Check this.
The modern liberal bed wetter will not like historical facts.
Leave it to the Derb
Ouch! [John Derbyshire]
Still not yet quittin' time? All right, a little more of Alistair Horne on life in old France. Though you might want to save this one for after dinner. The subject here is François Ravaillac, who on May 14, 1610 assassinated Henri IV while the monarch was stuck in a traffic jam.
On 27 May, still protesting that he had acted as a free agent on a divinely inspired mission, Ravaillac was put to death. Before being drawn and quartered, the lot of the regicide, on the Place de Grève scaffold he was scalded with burning sulphur, molten lead and boiling oil and resin, his flesh then torn by pincers. Then his arms and legs were attached to horses which pulled in opposite directions. One of the horses "foundered," so a zealous chevalier offered his mount; "the animal was full of vigour and pulled away a thigh." After an hour and a half of this horrendous cruelty, Ravaillac died, as the mob tried to prevent him receiving last rites. When he finally expired,
the entire populace, no matter what their rank, hurled themselves on the body with their swords, knives, sticks or anything else to hand and began beating, hacking and tearing at it. They snatched the limbs from the executioner, savagely chopping them up and dragging the pieces through the streets.Children made a bonfire and flung remains of Ravaillac's body on it. According to one witness, Nicholas Pasquier, one woman actually ate some of the flesh. The executioner, supposed to have the body of the regicide reduced to ashes to complete the ritual demanded by the law, could find nothing but his shirt.
Phew! Still, at least he wasn't subjected to water-boarding.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODEyNDYyODE0ZWE2MzUxMzgxYjkxZDAxZTU0ZjNkMmE=
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Youtube war vids
from WJS Opinion Journal.
ouch!
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110010956
THE WESTERN FRONTNot According to Script Hollywood gets shown up by pro-war YouTube videos and a didactic antiwar cat. BY BRENDAN MINITER Friday, December 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
The guns of war have fallen silent for Hollywood. Studio executives, who could once count on Americans filling theaters for just about any war movie they produced, are finding this year's war flicks to be a bunch of duds. "Lions for Lambs," Robert Redford's case against the war in Afghanistan, is a flop. It stars Mr. Redford, Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise and may not make back its $35 million price tag. Brian De Palma's "Redacted" played to empty seats. Even "The War," Ken Burns's much-anticipated World War II documentary that aired on PBS in September, met a less-than-explosive reception.
But Americans haven't lost their taste for war footage. They've just found a better place to see the type of war film they actually enjoy watching. Some of the hottest videos on YouTube are of actual battles that have taken place in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is footage that often hasn't made its way onto the nightly news or CNN--although some of it has--but it's largely unadulterated film that shows American soldiers in action, bringing the full weight of American military might to bear against the enemy. And in most of these films, it's clear who the enemy is.
Some of the are amateur productions and others are professionally produced, such as two films that have drawn about 700,000 viewers each: "Insurgent Snipers vs. U.S. Marines," put together by the History Channel, and "Iraq Marine Battle Fallujah." In the latter, U.S. Marines are seen assaulting Fallujah. The film, just 4 1/2 minutes, plays to the tune of Dire Straits' 1985 hit "Brothers in Arms," and is a better tribute to the men who fight the nation's wars that anything Hollywood has put out since John Wayne's 1968 film "The Green Berets."
Another film, this one billing itself as "Iraq War (The Great Footage Ever!)," was posted in February and has already drawn more than 1.3 million viewers. It runs a little less than 10 minutes and features shots of U.S. military attack aircraft and U.S. Marines in Iraq. The Marines, who fill the final half of the film, are shown kicking in doors, burning photographs of Saddam Hussein, and blasting insurgents with seemingly every weapon in the U.S. arsenal. It's raw, upfront military aggression targeted at bad guys, interspersed with lighter moments of kicking soccer balls around with Iraqi children and training Iraqi soldiers. It too is compelling video.
