Content by daetien
Posted at 5:49pm on Sep. 1, 2005 Its all Bush's Fault (Sarcasm)
By daetien
Yes, as we have been told this whole disaster is Bush's fault. People point to the chaos of New Orleans and say the flooding is his fault, the fact that people are still there is his fault, the fact that people are hungry, thirsty, without shelter, and don't know where to go for shelter is his fault.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 7:47pm on Jul. 15, 2005 A Court Victory for Common Sense
By daetien
I was browsing Captain's Quarters and noticed this post about Gitmo and the Haldman vs Rumsfeld lawsuit that alleges that the Geneva Conventions apply to Al Quaeda members and that detainees should have access to the American court system. The ruling by the appeals court said that military tribunals are legal and appropriate.
- story also covered at Powerline and Michelle Malkin
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 12:05am on Jul. 3, 2005 Time.com - Inside the Mind of an Iraqi Suicide Bomber
By daetien
Hat tip to GOPINION and Gateway Pundit
TIME continues its series of articles about the Iraq war with this winner.
Time reporter Aparisim Ghosh interviewed suicide bomber in training Marwan Abu Ubeida (a psuedonym) in Baghdad. The article opens with:
One day soon, this somber young man plans to offer up a final prayer and then blow himself up along with as many U.S. or Iraqi soldiers as he can reach. Marwan Abu Ubeida says he has been training for months to carry out a suicide mission. He doesn't know when or where he will be ordered to climb into a bomb-laden vehicle or strap on an explosives-filled vest but says he is eager for the moment to come.
So, Aparisim Ghosh managed to track down a suicide bomber who plans to kill as many americans as he can. This bomber claims he is part of al-Zarqawi's Al Quaeda group in Iraq.
The kicker is not that they interviewed him, but rather that they interviewed him and made no effort to track him down in order to stop him from carrying out his attack or to find out where he trains.
out of concern for the safety of TIME's staff, no attempt was made to track his whereabouts after he left.
Apparently Time also confirmed that he really was a suicide bomber in training through other contacts in Al-Quaeda, the insurgency, and others.
The sincerity of his desire to make himself a "martyr" was attested to by several figures-- a member of his organization, al-Qaeda in Iraq; a Baghdad-area commander of an insurgent unit that provides logistical support for al-Qaeda bombers; and a Sunni imam who is sometimes brought in to counsel bombers during their premission spiritual "purification"--whom TIME consulted through Iraqis with contacts inside the insurgency.
Another point to note is the claim that is made about US troops firing into an crowd of protesters.
Marwan joined the insurgency in April 2003 when U.S. soldiers fired on a crowd of demonstrators at a school, killing 12 and wounding many more. Marwan, who took part in the protest, escaped unharmed, but the event proved decisive. He says that a few days later, he and a few friends collected grenades and small arms from a military site abandoned by the Iraqi army and mounted an attack on a building occupied by U.S. soldiers. "They shot back but couldn't hit any of us," he recalls. "It was my first taste of victory against the Americans."
Over the next year, Marwan says, he participated in dozens of assaults on U.S. troops who were struggling to subdue the city.
So, not only is this guy a suicide bomber in training, and a member of Al-Quaeda, but he also has attacked US troops in the past. This time reporter also has contacts in the insurgency, and Al-Quaeda... hmm.. wish he would tell US / Iraqi troops about some of this stuff, but I guess that would be breaking confidentiality, which of course is worth more than saving lives.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:20pm on Jun. 30, 2005 Ahh Gitmo
By daetien
Yet another detainee has been released and has appeared in the Russian papers making torture claims.
Changing Stories, Hearsay And Hyperbole At Guantanamo covers this and shows what it is worth. (found originally through Michell Malkin's blog)
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:14am on Jun. 30, 2005 about me
By daetien
I am finding that I reveal more personal information about myself in post after post, so I figured I would write a diary entry about who I am.
My name is Daniel Tillman. I am 27 years old, married and have an 8 month old son. My wife is an Asian-American, born and raised in Mobile, AL. I was born in Ocean Springs, Mississippi, and raised in the greater Mobile, Alabama area. I was raised in a middle class household, my mother was a Catholic School teacher for 25 years and my father worked in the A/C industry. My wife and I are practicing Roman Catholics, and went to Catholic schools from k-12th grade and my current college is a Jesuit college.
