Islam practised in Saudi Arabia, are vastly preferable to the Brotherhood, a more organised political group and therefore a greater political threat. "The Saudis say 'No to the Brotherhood,'" says Riad al-Shaqfa, the leader of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. Qataris, on the other hand, are "playing a positive role", though Shaqfa insists that his group's funding is from its own members, not from Doha. Khalid al-Attiyah denies any tensions with Saudi Arabia, saying co-operation is much closer than people assume, with daily consultations. However, rebel sources and analysts say that by September last year, the rivalry had intensified to the point where the Qataris and Saudis were creating separate military alliances and structures. As complaints poured in from opposition leaders and western officials, the two states agreed to bring the structures together under the supreme military command, headed by the western-backed general Selim Idriss . However, commanders who work with Idriss say that neither country is following through with its promise to bolster the supreme military command, instead continuing to work independently. One reason could be that the Gulf states worry that their limited supplies would be distributed too broadly by the supreme command, instead of reaching only the most effective factions. But the behaviour has bred resentment. "Qatar and Saudi Arabia ... are playing out their rivalries here, they are dividing people," says Abdul Jabbar Akaidi, the head of the Aleppo revolutionary military council. Speaking from one of his bases on the Syrian side of the border with Turkey, he adds: "People will remember those who gave without having an agenda. The Syrians are clever, they know when there is an agenda." . . . By late 2012 a new factor was emerging in Syria, one that had the potential to complicate Qatar's relationship with the west. The extremist group Jabhat al-Nusrah was gaining ground, playing a prominent role in dislodging the regime from military facilities in northern Syria. In December, the US felt sufficiently alarmed to add Nusrah to its global terrorist list. Concerned that Qatar's level of tolerance for radical Islamists was higher than theirs, western governments also wanted safeguards in place to ensure that weapons did not end up in the hands of jihadi groups like Nusrah. The problem, says one former senior US official, was that "the Qataris felt it didn't matter who you give to, what's important is to bring down Bashar." According to him, the objective in Washington became "to keep the Qataris from doing whatever they want". So the US instituted a "consultative process". Two "operations" rooms that oversee weapons deliveries were set up, one in Turkey, the other, more recently, in Jordan. They include representatives from nearly a dozen countries. The Qataris, says the former US official, were co-operative. Yet allegations that the Qataris have - directly or indirectly - helped Jabhat al-Nusrah have not gone away. At least one Arab government recently said as much, although experts on jihadi movements say the extremist group's funding comes from al-Qaeda in Iraq and from private donors in the Gulf, not from governments. Yet even with the "consultative process" in place, leakage might be inevitable, whether through the funding of rebels or through the massive charitable contributions from the Gulf that reach Syria. "Because the Free Syrian Army groups work so closely with non-FSA groups these weapons are spreading just because they are fighting side by side - and maybe the groups trade arms with each other as well," says Eliot Higgins, who examines and records weapons used in the Syrian conflict on his well-followed Brown Moses blog. Attiyah says Doha has never backed Nusrah, and blames the international community's inaction on Syria for allowing it to flourish. "Is it the Security Council's delay in taking a firm resolution against Bashar al-Assad and his regime that has made emerge? In my opinion, yes," he says. Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim, the prime minister, is even more dismissive of allegations of Qatari support for extremists, joking in his Brookings presentation that such rumours are spread by jealous neighbours to tease Qatar. Beneath the quips, however, are signs that Qatar's influence over military supplies to the rebellion may be waning, as its role in weapons deliveries takes second place to that of Saudi Arabia. Riyadh has more developed networks to source weapons and it has been working closely with Jordan to bolster rebel groups in southern Syria that are not tied to Nusrah. . . . Many Syrians have probably never heard of Mustafa Sabbagh, though he is considered the most powerful man in the political opposition. The owner of a building material and contracting company, the 48-year-old secretary-general of the National Coalition lived in Saudi Arabia for much of the past decade. He doesn't make many speeches, or issue statements, but he does oversee the coalition's budget, to which the Qataris are the biggest donors, and is responsible, as one western official says, "for writing the cheques". While seen by both friends and detractors as a shrewd man who appealed to Qatar officials' business-minded attitude, Sabbagh has come under criticism for supposedly using his position to control the opposition and further Qatari influence. Tensions between him and some of the secular members of the coalition exploded into the open recently after the controversial election of an interim prime minister, Ghassan Hitto , in March. The row over Hitto's appointment was so bitter it caused tension between Qatar and Saudi Arabia and pushed the Saudis to become more active in opposition politics, which they had largely left to the Qataris. According to pro-Saudi opposition figures, negotiations are now under way to resolve the dispute. Qatar's involvement with Syria's political opposition has generated even more controversy than its support of rebel groups. The dissidents are a fractious assortment of cliques, but they play an important role in shaping international policy. While it was Turkey that helped form the first credible opposition umbrella group, the Syrian National Council , in August 2011, Qatar quickly embraced it and contributed to its funding. The SNC, however, fell victim to infighting, which gave the Muslim Brotherhood, the only organised bloc within it, the greatest influence. As secular voices began dropping out of the SNC, western nations, led by the US, pressured the Qataris to help form a broader opposition based on an initiative proposed by Riad Seif, a well-respected Syrian dissident. The new body, the National Coalition, was announced in Doha in November 2012. It was no secret that Qatari officials were less convinced of the need to improve the SNC. Their view appeared to be that dominance of the Muslim Brotherhood was neither as great as claimed, nor an issue. A former US official who tracked the process of the creation of the coalition said dealing with the Qataris at the time was like a "war of attrition". However, claims of Qatari dominance of the opposition persisted, even after the coalition was created. True, the Muslim Brotherhood was no longer the main component, but a new bloc of more than a dozen members, brought in by Sabbagh as representatives of local communities in Syria, sparked new disagreements. It was seen as another bloc that was loyal to Qatar. Each of these members was supposed to represent a local council in Syria's different provinces, and together the councils received $8m from Qatar soon after the formation of the coalition. Qatar was also the first - and possibly the only - country to provide funding for the coalition budget, to the tune of $20m, and it delivered the first $10m out of a pledged $100m package for the organisation's new humanitarian assistance unit. In an interview with the FT, Sabbagh said that the Qatar label that has