Yet another film winning attention--"Battle on Haifa Street, Baghdad, Iraq"--was posted nine months ago and has been seen by more than 1.8 million viewers. In nearly three minutes of combat footage, viewers can watch a battle scene play out where American and Iraqi soldiers attack and appear to kill insurgents in urban Baghdad. Another short film--"U.S. Marines in Iraq Real Footage Warning Graphic"--plays to American rock music, runs just five minutes. It is an adrenaline rush all the way through and has been seen by some 1.1 million people.
Not every online film is pro-war. One, available here, is a 23-minute discussion of whether the Iraq war is illegal under international law. Narrated by a talking cat, it has been seen by more than 600,000 people. It's anyone's guess how many of them have actually been swayed by the cat's arguments.
Today cameras are ubiquitous and production software is easy enough to use that nearly any American with an interest in doing so can put together a film and post it online for public viewing. That many of the videos showing up on the Internet are just as or even more compelling to watch than what Tinsel Town throws up on the silver screen is both an indictment of Hollywood as well as an opportunity. It's of little mystery now what kind of war films consumers want to see. Most of them involve the good guys winning.
Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.
ouch!
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110010956
THE WESTERN FRONTNot According to Script Hollywood gets shown up by pro-war YouTube videos and a didactic antiwar cat. BY BRENDAN MINITER Friday, December 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
The guns of war have fallen silent for Hollywood. Studio executives, who could once count on Americans filling theaters for just about any war movie they produced, are finding this year's war flicks to be a bunch of duds. "Lions for Lambs," Robert Redford's case against the war in Afghanistan, is a flop. It stars Mr. Redford, Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise and may not make back its $35 million price tag. Brian De Palma's "Redacted" played to empty seats. Even "The War," Ken Burns's much-anticipated World War II documentary that aired on PBS in September, met a less-than-explosive reception.
But Americans haven't lost their taste for war footage. They've just found a better place to see the type of war film they actually enjoy watching. Some of the hottest videos on YouTube are of actual battles that have taken place in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is footage that often hasn't made its way onto the nightly news or CNN--although some of it has--but it's largely unadulterated film that shows American soldiers in action, bringing the full weight of American military might to bear against the enemy. And in most of these films, it's clear who the enemy is.
Some of the are amateur productions and others are professionally produced, such as two films that have drawn about 700,000 viewers each: "Insurgent Snipers vs. U.S. Marines," put together by the History Channel, and "Iraq Marine Battle Fallujah." In the latter, U.S. Marines are seen assaulting Fallujah. The film, just 4 1/2 minutes, plays to the tune of Dire Straits' 1985 hit "Brothers in Arms," and is a better tribute to the men who fight the nation's wars that anything Hollywood has put out since John Wayne's 1968 film "The Green Berets."
Another film, this one billing itself as "Iraq War (The Great Footage Ever!)," was posted in February and has already drawn more than 1.3 million viewers. It runs a little less than 10 minutes and features shots of U.S. military attack aircraft and U.S. Marines in Iraq. The Marines, who fill the final half of the film, are shown kicking in doors, burning photographs of Saddam Hussein, and blasting insurgents with seemingly every weapon in the U.S. arsenal. It's raw, upfront military aggression targeted at bad guys, interspersed with lighter moments of kicking soccer balls around with Iraqi children and training Iraqi soldiers. It too is compelling video.
Yet another film winning attention--"Battle on Haifa Street, Baghdad, Iraq"--was posted nine months ago and has been seen by more than 1.8 million viewers. In nearly three minutes of combat footage, viewers can watch a battle scene play out where American and Iraqi soldiers attack and appear to kill insurgents in urban Baghdad. Another short film--"U.S. Marines in Iraq Real Footage Warning Graphic"--plays to American rock music, runs just five minutes. It is an adrenaline rush all the way through and has been seen by some 1.1 million people.
Not every online film is pro-war. One, available here, is a 23-minute discussion of whether the Iraq war is illegal under international law. Narrated by a talking cat, it has been seen by more than 600,000 people. It's anyone's guess how many of them have actually been swayed by the cat's arguments.
Today cameras are ubiquitous and production software is easy enough to use that nearly any American with an interest in doing so can put together a film and post it online for public viewing. That many of the videos showing up on the Internet are just as or even more compelling to watch than what Tinsel Town throws up on the silver screen is both an indictment of Hollywood as well as an opportunity. It's of little mystery now what kind of war films consumers want to see. Most of them involve the good guys winning.
Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
isalm/iran again
This is the same group of f*cko's that banned women riding bicycles because of thigh motion or something.............
Very pathetic the supposed feminists of The West, this is a real issue but they would rather in fight with us righties than challenge real inequity.
Of course us righties won't cut off anyone's heads like those islamo guys
from NRO, link at the end
I Wonder if the Spooks Noticed This One [Michael Ledeen]
Yeah, the nuclear issue is important to the mullahs, but not as important as boots. Women's boots, that is. This is probably too delicate an issue for the male chauvinist fluffmeisters over at the Intelligence Community—the guys who wrote their celebrated Estimate on the Iranian nuclear weapons program (NOT), but it turns out that the mullahs, in their relentless efforts to ban fun from Iranian life, are cracking down on women again. Top to bottom, so to speak. Hats aren't good enough, and boots that show the shape of the ankles are verboten.
Tehran, 12 Dec. (AKI) - Women have been banned from wearing boots and on the streets of Tehran.Police chief, General Ahmad Radan, announced the ban on Wednesday saying that boots could only be worn if they were covered by pants."If boots are not covered by pants that fall to the ankles, they show the female shape and that is therefore in contradiction with Islamic dress code," said Radan.Iranian women can no longer leave home with their pants pushed inside their boots and they can no longer wear hats without a veil."A hat is not an adequate substitute for a veil or a hijab," he said. " If someone really wants to wear a hat, they can put it on the veil."
Hey, when the Muslims proclaim their caliphate it's gonna be hell for the fashion business. Maybe that's why the French are getting tougher on Iran?
h/t: Weasel Zippers
12/12 11:12 PM
Very pathetic the supposed feminists of The West, this is a real issue but they would rather in fight with us righties than challenge real inequity.
Of course us righties won't cut off anyone's heads like those islamo guys
from NRO, link at the end
I Wonder if the Spooks Noticed This One [Michael Ledeen]
Yeah, the nuclear issue is important to the mullahs, but not as important as boots. Women's boots, that is. This is probably too delicate an issue for the male chauvinist fluffmeisters over at the Intelligence Community—the guys who wrote their celebrated Estimate on the Iranian nuclear weapons program (NOT), but it turns out that the mullahs, in their relentless efforts to ban fun from Iranian life, are cracking down on women again. Top to bottom, so to speak. Hats aren't good enough, and boots that show the shape of the ankles are verboten.
Tehran, 12 Dec. (AKI) - Women have been banned from wearing boots and on the streets of Tehran.Police chief, General Ahmad Radan, announced the ban on Wednesday saying that boots could only be worn if they were covered by pants."If boots are not covered by pants that fall to the ankles, they show the female shape and that is therefore in contradiction with Islamic dress code," said Radan.Iranian women can no longer leave home with their pants pushed inside their boots and they can no longer wear hats without a veil."A hat is not an adequate substitute for a veil or a hijab," he said. " If someone really wants to wear a hat, they can put it on the veil."
Hey, when the Muslims proclaim their caliphate it's gonna be hell for the fashion business. Maybe that's why the French are getting tougher on Iran?
h/t: Weasel Zippers
12/12 11:12 PM
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Are Journalists really this stupid???
The only thing needed for EVIL to prosper is for good men to stand back and do nothing...... can't remember who that was .
Beats me, Sherlock [Mark Steyn
From Der Spiegel, a report on how Europe's most tolerant city no longer seems quite so tolerant:
With the number of homophobic attacks rising in the Dutch metropolis, Amsterdam officials are commissioning a study to determine why Moroccan men are targeting the city's gays.
Gee, whiz. That's a toughie. Wonder what the reason could be. But don't worry, the University of Amsterdam is on top of things:
Half of the crimes were committed by men of Moroccan origin and researchers believe they felt stigmatized by society and responded by attacking people they felt were lower on the social ladder. Another working theory is that the attackers may be struggling with their own sexual identity.