I attended Mississippi State University for undergrad degrees in History and Philosophy. I loved both history and philosophy while I was an undergrad and was caught in a bind as to which I wanted to pursue in grad school. In the end I chose philosophy for the wrong reasons, based upon bad ideas about what I could gain from grad school in the area.
I then went on to Florida State for 3 years of grad school in philosophy. I left Florida State just shy of a masters in philosophy, and my emphasis there was philosophy of Biology which I studied under Michael Ruse I left for numerous reasons, one of which was that I was thoroughly sick of philosophy as a discipline. In the end, I went looking for one thing and found another. What I really wanted out of a philosophy program was a history of ideas program, and that is most assuredly not what I found - except through Ruse who valued the history of the ideas that influenced Darwin's theory and taught his classes with a bit of history thrown in. - This is not to say that he isn't a top notch philosopher, but rather it is to emphasize why he is at the top of his area of philosophy. I highly recommend several of his books, especially Can A Darwinian Be a Christian: The Relationship between Science and Religion, The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw and while I haven't read it, I would be willing to wager that this The Evolution-Creation Struggle
Currently I am enrolled at Spring Hill College working on a masters in education: social studies in order to teach secondary school (6-12th grades) social studies.
I view myself as a fiscal conservative, small government type conservative, moreso than a social conservative.
I am pro-life due to my religious beliefs, and I believe that Roe vs Wade should be overturned on grounds that it is based upon "bad" science to loosely use the term. The "bad" science is the concept of viability, I have commented more on that elsewhere already.
I support gay rights, and civil unions for homosexual couples. I am of the opinion that civil "marriages" should be renamed for all types of couples to civil unions. I believe that the republican party has historically been for equal rights since the founding of the party when Republicans fought for the ending of slavery and equal rights for the freedmen.
I have read a great deal lately on the origins of the Reconstruction Amendments, especially the 14th and recommend all socially conservative Republicans to read about the origins of our party, especially from GOP.com.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:44pm on Jun. 29, 2005 Iraq the Model
By daetien
"talk less, think more and do more"
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/06/talk-less-think-more-and-do-more.h
tml
I thought this a very appropriate blog post to bring to attention over here.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:31pm on Jun. 29, 2005 Options In/On Iraq & Their Results
By daetien
What are the options for the US in the operation in Iraq?
I divide them up because some are focused more on the troops on the ground, and others are focused on the leadership. They are interconnected however and I will try to address the interconnectedness with the results, while at the same time keeping the individual options clearly separated as much as possible.
For our troops the options are -
- Stay there until we beat the insurgency.
- Stay there until we are able to train the Iraqi's enough so that they can take over.
- Begin a slow pull out /with a definitive date set for leaving fully.
- Pull out immediately.
- Convince other countries/UN/Nato/etc to enter the area and provide support with troops.
For leadership in the war the options are.
- President Bush and the American Military retain command.
- Iraqi military forces take command and direct US troops.
- Iraqi political leaders take command.
- Convince the UN to come in and take over.
- Convince NATO to get involved and take over.
- Convince another treaty organization (NATO like) to get involved and take over.
Results of actions in regards to the troops.
- We could be there for a long long time. Not a realistic option, and Rumsfeld has already said this isn't an option really. This is the Vietnam option...stay and stay and stay but never win.
- This is the current action being taken. Eventually the Iraqi forces will be strong enough to allow a shifting of US forces home slowly and then eventually all US forces will be home. This can/will take awhile in all honesty. It could be quite a few years until the last troops are home, as I have a feeling that some will stay in an advisory role for years to come, even after the Iraqi's are doing 95% of the work.
- To do this right now would hamper the American effort in Iraq to maintain what peace can be maintained, battle the insurgency, and train the Iraqi's to take over. Having a date set for the ultimate end of the pull out would be detrimental to the effort as the insurgents would know the date and could/would change tactics based upon this. It could be argued that a date would help take the steam out of the insurgency, but while there is some merit to this argument, I personally don't think it holds up. I counter with the idea that setting a date would be seen as a victory by the insurgency because they would view their actions as having forced the date upon the US, i.e. they are chasing us out of the country and by setting a date we guarantee their victory in their eyes. This is what is being claimed by Islamic Jihad (I believe) in the areas Israel is beginning to pull out of at the moment. It is also what Hezbollah claimed when Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon.