stuck to him is inaccurate and unfair. Peppering his words with praise for Saudi Arabia's contribution to the Syrian cause, he says his relationship with Qatar is confined to what he calls "logistics" support for a business forum that he founded after the revolt against Assad broke out. The forum had mobilised funds from merchants inside and outside Syria to support the Free Syrian Army. Sabbagh insists that the representatives of local councils that he invited into the coalition were an attempt, even if imperfect, to raise the representation of people inside the country in the main opposition front. "It's inevitable because there are no elections. It was an experience that needed maturing," he says. Attiyah, meanwhile, says he has no closer relationship with Sabbagh than anyone else in the coalition. He also points out that the coalition with its various components, including the local representatives, was not created by Qatar alone but with the help and blessing of Arab and western officials. . . . In Syria itself, the number of dead continues to rise and Bashar al-Assad is still stubbornly clinging on to power. Whether Qatar's venture into Syrian opposition politics will have any returns will depend on whether Syria survives as a country - something that is by no means assured. Perhaps for the Qatari emir, the demise of Assad will be sufficient satisfaction. In theory, Qatar could also emerge with multiple points of influence through Islamists and loyal brigades. But it has already created many enemies inside Syria, and not just among pro-regime supporters. So torn apart is the fabric of Syria's society, and so radicalised and suspicious its battered population, that the Qataris are more likely to find that they are neither thanked - nor even wanted - there. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a0c_1368800021 m16carbine How Qatar seized control of the Syrian revolution syra, syrian civil war, qatar Sun, 12 May 2013 18:58:14 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ccd_1368399130 plokiju Spy photos and animated video of LiJian (Sharp Sword) A pair of grainy photos shot at long distance could be the best evidence yet of Beijing's first jet-powered and presumably armed drone warplane. The images, one of which was cropped and enhanced by Internet users and has been reproduced here, first appeared to the wider English-speaking world on Thursday afternoon on the Secretprojects.co.uk web forum. The pics follow close behind the equally ambiguous photo debuts of China's two stealth fighter prototypes (in 2010 and 2012) and its homegrown heavy transport plane (this year). A far blurrier and even more ambiguous photo possibly depicting the new drone appeared on a Russian Website in March. "What's Chinese for, 'Here we go again?'" Aviation Week reporter Bill Sweetman quipped upon seeing the purported killer drone images. Consensus among China watchers is that the vehicle depicted in the photos is the Lijian, or "Sharp Sword," Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle, a collaboration between Chinese aerospace firms Shenyang and Hongdu. Powered by a single jet engine and resting on tricycle landing gear, the Sharp Sword UCAV seems to sport the flying-wing shape shared by several U.S.-made killer drones prototypes. The flying wing platform, also used by the U.S. B-2 stealth bomber, is ideal for radar-evading designs. Beyond its basic shape and possible radar-evading qualities, not much is known about the apparent new drone. But that doesn't mean the robot's appearance is unexpected. China has already unveiled a rudimentary prop-driven armed drone. And the latest edition of the Pentagon's annual report (.pdf) on Chinese military capabilities, released earlier this week, predicted a more sophisticated Chinese UCAV would soon make an appearance. "The acquisition and development of longer-range Unmanned Aerial Vehicles ... and Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles, will increase China's ability to conduct long-range reconnaissance and strike operations," the report stated. It's worth noting that China is the last major aerospace power to debut a jet-powered, low-radar-signature killer drone prototype. The U.S. has led the pack, test-flying no fewer than five UCAVs since the late 1990s and even bringing one unarmed variant, the RQ-170, into frontline service. Europe has the Neuron and Taranis models in development and Russia is working on a version of the MiG Skat. As drone developers all over the world have discovered, airframes are often the easiest part of the system to create. What's hard are the software, datalinks, control systems and payloads that transform what are in essence large model airplanes into effective robotic weapons. And it's with these key subsystems that China will likely have the most trouble. The Pentagon China report specifically lists "solid-state electronics and micro processors guidance and control systems" as technologies Beijing finds it easier to buy or steal from the U.S., Europe and Russia than to develop on its own. U.S. experts worried that China might gain access to some American drone technology via an RQ-170 that crashed in Iran in 2011. So far the Sharp Sword has apparently only been spotted taxiing along a runway on ground tests. It's not clear when its developers might attempt a first flight. Even less clear is whether, and how soon, the Chinese killer drone might enter frontline use. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/china-first-killer-drone/ Lijian's combat radius covers the Western Pacific: analyst Following the release of internet photos of the Lijian, China's first stealth combat drone, Peng Tinghua, a military analyst, stressed on his mircroblog that this unmanned aerial vehicle will be able to attack all potential targets within the Western Pacific region. The Lijian is China's response to the push of most advanced countries to roll out unmanned aerial vehicles. The design of the aircraft relied heavily on Northrop Grumman's Dassault-designed X-47B, by the looks of the official photos released by the PLA Daily, the Hong Kong-based Wenweipo said. Peng stated that the range of the Lijian is about 8,000km, according to China Aviation News. It is not able to compare with the Global Hawk, another unmanned aerial vehicle designed by Northrop Grumman with a range of 14,001 kilometers, but the Lijian is still able to attack all potential target within the Western Pacific with a combat radius of 4,000 kilometers. "Since it will not be necessary for China to attack any targets within Europe or the continental United States," said Peng, "the Lijian will be enough for us to face potential threats over the Taiwan Strait, South China Sea and Western Pacific." Like the X-47B, the Lijian and other types of stealth combat drones can also be operated from the flight deck of an aircraft carrier. Under the direction of Beidou Navigation System, precision attacks can also be launched by Chinese unmanned aerial vehicles in the future. With enough confidence in China's defense industries, Peng stated that the PLA will eventually surpass the United States and operate its own Global Hawk around the world. http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20130512000097&cid=1101 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ccd_1368399130 plokiju China's stealth UCAV ready for flight testing China, stealth, UCAV, ready, for, flight, testing, LiJian, Sharp Sword Sun, 12 May 2013 15:59:14 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=25a_1368388148 english-patriot33 http://www.politicalislam.com/pages/bio Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner Bill Warner Bill Warner holds a PhD in physics and math, NC State University, 1968. He has been a university professor, businessman, and applied physicist. He was a Member of the Technical Staff in solid-state physics at the Sarnoff Princeton Laboratories in the area of integrated circuit structures. During