Bingo! Telling young Moroccan men they're closeted gays seems certain to lessen tensions in the city! While you're at it, a lot of those Turks seem a bit light on their loafers, don't you think?
Any researchers who haven't fully signed on to the "social stigmatization" argument might like to dust off the reports following the stabbing in 2002 of Paris' first openly gay mayor, Bertrand Delanoe, by a Muslim immigrant, Azedine Berkane. Le Monde reported the views of M Berkane's neighbors:
“He was a bit like us,” said one. “We’re all homophobic here, because it’s not natural.”“It’s against Islam,” said another. “Muslim fags don’t exist.”
As I say somewhere in my book: If you think Iraq's Kurds and Arabs, Sunni and Shia are incompatible, what do you call a jurisdiction split between post-Christian secular gay potheads and anti-whoring anti-sodomite anti-everything-you-dig Islamists? If Kurdistan’s an awkward fit in Iraq, how well will Pornostan fit in the Islamic Republic of Holland?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzllMzVjMmI4MGVkODMzZmU3ZWFkMmY0ZWY1ZDhlNjA=
Beats me, Sherlock [Mark Steyn
From Der Spiegel, a report on how Europe's most tolerant city no longer seems quite so tolerant:
With the number of homophobic attacks rising in the Dutch metropolis, Amsterdam officials are commissioning a study to determine why Moroccan men are targeting the city's gays.
Gee, whiz. That's a toughie. Wonder what the reason could be. But don't worry, the University of Amsterdam is on top of things:
Half of the crimes were committed by men of Moroccan origin and researchers believe they felt stigmatized by society and responded by attacking people they felt were lower on the social ladder. Another working theory is that the attackers may be struggling with their own sexual identity.
Bingo! Telling young Moroccan men they're closeted gays seems certain to lessen tensions in the city! While you're at it, a lot of those Turks seem a bit light on their loafers, don't you think?
Any researchers who haven't fully signed on to the "social stigmatization" argument might like to dust off the reports following the stabbing in 2002 of Paris' first openly gay mayor, Bertrand Delanoe, by a Muslim immigrant, Azedine Berkane. Le Monde reported the views of M Berkane's neighbors:
“He was a bit like us,” said one. “We’re all homophobic here, because it’s not natural.”“It’s against Islam,” said another. “Muslim fags don’t exist.”
As I say somewhere in my book: If you think Iraq's Kurds and Arabs, Sunni and Shia are incompatible, what do you call a jurisdiction split between post-Christian secular gay potheads and anti-whoring anti-sodomite anti-everything-you-dig Islamists? If Kurdistan’s an awkward fit in Iraq, how well will Pornostan fit in the Islamic Republic of Holland?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzllMzVjMmI4MGVkODMzZmU3ZWFkMmY0ZWY1ZDhlNjA=
Muscular Christianity
I'm an admitted islamo-basher.
I'm not fearful of them(an islamophobe), I despise them and think they are 3rd world f#cks who should mind there manners.
The reason the islamic world is the third world is their culture.
There is no peace without VICTORY
The limp wristed Liberals need to buck up or convert to Islam, then we know who our enemies are.
Taking a stand [Mark Steyn
The Washington Post's "On Faith" section offers some hilariously convoluted prose by Professors John L Esposito and John O Voll on the current scene. Opening sentence:
In a world in which Islamophobes blur the distinction between the barbaric acts of Muslim extremists and terrorists and the religion of Islam, two recent legal decisions in Sudan and Saudi Arabia will reinforce accusations that Islam is an intolerant religion.
As John Hinderaker at Power Line points out, that's "one of those sentences where the second clause takes away what the first clause asserted". The second sentence is almost as good:
After years of civil war and bloodshed and having failed to effectively respond to what some describe as genocide in Darfur, Sudan’s government and judiciary have captured global attention with...
"Having failed to effectively respond to what some describe as..." Think we've got enough weaselly qualifying speed-bumps in there, lads? Shouldn't it be "Having been accused by some of failing to respond as effectively as has been argued they might have done to what some might describe as genocide if they weren't on top of all the nuances as we are..."?
