[BEE] U.S. — Fast-food chain McDonald's has officially surpassed the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the number of shooters apprehended in 2024.
Despite having thousands of highly trained agents tasked with stopping violent mass shooters, the entirety of the FBI was bested by a single part-time McDonald's cashier.
"Not again," sighed Director Wray, handing over his resignation. "I don't know how McDonald's does it. How did they beat us at arresting shooters, all while making perfectly crispy fries, a solid breakfast, and surprisingly good coffee? We just can't compete with the golden arches."
In light of this development, Congress has announced all FBI agents will be required to do an apprenticeship at McDonald's to hone their craft. "If you can't beat them, join them," said Congressmen Rand Paul, explaining the new measure. "Every agent will spend time working the drive-through and cashier lines as we work to bring the FBI up to McDonald's level. They will learn how to catch bad guys and cook delicious nuggets. It's a no-brainer."
At publishing time, the DOGE had announced to save costs, it will simply replace all FBI agents with current McDonald's cashiers.
#1
The Bee is at it again, telling truthful stories will get your satire agenda taken away.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
12/12/2024 10:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
In light of this development, Congress has announced all FBI agents will be required to do an apprenticeship at McDonald's to hone their craft
Well, Trump did it, and look how that worked out.
#5
Ref 6 above
Precision in language is always essential in dealing with the government protestations of innocence.
"Notably, the OIG found no evidence that the FBI had deployed undercover agents within the crowds. We found no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6," it said."
Not that other agencies might have had agents, employees or paid contractors undercover,
[Breitbart] Actor-comedian Bill Burr said he loves how health insurance CEOs are now fearing for their lives following the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
Burr, never a man to color inside the lines of political opinions, issued his thoughts on the assassination of Brian Thompson when speaking on his Monday Morning Podcast this week.
“You know what’s annoying me about this kid who killed this CEO? None of these news programs are talking about the incredible lack of empathy from the general public about this because of how these insurance companies treat people when they at their most vulnerable, after we’ve all given them our money every fucking month, and now we finally need you and all you do is deny us; and then these pussies and all of these things are taking the pictures of their CEOs off their websites,” he said.
As Breitbart News reported, health insurance CEOs began removing photos and names from company website after left-leaning journalists like Taylor Lorenz began publicly posting them online.
Burr referred to health insurance CEOs as “selfish, greedy fucking pieces of shit” and celebrated them fearing for their lives.
“I gotta be honest with you, OK? I love that fucking CEOs are fucking afraid right now. You should be! By and large, you’re all a bunch of selfish greedy fucking pieces of shit; and a lot of you are mass murderers,” he said. “You just don’t pull the trigger. That’s why it looks clean. That’s why these people look — ‘Oh my god, he was just, you know walking into a hotel.’ It’s like, OK, well what was his job? What did he do? What was the results of it?”
#1
I have a lot of mixed feelings about the insurance CEO and his murder. First he is a criminal. He ran a program to take over health institutions by not paying them and then buying the clinics and offices before they went into bankruptcy. This is something the mafia does. Then he did the same to pharmacies. So he then controlled the entire medical network for millions of people that could not get care. He directed policies for 22% of all medicare/Medicaid patients. All the while with a 30% plus denial rate. The plan is people would die during the appeal process, or when legal action took place. No one in DOJ was listening as ten of thousands of people suffered at his profit making scheme. He was worse than Al Capone, Bonnie and Clyde, or even Enron execs. He hurt the most vulnerable, the sick people who paid for insurance only to be cheated out of it causing pain and death. If our justice system cared, even a little bit, drastic actions would not be needed. The new CEO doubled down on this process and gave a "Full steam ahead" message to employees. Ya, the CEO did not deserve to be murdered, he deserved to be raped daily in prison.
The media is screaming, to include FOX of how terrible this was calling the shooter a coward etc... They do this because big pharma owns them all, Pharma is the #1 advertiser on all major networks.
While murder is definitely wrong I ask this. Mr Penny was found innocent for killing a man that was threatening to kill people, the shooter killed a man that was killing people. When our justice system refuses to act, people will take actions into their own hands.
This is a dilemma Plato would love to have discussed... The shooter could have screamed at the top of a mountain, no one was listening. Now we all know more about the fraud, greed, and systematic pain and suffering United did to Americans, whats next???
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
12/12/2024 2:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I just heard the reward was denied for the McDonalds employee that turned the shooter in.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
12/12/2024 2:29 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Ref #1: They do this because big pharma owns them all, Pharma is the #1 advertiser on all major networks.
#5
Big Pharm, Big Health. Just who ordered everyone to get mandatory health insurance*? The government. How's all that regulatory collusion working for the market? In a truly open market would you hang around a company with high levels of denial? The great thing about it for Obamanics is that the institutions get all the blame not the pols who assembled this concoction.
#6
What has me paying attention is the reaction by the proletariat. Most have no idea of Thompson's actions but they instantly recognized one of theirs "got him", where as they'd been deeply disappointed by two failed attempts to get Trump. This is only feeding their desire for more blood and they'll probably get it via copycats.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
12/12/2024 9:07 Comments ||
Top||
#7
P2K, great comment... I hadn't thought about that...