- Pulling out immediately is the one sure way of guaranteeing a loss in Iraq.
reasons why:
a. The Iraqi military/police are not fully trained or equipped in numbers enough to beat/suppress the insurgency.
b. The Iraqi government is still very rudimentary and we owe it to the Iraqi's to help provide stability while they fully establish their new government. - i.e write the constitution, vote on it, and elect the new officials. If we pull out now, it would further undermine the stability of the government that exists now that is charged with doing these things.
5. Encouraging other countries individually to enter the fight under the current US leadership is a lost cause in my opinion. It is a fool's hope. That said, if the UN/NATO/another alliance could be convinced to enter in force it would most likely allow the US to pull out a sizeable number of troops and rotate them home for longer periods of time. The US would still most likely have a sizeable troop presence there however.
Results of options in leadership.
- This is what we have now. The US is largely in charge of military operations over there. We work in conjunction with the Iraqi's but since we are still training the Iraqi forces we are largely in charge still.
- Since we are still training the Iraqi military/police I personally do not see this as a realistic option at all. I am sure there are some very able Iraqi commanders over there, but I do not think that there are enough at the moment, or that the American public would rightly or wrongly allow the US military to be led by Iraqi's.
- Iraqi political leaders have plenty on their plate without being in charge of military operations at the moment. I do not view this as a realistic option at all.
- Convincing the UN to get involved and take over could be a good idea if:
a. We trust the UN enough with the operation.
b. We could actually get them involved - I personally do not think that they will get involved due to corruption/anti-US sentiment in the UN/sheer obstinancy.
-personally I do not think this would happen, or that the American people would really support it happening after the debacles/scandals the UN has been involved in lately.
- Convincing Nato to take over would be better than the UN I think, but if NATO hasn't entered into this already I don't think it will now. Individual member nations are involved, but NATO as an entity will not, obstinancy by some members will prevent it from happening, just like in the UN.
- See the UN/NATO comments. I don't think it will happen if it hasn't already.
I tried to cover all the possible options present and identify the realistic ones.
Honestly I see only one real option for the US.
Stay there, and in control of the military, until we have trained enough Iraqi's to take over, and then begin a slow pull-out.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:32pm on Jun. 22, 2005 Why Iraq is central in the WOT, perhaps even moreso than hunting Al-Quaeda.
By daetien
intro/about me:
this argument is based upon knowedge gained in a graduate course on Middle East Studies, taught by a native of Iran, Nader Entessar (credentials at: http://camellia.shc.edu/ir/faculty_activities_reports/Activity_Reports_02-0
3/Social_Sciences.htm )
however, it is my own argument.
note: just to put down any claims that i am of middle eastern origin - I am a Roman Catholic, born in Mississippi, and raised in Alabama. (I am of Irish/English ethnicity: i.e. i'm a pale whiteboy redhead as my wife calls me. - my wife is 3/4 asian, 1/4 white, born and raised in Alabama.)
also note: To understand the culture of the middle east it is vital to understand its history.
the history of the middle east is vital to understanding my argument. the current situation in the middle east hinges upon the meddling in the region by the Europeans. I have condensed the history of the region to an extreme for purposes of length. for further readings on the history see the recommended readings. Contained within the history of the region is the history of Islam. Understanding the history of Islam is also important.
Argument:
the war on terror is more than a hunt for Al-Quaeda.
Al-Quaeda is just one of many groups who hate the U.S.
establishing a democracy in Iraq might not be the same as hunting down OBL, but if successful, establishing a democratic based government in Iraq will in the long run do more to win the war on terror.
the middle east on the whole is full of problems. many of the opinions/hatred of America date back to the time when the Middle East was part of the European colonial empires. As Europe faded from power/influence in the middle east, the US took up where Europe left off. The old hatred by the Arabs against the Europeans (who basicly got away with murder in the region) was transferred rightly/wrongly to the US. Islam, for the majority of its history, and at its roots, is a very tolerant religion. The militant, hateful form of islam that is practiced by the extremists/terrorists/supporters is partly a reaction to the European influence/meddling in the Middle east. Islam was a unifying factor and since political outlets for their problems were denied to the people, the people turned to Islam. Some people twisted the accepting nature of Islam into the form that the terrorists believe in, and since these twisted forms promise people a way out of the hopeless circumstances many find themselves in, people believe in it. It has become for many the only hope of a better future, and it is easier to believe their circumstances are completely the fault of Americans/Europeans than it is to accept the idea that their circumstances are a result of a combination of factors, including the involvement of the Europeans/Americans. By establishing a true democratic/republican form of government in Iraq, assuming it is successful, we provide an outlet for the people to improve their situation that does not hinge on terrorist activities against the US, and provide an example of what the people of other nations in the region could have. (and i mean republican not as in the party, but as in the form of government practiced in the US because we are not a true democracy) it will take a long time to change the opinions of those in the middle east, such that they do not hate us, and the successful establishing of a democracy/republic in Iraq is a step in the path to change those opinions.