Messrs Esposito and Voll now get down to the meat of their piece: Their main problem with tossing British schoolteachers in the slammer over teddy-bear names and giving 19-year old Saudi women 200 lashes and six months in jail for the crime of getting gang-raped isn't that blameless grade-school teachers are getting imprisoned and rape victims are getting lashed, but that such stories play into the hands of "right-wing extremists" who paint stereotypical portraits of Islam as intolerant. And that's a bad thing - not the lashing and jailing, but the right-wing stereotypes:
At a time when Islam is under siege from Muslim extremists and extremists from the Far Right in Europe and America, the judiciaries of Sudan and Saudi Arabia have managed to reinforce the vilification of Islam...
Fortunately, the professors offer an easy solution. Instead of writing about torturing women, we should all torture our prose style into equivalist mush suggesting Islam is no different from the Buddhists or Episcopalians or any other religion in having its overheated elements:
All our futures depend upon an ability to agree upon a global ethic, based upon mutual understanding and respect, that transcends our religious and cultural differences. Whatever our differences, there can never be an acceptable excuse for injustice and intolerance in the name of our religions.
Who are these guys? As the sign-off explains:
“On Faith” panelist John L. Esposito is professor of religion, international affairs and Islamic studies at Georgetown University. He also is founding director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.
John O. Voll is professor of Islamic history and associate director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding
Ah. That I understand
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTdiY2IyMTE4ZDM5MmM3MzQxYWI2Y2MyODNlMjcyNzU=
I'm not fearful of them(an islamophobe), I despise them and think they are 3rd world f#cks who should mind there manners.
The reason the islamic world is the third world is their culture.
There is no peace without VICTORY
The limp wristed Liberals need to buck up or convert to Islam, then we know who our enemies are.
Taking a stand [Mark Steyn
The Washington Post's "On Faith" section offers some hilariously convoluted prose by Professors John L Esposito and John O Voll on the current scene. Opening sentence:
In a world in which Islamophobes blur the distinction between the barbaric acts of Muslim extremists and terrorists and the religion of Islam, two recent legal decisions in Sudan and Saudi Arabia will reinforce accusations that Islam is an intolerant religion.
As John Hinderaker at Power Line points out, that's "one of those sentences where the second clause takes away what the first clause asserted". The second sentence is almost as good:
After years of civil war and bloodshed and having failed to effectively respond to what some describe as genocide in Darfur, Sudan’s government and judiciary have captured global attention with...
"Having failed to effectively respond to what some describe as..." Think we've got enough weaselly qualifying speed-bumps in there, lads? Shouldn't it be "Having been accused by some of failing to respond as effectively as has been argued they might have done to what some might describe as genocide if they weren't on top of all the nuances as we are..."?
Messrs Esposito and Voll now get down to the meat of their piece: Their main problem with tossing British schoolteachers in the slammer over teddy-bear names and giving 19-year old Saudi women 200 lashes and six months in jail for the crime of getting gang-raped isn't that blameless grade-school teachers are getting imprisoned and rape victims are getting lashed, but that such stories play into the hands of "right-wing extremists" who paint stereotypical portraits of Islam as intolerant. And that's a bad thing - not the lashing and jailing, but the right-wing stereotypes:
At a time when Islam is under siege from Muslim extremists and extremists from the Far Right in Europe and America, the judiciaries of Sudan and Saudi Arabia have managed to reinforce the vilification of Islam...
Fortunately, the professors offer an easy solution. Instead of writing about torturing women, we should all torture our prose style into equivalist mush suggesting Islam is no different from the Buddhists or Episcopalians or any other religion in having its overheated elements:
All our futures depend upon an ability to agree upon a global ethic, based upon mutual understanding and respect, that transcends our religious and cultural differences. Whatever our differences, there can never be an acceptable excuse for injustice and intolerance in the name of our religions.
Who are these guys? As the sign-off explains:
“On Faith” panelist John L. Esposito is professor of religion, international affairs and Islamic studies at Georgetown University. He also is founding director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.
John O. Voll is professor of Islamic history and associate director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding
Ah. That I understand
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTdiY2IyMTE4ZDM5MmM3MzQxYWI2Y2MyODNlMjcyNzU=
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)