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
12/12/2024 10:20 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Ya, the CEO did not deserve to be murdered, he deserved to be raped daily in prison.
I think we should be very careful about the type of society we think we'd like to have. This CEO was never charged with a crime.
#9
No one complains when a guy with a gun in school or the mall hats killed by a citizen. No one complains when a drug kingpin gets killed in a shootout, or a terrorist gets drone zapped. But a CEO that systematically denies people healthcare in the greatest nation on earth causing pain, suffering and death reminds me of action of the nazi regime. Our government has done nothing but five us to participate in this murderous sceme. Ya, there is a special place in prisons for men that hurt children and people than are in need. This man was spared his true justice.
#11
When Obamacare was developed, the health insurance companies provided much of the statutory language.
This was the deal. The govt knew that the only way to may healthcare affordable (or close to that) was to control costs. How to do that. The Govt did not want to be the 'bad guy' denying medicine, denying service, etc. So they got the insurance industry to do it by promising them a lot of leeway in insurance cost and a lot of leeway in supervising medical service.
and, btw, a number of health insurance companies are non profit and they deny claims sometime also
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
12/12/2024 12:53 Comments ||
Top||
#12
This CEO was never charged with a crime.
Seems to be a lot of that going on recently.
Mine is doing its level best at hosing us; rumor has it our state's insurance commissioner is our insurance commissioner because that same carrier hosed her, too.
And the -unsubstantiated- rumors about certain carriers basically hinting to their clients to get the jab or be priced out.
It would be fun to get a survey of how many in Stewart's audience were for Obamacare.
#13
The purpose of Obamacare was never to reduce healthcare costs. It was to drive toward universal government healthcare — Medicare for all — and to make the intervening step as uncomfortable as possible to punish the deplorables for their temerity in objecting. And in fact, the introduction of the Obamacare option alongside private care and expanded Medicare to those classes previously uncovered by it drove up costs while driving doctors to retire because the annoyances became so much greater than they’d already become.
My endocrinologist is for the fourth time in the past two decades the last remaining doctor in his practice, meaning once again he is caring for all the patients of the practice by himself, a number of patients cared for by about ten doctors back when I started going to him. Thank goodness Nurse-Practitioners and such have become a thing, or my appointments with him would be 30 seconds long instead of ten minutes.
Well, thinking about it, isn't that pretty much everyone in the Beltway? And if so, is this not the time to step back when they promote wacking each other for 'sport' among their flock? Just saying.
#15
Sorry, I can't join this idea that executives of legal industries deserve extrajudicial killing. At what level of the organizational chart would the justifications end? Vice President? CFO? Receptionist at a local field office.
#16
When will we discover this is a 'Trump Effect'?
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/12/2024 16:12 Comments ||
Top||
#17
As soon as they realize that the other side to their panty wetting coin of those who can't be prosecuted should receive street justice venn could include Brandon's pardonpalooza.
A CEO is assassinated, and now “wanted” posters are appearing across the country, targeting others simply for being successful. Someone even put up a highway sign calling for more murders. This isn’t just outrage—it’s mob mentality, and it’s tearing at the fabric of who we are as… pic.twitter.com/bXP3PqOapm
Back in the good old days, I read Lester Grau's narrative on the Battle of Grozny from the website of the US Army's Office of Foreign Military Studies. You can find one of his works published in 1996 here. Not the same as the article I read, but it is engaging if interested in this period of Russian military history.
Like me, Grau is a student of Russian military history, and has a number of books published on the matter. by Andrey Zvorykin
[REGNUM] "Our war began on the morning of December 11, 1994... And we don't have our own Victory Day," these words of Andrei Palachev, a veteran of the first Chechen war and participant in the battles in Grozny, are perhaps typical for memoirs about the events of thirty years ago. In any case, the expression "a war without a Victory Day" is often found in the testimonies of veterans who, in the mid-nineties, were on average about twenty years old, like the Primorsky OMON fighter Palachev.
"As the poet said: "You can't make drums out of our skin - it's thin. Napoleonic plans are often pulled out of thin air," - these are already lines from the memoirs of General Gennady Troshev, who during the years of the first Chechen campaign was the commander of the Joint Group of Forces of the Russian Ministry of Defense.
The war began with the failed December assault on Grozny, cost the lives of 5 to 14 thousand “federals,” as the Russian press called Russian soldiers at the time, and ended with the Khasavyurt Peace Treaty in August 1996, which effectively handed victory to the Islamists and separatists of “Ichkeria”*.
"DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES"
"Any war is started and ended by politicians. Can the political decision to send troops in December 1994 be considered an adventure? To some extent, yes," admitted General Troshev, for whom Grozny was no stranger - he spent his childhood there. "To some extent" - because by the end of 1994 there were clearly no other ways, except military ones, to liquidate the criminal-terrorist regime that had seized power in Chechnya. But seized it at least with the connivance of the federal center.