the energy crisis of the 80's he founded and ran a company that specialized in energy efficient homes. For eight years he was a professor at Tennessee State University in the Engineering School. Dr. Warner has had a life-long interest in religion and its effects on history. He has studied the source texts of the major religions for decades. Even before the destruction of the World Trade Center he had predicted the war between Islam and America. The day after 9/11 he decided to make the source texts of Islam available for the average person. Dr. Warner's training in scientific theory and mathematics shaped how he analyzed Islamic doctrine. The first step was realizing that the Islamic texts had been made deliberately difficult to read and comprehend. A program, the Trilogy Project (see below), was created to strip away the confusion in the texts. It became clear that Islam is not constructed on the same civilizational principles as the rest of the world. Simple statistical methods revealed that dualism and submission were the foundational principles of Islamic doctrine. Statistical methods applied to the Islamic texts showed that: . Islam is far more of a political system than a religion. . There is no unmitigated good in Islam for the Kafir (non-Muslim). . Islam's ethical system is dualistic and is not based on the Golden Rule. . Islamic doctrine cannot be reconciled with our concepts of human rights and our Constitution. . The great majority, 96%, of all Islamic doctrine about women subjugates them. . The Sunna (what Mohammed did and said) is more important than the Koran in a Muslim's daily life. Dr. Warner coined the term, Foundational School of Islamic studies, which holds that Islam is found in the Trilogy of Koran, Sira and Hadith. All evaluation of Islamic history and current activity is caused by the doctrine found in this Trilogy. Therefore, it is impossible to understand any Muslim or Islamic action without knowing the doctrine that is its cause. Dr. Warner postulates that there are three independent views of Islam that are not reconcilable. The three views are believer-centric, apoligist-centric and Kafir-centric. The believer-centric view is the view of a Muslim. Apologist-centric is based upon the apologetic view of non-Muslims. Kafir-centric is the view of the non-Muslim. A comprehensive knowledge of Islam must include all three. These views cannot be resolved, but each must stand-alone. Dr. Warner founded the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and is its director. He has produced a dozen books, including a Koran, a biography of Mohammed and a summary of the political traditions of Mohammed. He also developed the first self-study course on Political Islam. He has given talks nationally and internationally about Islamic political doctrine. He writes articles and produces news Bulletins that record the suffering of the victims caused by Political Islam. The Trilogy Project The Trilogy Project was developed to make Islam's three sacred texts, Koran, Sira and Hadith understandable. It was based upon scientific principles and objective methods, so that any independent person could achieve the same results if they used the same methods. All Islamic doctrine is based on words of Allah and the Sunna (words and actions) of Mohammed. Allah is found in the Koran and Mohammed is found in the Sira (biography) and the Hadith (traditions). All of Islam is based on Koran, Sira, and Hadith. If it is in the Trilogy, it is Islam. If it is not in the Trilogy, then it is not Islam. To know Islam, know the Trilogy. The problem in knowing the Trilogy is that the Koran, Sira and Hadith were designed to be difficult to understand. There is only one way for them to be understood-they must be viewed as a systemic whole, not three separate books. The books had to be fact-based and self-authenticating. In a sense, each book had to be a map to the original text. Nearly every paragraph in the CSPI book series has a reference number that allows the reader to go to the source text and verify what is written. If you don't believe it or want more details, you can go the reference number and read the original. Here is an example from Mohammed and the Unbelievers, the Sira: I552 The assassins' wounded friend lagged behind, so they carried him back with them. When they got back to Mohammed, he was praying. They told him they had killed the enemy of Allah and their attack had terrorized all the Jews. There was no Jew in Medina who was not afraid. Here is the source text: Ishaq margin note 552: 552 Our friend al-Harith had lagged behind, weakened by loss of blood, so we waited for him for some time until he came up, following our tracks. We carried him and brought him to the apostle at the end of the night. We saluted him as he stood praying, and he came out to us, and we told him that we had killed God's enemy. He spat upon our comrade's wounds, and both he and we returned to our families. Our attack upon God's enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life. The Hadith, collected by Bukhari, has over 6800 traditions. The text is confusing since there is so much repetition. The same tradition may be repeated a dozen times. Only about a quarter of the traditions relate to politics, the rest are purely religious. The first step is to collect all the traditions that deal with Kafirs. The Kafir material is political, since it deals with those outside of Islam. Then all of those that are similar, or nearly identical, are summarized into a single tradition. This method makes all of the political traditions easily understood. The remaining traditions apply only to Muslims and are of little interest to Kafirs. Collecting those traditions that apply to Kafirs and summarizing the repeated ones clarifies the text and makes Political Islam simple to understand. This work resulted in The Political Traditions of Mohammed. The Koran is made readable by reproducing the historical Koran of Mohammed's day. This is accomplished by arranging the Koran in the original order (the one in the bookstore is arranged in order of chapter length). Then the similar sections are combined (for instance, the story of Moses is told 39 times). The final step is to take Mohammed's life from the Sira and integrate it into the Koran verses to give the verses context. These steps reproduce the historical Koran. The resulting document is now easily read, A Simple Koran. Anyone can take these same steps and produce similar versions of the original Trilogy. People assume that you must understand Arabic or have a university degree in Islam to understand Islam's texts. However, look at these scholars' history. After 1400 years they have produced scholarly papers for presentations at scholarly meetings, but they have not made the material available to the common person. The work stands on its own. The only person that matters in discussing Islam is not the "expert" but Mohammed. Every paragraph of our books is referenced to what Mohammed did and said (his Sunna). Each paragraph can be verified by the use of the reference numbers. Our books are fact-based knowledge, not opinion. Mohammed is our expert. We quote him in every paragraph. Bill Warner is the nom de guerre of Bill French. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=25a_1368388148 english-patriot33 Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner islam, muslims, terrorists, pedophiles, outlaw islam, Sun, 12 May 2013 03:36:28 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1d0_1368344074 SAPD_HRT Me and my partner Nicky get a call to go a building on Church Street. A woman is calling for help, that she's been assaulted. So we go to the building and the woman is leaning out a fifth story window yelling, "Up here! Up here!" We go running up the stairs, and when we get there, we see that the old wooden door has been knocked in-it's hanging on by a single hinge. Inside we find a heavy set thirtyish Spanish woman. She's very upset and she's got a shiner. We ask her what happened. "My boyfriend," she says "he beat me up, then ran up the fire escape." So we get on the radio and talk to Central and confirm a woman has been assaulted, and they should stand by for a description of the suspect. Then we ask the woman what the boyfriend looks like. "How big is he?" "He's short, a little short." "How short approximately?" "Well, he's less than four feet. Three feet ten inches. He's a midget." Both of us are trying to hold our laughter in, and we're looking at the door and wondering how a midget could kick it in and Nicky says," How was he able to kick in the door?" "He's a karate expert." Somehow, Nicky is able to speak into the radio and he says, "Central, be advised that the suspect is 3" 10" and is a midget, Hispanic, and he was last seen fleeing up the fire escape of the building." Then voices start coming back over the radio from other units who are going to canvass the area. One guy says, "Well, is he a midget or a dwarf?" Nicky asks why it matters, and somebody says, "a midget has a small head that is in proportion to his body while a dwarf has a small body but a big head." Nicky asks the lady, "Is he a midget or a dwarf?" "He`s a midget." "Central, be advised he`s definitely a midget. Stand by for a description of what the suspect was wearing." One of us asks the lady, "M'am, what was he wearing?" "Well, he was wearing a tuxedo and carrying a violin case. He was going to propose to me." Me and Nicky are dying, but Nicky manages to say into the radio. "He's 3' 10," wearing a tuxedo, and carrying a violin case." Central says okay and we get on the fire escape. Just as we reach the roof some rookie comes on the radio and says, "Central. What does the suspect actually look like? Do you have a physical description?" Nicky gets a strange look in his eyes and gets on the radio. "Dude," he said, "do me a favor! Stop any (bleeping) midget wearing a tux and carrying a violin case. Who the (bleep) cares what he (bleeping) looks like!" http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1d0_1368344074 SAPD_HRT APB: Midget in a tux Police, Midget, Tux Sat, 11 May 2013 15:21:12 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1a7_1368299821 Detroit Iron "Our house is on fire."12:09 PM, MAY 11, 2013 o BY DANIEL HALPER CBS anchor Scott Pelley said at a speech at Quinnipiac University that journalists "are getting big stories wrong, over and over again." "Our house is on fire," said Pelley. The video of Pelley's speech is courtesy of nowthisnews.com . "These have been a bad few months for journalism," he added. "We're getting the big stories wrong, over and over again." The CBS newsreader was quick to take at least partial blame. "Let me take the first arrow: During our coverage of Newtown, I sat on my set and I reported that Nancy Lanza was a teacher at the school. And that her son had attacked her classroom. It's a hell of a story, but it was dead wrong. Now, I was the managing editor, I made the decision to go ahead with that and I did, and that's what I said, and I was absolutely wrong. So let me just take the first arrow here." And Pelley said the republic relies on the quality of the news business. "Democracies succeed or fail based on their journalism," said Pelley. "America is strong because its journalism is strong. That's how democracies work. They're only as good as the quality of the information that the public possesses. And that is where we come in." http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbs-anchor-we-are-getting-big-stories-wrong-over-and-over-again_722331.html http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1a7_1368299821 Detroit Iron CBS Anchor: 'We Are Getting Big Stories Wrong, Over and Over Again' CBS, Scott Pelley Sat, 11 May 2013 14:02:35 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e30_1368295079 vicsemprini http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/benghazi-cia-talking-point-edits-white-house.html?mobify=0 It's a clich'e, of course, but it really is true: in Washington, every scandal has a crime and a coverup. The ongoing debate about the attack on the United States facility in Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and the Obama Administration's response to it, is no exception. For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it. On Friday, ABC News's Jonathan Karl revealed the details of the editing process for the C.I.A.'s talking points about the attack, including the edits themselves and some of the reasons a State Department spokeswoman gave for requesting those edits. It's striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in Sunday show appearances that became a central focus of Republicans' criticism of the Administration's public response to the attacks. Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush. From the very beginning of the editing process, the talking points contained the erroneous assertion that the attack was "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved." That's an important fact, because the right has always criticized the Administration based on the suggestion that the C.I.A. and the State Department, contrary to what they said, knew that the attack was not spontaneous and not an outgrowth of a demonstration. But everything else about the changes that were made is problematic. The initial draft revealed by Karl mentions "at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi" before the one in which four Americans were killed. That's not in the final version. Nor is this: " e do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack." That was replaced by the more tepid "There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations." (Even if we accept the argument that State wanted to be sure that extremists were involved, and that they could be linked to Al Qaeda, before saying so with any level of certainty-which is reasonable and supported by evidence from Karl's reporting-that doesn't fully explain these changes away.) Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn't motivated by a desire to protect Obama's record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we've seen from Karl's report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government-C.I.A. and State-trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy. But the mere existence of the edits-whatever the motivation for them-seriously undermines the White House's credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that "The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' because 'consulate' was inaccurate." Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now. In his regular press briefing on Friday afternoon (a briefing that was delayed several times, presumably in part so the White House could get its spin in order, but also so that it could hold a secretive pre-briefing briefing with select members of the White House press corps), he said: The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from "consulate," because it was not a consulate, to "diplomatic post"... it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate. This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He's playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we've all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who's actually working the keyboard. It's not quite re-defining the word "is," or the phrase "sexual relations," but it's not all that far off, either. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e30_1368295079 vicsemprini New Yorker: Hey, maybe there's something smelly here after all Benghazi, Jay Carney, lies, scandal, Obama, Hillary, terrorist attack, YouTube, talking points, revisions, CIA Tue, 14 May 2013 05:41:57 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=919_1368523788 english-patriot33 http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100215856/barack-obamas-top-ten-insults-against-britain-2013-edition/?fb Barack Obama's top ten insults against Britain - 2013 edition For the past three years I have published a list of Barack Obama's biggest insults (including those of his administration) against America's foremost ally, Great Britain, during his time in office. Here is an updated list to accompany President Obama's meeting with David Cameron at the White House today. The major additions this year are the snubbing of Lady Thatcher's funeral by the Obama administration, as well as attempts by senior allies of President Obama in the Senate to hold up a resolution honouring the Iron Lady. In addition, the Obama presidency has further entrenched its pro-Argentine position on the Falklands, and has also lectured Britain on its Europe policy, warning the UK against leaving the European Union, in a blatant attempt to influence an internal British public debate. Since first taking office in 2009, the Obama presidency has displayed what can only be described as a sneering disdain and contempt for America's most important ally, an approach which has continued into Obama's second term. Barack Obama has been the most anti-British US president of modern times, even kicking off his first term with a decision to remove a bust of Sir Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and send it packing to the British Embassy. He followed this with a sustained campaign against Britain's biggest company, with his press secretary Robert Gibbs threatening to put a "boot to the throat" of BP in the wake of the Gulf oil spill of 2010. The Obama administration has also sided with Argentine president Cristina Kirchner in calling for UN-brokered negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, and flat out refuses to back the Falkland Islanders' right to self-determination despite the recent referendum which showed that 99.8 percent of the inhabitants of the Falklands wish to remain a British Overseas Territory. 1. Siding with Argentina over the Falkland Islands This has remained the top insult for four years running. For sheer offensiveness it's hard to beat the Obama administration's brazen support for Argentina's call for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falklands, despite the fact that 255 British servicemen laid down their lives to restore British rule over the Islands after they were brutally invaded in 1982. In a March 2010 press conference in Buenos Aires with President Cristina Kirchner, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave Argentina a propaganda coup by emphatically backing the position of the P'eronist regime. In June 2011, Mrs. Clinton slapped Britain in the face again by signing on to an Organisation of American States (OAS) resolution calling for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, a position which is completely unacceptable to Great Britain. To add insult to injury, the Obama administration has insisted on using the Argentine term "Malvinas" to describe the Islands in yet another sop to Buenos Aires. In 2012, against a backdrop of growing aggression by Argentina, including efforts to blockade international vessels fishing in Falkland waters, the Obama administration continued to undercut Britain, again supporting direct negotiations between Argentina and Britain, parroting Kirchner's line. In 2013, the Obama administration declined to formally recognise the result of the March Falklands referendum, reiterating its call for London and Buenos Aires to negotiate the sovereignty of the Islands - despite the fact that 99.8 percent of Falkland Islanders voted to remain a British Overseas Territory. At a press briefing following the referendum, a senior State Department official treated Britain and Argentina as equals with "competing claims" to the Falklands, and refused to support the Falkland Islanders' right to self-determination. This is hugely insulting to Britain, not least at a time when 10,000 British troops are fighting alongside their American allies on the battlefields of Afghanistan. 2. Snubbing the funeral of Lady Thatcher Incredibly, the Obama presidency declined to send a single serving official from Washington to attend the Iron Lady's funeral in St. Paul's Cathedral in April. While the United States was represented by former Secretaries of State George Schultz and James A. Baker III, the only American official present was Barbara Stephenson, charges d'affaires and acting ambassador at the US Embassy in London. To put this in context, the US sent a similar level of representation, in terms of serving officials, to attend the funeral in March of Venezuelan despot Hugo Chavez. To say this was a huge insult to the memory of the greatest peacetime prime minister of the 20th Century would be an understatement. It was an act of tremendous rudeness towards the British people, who turned out in large numbers to bid farewell to Lady Thatcher as her coffin was carried through central London on its way to St. Paul's. Vice President Joe Biden usually represents the president at such occasions, but was a no-show despite receiving an invitation. Also absent were First Lady Michelle Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was also nowhere to be seen. 3. Holding up a Senate Resolution honouring Lady Thatcher Disgracefully, Senate Democrats - key Congressional allies of President Obama, representing his own party - held up a Senate resolution honouring the life and legacy of Margaret Thatcher for several days, before it was finally passed unanimously the day before her funeral. Senior Democrats, led by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, attempted to remove references in the resolution to the Falklands War and to IRA terrorism, but relented in the face of strong Republican condemnation. The White House remained silent on the matter. As Senate Republican leader, and sponsor of the resolution, Mitch McConnell remarked, "Margaret (Thatcher) was one of the most influential and revolutionary figures of the 20th Century, and failing to name her achievements would do her memory and her legacy a great disservice. It would be unheard of to commemorate Churchill for example and ignore his heroic role in steering his countrymen through the Battle of Britain, nor would we think of honoring Lincoln without mentioning the Civil War." 4. Lecturing Britain against leaving the EU The Obama administration has attempted to intervene on several occasions over the past few months on the issue of British membership of the European Union. In an interview with Adam Boulton on Sky News, outgoing US Ambassador to London, Louis Susman, made it clear that Washington is firmly opposed to Britain leaving the EU: From our viewpoint it is something that won't help us - not without speaking for the United Kingdom... We believe strongly it's in America's interests to have a strong EU - it's the key to trading and to certain diplomatic matters and intelligence matters and military matters. And for our best ally not to be a strong voice there, not to be there, frankly we don't think it's in our interests. Susman was echoing the remarks made by Philip Gordon, then US Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, who declared that British membership of the EU is "in the American interest" and made clear his support for the EU speaking with "a single voice." The comments naturally sparked outrage among Conservative MPs. Barack Obama himself has even phoned the British prime minister to express his view that a British EU exit would weaken US-British ties. As I noted in a previous post on the US Ambassador's intervention: Susman's remarks illustrate how the Obama presidency likes to pay lip service to the Special Relationship, while actively undercutting it on the European stage by backing ever-closer union in Europe, and the evolution of a federal EU. Obama administration officials parrot the language of the European Commission, as though their words were dictated by Jose Manuel Barroso or Herman Van Rompuy. It is a sad state of affairs when the world's superpower effectively outsources its Europe policy to an unelected, unaccountable and anti-American entity in Belgium. 