In order to win the war on terrorism in the middle east, it is necessary to change the hearts and minds of those living there so that they are favorable of the US. Simply hunting down Al-Quaeda and other similar groups is a losing battle, and in the end will backfire on us - propoganda will make it out that those captured/killed by the US were not true members of the terrorist organizations and will inflame more people against us.
while the reasons for going into Iraq are debated constantly, I believe and will/do/have argued that success in the war on terror does hinge upon the success of the Iraqi Republic. If Iraq fails, the war on terror will suffer a major setback, a setback that the US may not recover from for decades. If Iraq fails, we may as well bring our troops home and deploy them along our border and depend upon the cooperation of other governments in rounding up terrorists in other countries. Even if the goverments of the other countries call for US troops to capture terrorists, etc, we should be VERY careful of actually sending them. The leaders of the middle east are, in many cases, very very different than the people they govern. The leades often have much less influence upon their people than the terrorist organizations. If the leaders call us in, and we take out some terrorists, the ones who remain will use propoganda to recruit even more members than we captured/killed. The common people in many countries, Nigeria for instance, believe OBL is a great leader and publicly support his "crusade". The level of misinformation at ground level is extreme, and so long as the only hope for improvement in their lives rests with blaming the US and becoming a "martyr" the people will support OBL and other leades like him. If Iraq is successful, then an example of what could exist, is established and shown to the rest of the middle east. If Iraq fails, then the common prejudices/hatred/extreme dislike of the US will just be reinfoced among the common people. It is in the best interest of this nation that we make sure Iraq is successful, i don't care if you are a democrat or republican, you should support the operation in Iraq.
recommended reading (they are textbooks):
1. Understanding the Contemporary Middle East. 2nd ed. edited by Deborah J. Gerner & Jillian Schwedler.
2.The Politics of the Middle East. by Mondte Palmer.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 6:29pm on Jun. 21, 2005 History Speaks
By daetien
I was doing some research recently for a graduate course on the Civil War and Reconstruction. The focus of my research was on the Reconstruction Amendments. While this may not seem to have much relevance to topics of current discussion, i believe it to be.
The Republican Party was founded back in 1854, and a central tennant was its opposition to slavery.
Moderate and radical Republicans argued for the limiting/abolition of slavery on many different grounds.
One of the most relevant arguments was based on the Declaration of Independence, which states that all people have certain inalienable rights, namely due process when it comes to the loss of life, liberty and property. Note, it says all people, not all citizens. Republicans argued that EVERYONE had this right.
Another argument against slavery was based on the restriction of rights found in the Constitution. Southern slave states restricted the right of freedom of speech. Anything that could be construed as enticing a slave to desert their master was illegal and could be punished by death in some cases. Thus abolitionists could not go to the southern states and even discuss slavery.
why are these two things important today?
Gitmo and the arguments surrounding it.
the prisoners at Gitmo, while not being subject to the Geneva conventions, and not having the same rights as U.S. citizens, these people do have the right to due process. This was written into our Constitution at the founding, but expressly stated with the 14th amendment.
John Bingham: "It must be apparent that the absolute equality of all, and the equal protection of each, are principles of our Constittution, which out to be observed and enforced in the organization and admission of new States. The Constitution provides, as we have seen, that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. It makes no distinction either on accounts of complexion or birth - it secures these rights to all persons within its exclusive jurisdiction. This is equality. It protects not only life and liberty, but also property, the product of labor. It contemplates that no man shall be wrongfully deprived of the fruit of his toil any more than his life. The Constitution also provides that no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, nor by any State of the Union. Why this restriction? Was it not because all are equal under the Constitution; and that no distinctions should be tolerated, except those which merit originates, and no nobility except that which springs from the practice of virtue, or the honest, well-directed effort of brain, or hearth, or hand? There is a profound significans in this restriction of the Constitution. It is an announcement of the equality and brotherhood of the human race." Jan 15, 1857 - note: Bingham was one of the primary authors of the 14th amendment.