5. Throwing Churchill out of the Oval Office It is hard to think of a more derogatory message to send to the British people within days of taking office than to fling a bust of Winston Churchill out of the Oval Office and send it packing back to the British Embassy - not least as it was a loaned gift from Britain to the United States as a powerful display of solidarity in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Obviously, public diplomacy is not a concept that carries much weight in the current White House, and nor apparently is common sense. Four years on, the Churchill bust incident continues to embarrass the Obama White House, and remains a sad symbol of this administration's contempt for the Special Relationship as well as one of the greatest figures in British history. 6. Placing a "boot on the throat" of BP The Obama administration's relentless campaign against Britain's largest company in the wake of the Gulf oil spill was one of the most damaging episodes in US-UK relations in recent years, with 64 percent of Britons agreeing at the time that the president's handling of the issue had harmed the partnership between the two countries according to a YouGov poll. The White House's aggressive trashing of BP, including a threat to put a "boot on the throat" of the oil giant, helped wipe tens of billions of pounds from its share value, directly impacting the pensions of millions of Britons. This led to a furious backlash in the British press, with even London mayor and long-time Obama admirer Boris Johnson demanding an end to "anti-British rhetoric, buck-passing and name-calling". 7. Using a State Dinner for the British Prime Minister as a campaign event In March 2012, the White House used an official state dinner for David Cameron to reward over 40 top Obama re-election campaign financiers with coveted seats at the taxpayer-funded banquet. Collectively, the campaign bundlers had raised more than $10 million for Obama's 2012 presidential run. I wrote in a Telegraph piece on the day of the event: A state dinner with the British PM should be a celebration of the US-UK Special Relationship, and not a reward ticket for hugely wealthy fundraisers who have given large sums of money to the president's re-election campaign. David Cameron has been shamelessly used by a cynical White House that has cared little for the Anglo-American alliance in its first three years in office before rolling out the red carpet this week. It is disrespectful towards the leader of America's closest friend and ally, as well as an abuse of presidential power. 8. DVDs for the Prime Minister This insult has featured in all four editions, not least because it remains a powerful example of breathtaking diplomatic ineptitude that would have shamed the protocol office of an impoverished Third World country. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was treated extremely shabbily when he visited the White House in March 2009, and was sent home with an assortment of 25 DVDs ranging from Toy Story to The Wizard of Oz - which couldn't even be played in the UK. 9. Insulting words from the State Department The mocking views of a senior State Department official following Gordon Brown's embarrassing reception at the White House in March 2009 says it all: There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment. 10. Calling France America's strongest ally In January 2011, President Obama held a joint press conference at the White House with his French counterpart, gushing with praise for Washington's new-found Gallic friends, declaring: "We don't have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy, and the French people." As I noted at the time: Quite what the French have done to merit this kind of high praise from the US president is difficult to fathom, and if the White House means what it says this represents an extraordinary sea change in US foreign policy. Nicolas Sarkozy is a distinctly more pro-American president than any of his predecessors, and has been an important ally over issues such as Iran and the War on Terror. But to suggest that Paris and not London is Washington's strongest partner is simply ludicrous. These kinds of presidential statements matter. No US president in modern times has described France as America's closest ally, and such a remark is not only factually wrong but also insulting to Britain, not least coming just a few years after the French famously knifed Washington in the back over the war in Iraq. In November 2012, Obama's Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano repeated her president's line, telling a French audience that "we have no greater partner than France, we have no greater ally than France." http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=919_1368523788 english-patriot33 Barack Obama's top ten insults against Britain - 2013 edition islam, muslims, terrorists, pedophiles, fuck you too obama, hurry up and go, Thu, 16 May 2013 17:09:45 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=28a_1368738408 SunniLebanese Syria crisis threatens Palestinian refugeesPro- and anti-Assad factions seek support of Palestinians in Lebanon's refugee camps as tensions there rise over Syria. Zak Brophy Last Modified: 16 May 2013 10:49 The Palestinian community in Lebanon is socially vulnerable and politically divided Beirut, Lebanon - The Palestinian refugee camp of Shatila is perilously wedged along one of Lebanon's many sectarian fault lines. Black Islamic flags adorn the lampposts when approaching this small slum from Sunni strongholds to the north, while expansive Shia ghettoes border the camp immediately to the south. In recent months, an increasing number of clashes have erupted in and around Shatila, as rival Lebanese factions fight for the loyalty of the socially vulnerable and politically divided Palestinian camps. The Syrian civil war and rising Shia-Sunni discord in Lebanon are exacerbating the pressure. "These are concerted efforts to provoke a response," explained Fathi Abou al-Ardat, secretary for the Fatah movement and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) in Lebanon. On May 12, clashes - described by local residents as the most intense fighting yet - erupted between groups inside Shatila and neighbouring Shia communities. Volleys of gunfire were exchanged for several hours, and the army encircled the camp with armoured personnel carriers. "We know the Palestinians are divided and some groups are exploiting that to stir things up here. We are not taking the bait, but these groups have to know that if they push too hard we will run all over them like we did in 2008," said Abu Ali, a resident of the Rihaab district, a predominantly Shia neighbourhood on the edge of Shatila. Palestinian refugees struggle in Lebanon Although Shatila was founded as a Palestinian refugee camp, many non-Palestinians now live there as well. Ahmad, a 20-year-old Shatila resident with little education and scant work prospects, reasoned: "Us Sunna reacted strongly and started to boil over when we saw the killing in Syria. This caused clashes with Shia because they are helping with the slaughter of our people there." Losing faith Syrian President Bashar al-Assad comes from the Alawite sect - an offshoot of Shia Islam - and the powerful Lebanese Shia group Hezbollah supports Assad. Like many of his peers, Ahmad has lost faith in the traditional Sunni leadership and places his trust instead with more religiously conservative and combative leaders such as Sheikh Ahmad Assir, who have been trying to garner support from predominantly Sunni Palestinians. "There are more and more of us prepared to follow Assir," said Ahmad. "More and more people are becoming increasingly religious. Everyone is preparing himself for what may come." The Palestinian camps in Lebanon consist of basic, overcrowded homes, their people victims of decades of war, neglect and abuse. In Shatila, the buildings are so cramped that sunlight is a rare commodity. The smells of garbage and sewage foul the air and unemployed youth fill the cramped alleys. "We are seeing increased efforts to recruit from our youth. There is desperation and anger here, so whatever they pay they will find people to say 'yes'. They think we are cheap," said Ayman Zaher, a youth worker in Shatila. All of the major Palestinian political parties have adopted, and until now managed to maintain, a policy of neutrality in Lebanon regardless of their stance on the conflict in Syria. However, in Ein el-Helweh, the largest and most populous camp in Lebanon, armed groups such as Jund al-Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra and Asbat al-Ansar have found a safe haven under the protective wing of powerful local families. Their number of followers may not be huge, but their hard-line ideology and links to like-minded movements in Lebanon and Syria make Ein el-Helweh a particularly worrying flashpoint for Palestinians and Lebanese alike. "There is so much pressure on the camps and they are ready to explode, especially Ein el-Helweh, which could go off before there is a wider conflict in Lebanon. There is so much provocation from the Islamist groups there and I'm not sure if the PLO can keep a lid on it," warned Mutuwalli Abu Naser, a Palestinian journalist and playwright from Yarmouk camp in Damascus, who now lives in Lebanon. SpotlightIn-depth coverage of escalating violence across Syria Syrian influence On the other side, Hezbollah and its allies have also been working to secure the allegiance of Palestinians in Lebanon. Until withdrawing its troops from Lebanon in 2005, the Syrian government was influential in many of the camps through various Palestinian allies. Since the Syrian withdrawal, Hezbollah has by-and-large maintained Syria's leverage in the camps, even though the stance of several Palestinian groups has shifted since the start of the Syrian uprising. "Hezbollah works by a very low profile without making noise, because they work with the Palestinians from a security background, not a political one," explained Edward Kattoura, a political analyst at Pursue, a Palestinian think-tank. Many of the Palestinian camps are located in Hezbollah-dominated areas, especially in Beirut, South Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley. Recently, Shaker Berjawi - a Sunni "strongman" in Beirut who earned his battlefield stripes in the Lebanese civil war - decided to move the headquarters of his pro-Syrian Arab Movement Party to the edge of Shatila, indicating the importance of the camp's support. While maintaining a local influence over the years, he has switched political allegiances numerous times, and he is now aligned with the Hezbollah-led camp. "It seems people use us as mercenaries, whether it be for one side or the other. When he opens up his office at the entrance to the camps, he is sending a message that the camps are part of his fight," said Kattoura. 'Sacrificial lamb' But many Palestinians in Lebanon are driven by nationalist rather than sectarian sensibilities, and the camps may be able to stay out of internal Lebanese conflict. "Most of Lebanese have a view of the camps as a source of militia fighters and criminals. There is destitution and desperation, it is true, but in fact they are much less sectarian than most of Lebanese society," said Moe Ali Nayel, a Lebanese writer and activist who regularly works in the camps. "The Palestinians are used like a sacrificial lamb in Lebanon. Lebanese groups like to have Palestinians up front and then the blame can be put on us. " - Marwan Abdulal, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine And the Palestinians' time in Lebanon has cruelly taught them while their loyalty is dear, their blood is cheap, whether it be the massacre at Sabra and Shatila at the hands of Christian militias in 1982, the "War of the Camps" from 1985-87 between the Shia Amal Movement and Palestinian refugees, or the bombardment of Nahr Bared camp by the Lebanese army in 2007. "The Palestinians are used like a sacrificial lamb in Lebanon. Lebanese groups like to have Palestinians up front and then the blame can be put on us," said Marwan Abdulal, member of the political bureau for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The Palestinian camps can hope to stay detached from the conflict in Lebanon as long as the fighting is constrained to the prevailing pattern of intermittent local clashes and firebrand speeches. However, should the situation escalate, residents will be hard pressed not to get dragged into the affray. "It will be very difficult for the camps to stay aside if this descends into a serious fitna ," warned the PLO's Fathi Abou al-Ardat. "The general atmosphere, the speeches, all of it is setting the stage for a fitna . In reality, it is already here." http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/05/20135791049958517.html http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=28a_1368738408 SunniLebanese Syria vis a vis the Palestinians in Lebanon in case you were wondering Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Palestinians, FSA, SAA, Hezbollah Thu, 16 May 2013 13:55:33 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cfa_1368726435 Detroit Iron By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: May 16th, 2013 This has been a nightmare week for Barack Obama, without a doubt the worst of his presidency so far. Steven T. Miller, acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service has resigned over his agency's targeting of conservative groups, which even The Washington Post labeled this morning a "horror story" . Yesterday Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee on a host of issues including the Benghazi debacle, in what can only be described as a train wreck of a performance. Holder was simply unable or unwilling to answer most key questions, and demonstrated a level of contempt for elected officials in Congress that was breathtaking. It was yet another public relations disaster for the Obama team. In addition the administration has come under heavy fire over the Justice Department's monitoring of phone records belonging to Associated Press journalists. All this has combined to create a perfect storm in the first year of Obama's second term, a wave of scandals that has been so damaging to the standing of this administration that even The New York Times today carries the headline on its front page: "An Onset of Woes Raises Questions on Obama Vision" . When even the usually subservient inflight newspaper of Air Force One has doubts over the job the president is doing you know the situation is really desperate for The White House. George F. Will, one of America's most influential political commentators, and a columnist for The Washington Post, believes there are "echoes of Watergate" in both the IRS and Benghazi scandals. As Will wrote earlier this week: The burglary occurred in 1972, the climax came in 1974, but40 years ago this week - May 17, 1973 - the Senate Watergate hearings began exploring the nature of Richard Nixon's administration. Now the nature of Barack Obama's administration is being clarified as revelations about IRS targeting of conservative groups merge with myriad Benghazi mendacities. Will doesn't go as far as saying that Barack Obama will suffer the same fate as Nixon. After all, Obama benefits from a Senate controlled by the Democrats. But there is no denying the parallels between the sense of impunity in this White House and that of Richard Nixon's four decades ago. In fact it's considerably worse on many fronts. Political analyst Michael Barone warned back in October 2008 of what he called "The Coming Liberal Thugocracy," referring to then Senator Obama's call for his supporters "to get in their face" when confronting Republicans and Independents. Barone argued at the time that "Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Mr. Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment." Barone's predictions have been proved correct. As I've noted in previous pieces, this is a nasty, brutish, imperial-style presidency that is highly intolerant of dissent, and which goes out of its way to target political opponents. It is ironic that one of the journalists threatened by the Obama White House in recent months has been Bob Woodward, one of two Washington Post reporters who originally broke the Watergate scandal, and who was immortalised in the 1976 Oscar winner All The President's Men , where he was played by Robert Redford. Woodward was warned back in February by White House economic adviser Gene Sperling that he would "regret" remarks he made on the sequester issue. Other writers, including Bill Clinton's former special counsel Lanny Davis, have faced similar threats. Is it any surprise that conservative groups have been targeted en masse by the federal government following the kind of deeply unpleasant rhetoric used by Vice President Joe Biden, who supported the charge by Democrat Congressman Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania that Tea Party Republicans had "acted like terrorists" over the debt issue? Biden has been a master of this kind of divisive, heated language, telling union members at an AFL-CIO rally in Detroit in September 2011 that "you are the only folks keeping the barbarians from the gates." At the same rally, Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa declared : "President Obama, this is your army, and we are ready to march. Everybody here's got a vote. If we go back, and we keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son of a bitches out and give America back to America where we belong." Needless to say, President Obama remained silent on both the Biden and Hoffa remarks, and in the following year called on his supporters to take "revenge" against Republicans at the ballot box. This week, thanks to unprecedented levels of Congressional and mainstream media scrutiny of the actions of the Obama administration, the American people have been given a powerful insight into the way in which this presidency has operated. For far too long, the Obama administration has acted like an imperial court rather than a government that is accountable to the nation. The White House's culture of arrogance and impunity, coupled with a deeply unpleasant vindictiveness, is increasingly there for all to see. Suppression of political dissent, a callous disregard for the loss of American life in Benghazi, and the relentless rise of big government - these will be three of the most of enduring images of Barack Obama's imperial presidency. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100216779/why-barack-obamas-imperial-presidency-is-imploding/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cfa_1368726435 Detroit Iron Why Barack Obama's imperial presidency is imploding Obama, Eric Holder, George F. Will, Michael Barone, New York Times, Richard Nixon, Washington Post, Watergate Wed, 15 May 2013 14:51:21 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5ea_1368643023 english-patriot33 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324999/Rural-council-stops-flying-flag-St-George-claiming-offensive-Muslims-links-Crusades.html Rural council votes to stop flying flag of St George claiming it is offensive to town's 16 Muslims because of links to CRUSADES :Ban by Radstock Town Council in Somerset after councillor's proposal :Labour's Eleanor Jackson insisted flag could still cause Muslims upset :Instead a Union Jack and the LGBT flag will be flown at certain times :Bristol Muslim Cultural Society: 'It's political correctness going too far' Members of a rural town council were today branded 'stupid' for voting to stop flying the flag of St George because of its links to the Crusades - claiming it is offensive to Muslims. The ban on the red and white emblem was imposed in Radstock, Somerset, which has a population of 5,620 - including just 16 Muslim residents, according to the Office for National Statistics. Labour councillor Eleanor Jackson insisted it could still cause upset to Muslims - and officials agreed with her proposal not to buy a new St George's flag for the town's repaired civic flagpole. The university lecturer said: 'My big problem is that it is offensive to some Muslims, but even more so that it has been hijacked by the far right. My thoughts are we ought to drop it for 20 years.' Instead, a Union Jack will be flown on Armistice Day - and the rainbow flag of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender pride movement - at 'appropriate' times of the year. The council will also be flying the In Bloom flag at the Miners' Memorial Garden to celebrate the town's gardening achievements - and there are plans for a specially-designed flag for Radstock. Residents of Radstock criticised the council's decision. Pensioner Irene Burchell, 76, said: 'The council does not speak for the people of Radstock, and certainly does not speak for me. 'I think it is absolute nonsense. The St George's flag has been adopted by England for centuries. We are the only ones who never celebrate April 23 the way other people celebrate their national day. 'The only people who will be left using the flag will be football hooligans and this plays into that.' Jenny Fisher, 70, added: 'I don't think Muslims would be offended by it. Why would they? They live here. It's stupid.' But Radstock Town Council chairman Lesley Mansell said: 'We do not have a Union Jack and the discussion was mainly about purchasing one to fly mainly for Armistice Day. 'The list we saw at council included a number of other flags which councils are allowed to display - which includes those for the patron saints for England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. 'The council confirmed its original decision to purchase a Union Jack, to fly the In Bloom one and the rainbow flag at appropriate times. We are working on a new logo and when that is sorted we hope to have our own flag for Radstock.' But John Clements, vice-president of patriotic group the Royal Society of St George, condemned the council's decision as 'nonsense'. He said it was the 'censoring' of Britain's national flag which played into the hands of the far right. Muslim Council of Britain spokesman Nasima Begum said her group encouraged the flying of the St George's flag. She said: 'St George needs to take his rightful place as a national symbol of inclusivity rather than a symbol of hatred. St George actually lived before the birth of Islam and should not be associated with any hatred of Muslims.' And Rizwan Ahmed of the Bristol Muslim Cultural Society said: 'It is political correctness going a bit too far. Use by the far right is one thing, but to say that Muslims are offended I don't think is correct . 'I think if anything this will harm understanding of Muslim people, and it feeds into the ideas that some people have of "Oh, here they go again, pandering to the needs of Muslim people", when actually it is not offensive. 'We understand the flag is part of this country's heritage, and in fact many, many Muslims will identify as being British themselves. 'I can see why they have done this, but it really is too far. They are being overly sensitive, and making assumptions about what Muslims will be offended by. 'In actual fact we are normal people. We have a sense of humour and have the same concerns as everyone else - we are not just some single group.' There is no mosque or prayer centre in Radstock, meaning the few members of the Muslim community are forced to go to Bristol or nearby Bath in order to pray. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5ea_1368643023 english-patriot33 STOP flying the flag of St George because it is offensive to town's 16 Muslims islam, muslims,