In June 1991, even before the GKChP putsch, the leader of the All-National Congress of the Chechen People (ANCP), former Soviet Air Force Colonel General Dzhokhar Dudayev took control of part of the Chechen-Ingush ASSR. In July of the same year, Dudayev announced the secession of the "Chechen Republic of Nokhchi-cho" from the RSFSR and the USSR.
The federal leadership of the time — President Boris Yeltsin, Vice President Aleksandr Rutskoi, and Supreme Council Speaker Ruslan Khasbulatov — clearly had other things on their minds. On the eve of the collapse of the USSR, for example, the redistribution of Union property seemed more important. Radicals from the “general democratic forces of Chechnya” were seen as allies in the fight against the “reactionary party bureaucrats.”
When on September 6, 1991, Dudayev’s “guard” stormed the building of the Supreme Council of the Chechen-Ingush ASSR, the television center and the radio house (during these events, the first blood of this conflict was shed, the head of the Grozny city council, Vitaly Kutsenko, was thrown out of a window), Khasbulatov sent a telegram to his small homeland:
“A favorable political situation has finally arisen, in which the democratic processes taking place in the republic are being freed from overt and covert shackles…”
In November 1991, the federal government tried to solve the Dudayev problem with a cavalry charge. Yeltsin declared a state of emergency in Chechnya, and to pacify the separatists, not even the notorious "two parachute regiments" were sent, but one "transport plane" with special forces of the Airborne Forces. At the Grozny airport, Dudayev's men blocked the plane and "offered" the fighters to return in a friendly manner.
THE KINGDOM OF THE "COCKROACH MUSTACHE"
While the rest of Russia was experiencing the shock of Gaidar’s reforms and was drawn into the confrontation between Yeltsin and the same Khasbulatov and Rutskoi, in Chechnya the process of the semi-disintegration of the state (which was also evident in Tatarstan, the Urals, and other parts of the weakened country) had gone too far.
By June 1992, de jure, the Russian Armed Forces had left the region, leaving the militants with a huge amount of military equipment and ammunition depots. According to the agreement signed with Dudayev by Defense Minister Pavel Grachev, the "Ichkerians" were to receive half of the arsenal - but in reality, our officers could only take their service weapons.
This is how the separatists got their army.
At the same time, the federal center continued to financially support Chechnya, which had not signed the federal treaty. Thus, in 1993, the republic was allocated 11.5 billion rubles for social payments. The money did not reach the recipients, but ended up in the pockets of the leadership of "Ichkeria", including the military leaders of the separatists.
Dudayev "stopped paying pensions to old people, teachers' salaries... Schools closed. It was enough of a primary education for us, if only they could count money," recalled a builder from Grozny, Gunki Khukiev. Only criminal elements could count money in the "independent state." The center "did not notice" the notorious Chechen avisos - the execution of a fake transaction with the subsequent "disappearance" of the swindlers. According to experts, more than 4 trillion rubles of the then rubles were received from these avisos.
They also failed to notice the displacement of the non-Chechen population - essentially, ethnic cleansing. If according to the 1989 census, 294 thousand Russians lived in the Chechen-Ingush ASSR (with a total population of 1 million 270 thousand), and 270 thousand Russians out of a population of 397 thousand lived in Grozny, then in the 21st century, about 1.9% of ethnic Russians live in the Chechen Republic, about 24 thousand people. About 250 thousand people left the republic even before the start of the first campaign.
Already in the first half of the 1990s, the rampant banditry (including armed banditry) sobered up many residents of the "sovereign state", especially city dwellers. "My brother... got nothing from the revolutionary pie, now he called his idol Dudayev nothing other than "ts1eza mekhash" (cockroach mustache). There were tens of thousands of such repentants," Khukiev recalled.
But the leaders of Ichkeria already felt strong enough to suppress any discontent. On June 4, 1993, field commander Shamil Basayev made his presence known for the first time - his fighters stormed the headquarters of the anti-Dudayev opposition, which was headed by the mayor of Grozny Bislan Gantamirov (who had previously had a falling out with Dudayev over the income from the oil business).
The Ichkerians were making plans to "export the revolution." It was not for nothing that Dudayev gave shelter to the ousted former President of Georgia Zviad Gamsakhurdia and simultaneously supported the Confederation of Mountain Peoples of the Caucasus, whose militias had recently fought against the Georgians in Abkhazia.
PROLOGUE TO THE WAR. THE "GANTAMIROV" ASSAULT
The federal center, having “blown away” Chechen separatism, decided to play its own subtle game, overthrowing Dudayev with the hands of the opposition, which became a more or less organized force after the “president of Ichkeria” dissolved the Chechen parliament.
The opposition was supported by the urban population (which was gathered under the wing of Dudayev's personal enemy, Gantamirov) and some clan leaders who did not fit into Dudayev's system. An example is the former head of Dudayev's security, Ruslan Labazanov, who spoke out against Dudayev's men on the side of the Russian Armed Forces, but was not much different from them in essence.
In the summer of 1994, a civil war broke out in Chechnya between the "president of Ichkeria" and the militants loyal to him (led by Basayev and Ruslan Gelayev ) on one side and the Provisional Council of the Chechen Republic on the other. Several "federal" tank crews appeared at the disposal of the opposition. Gantamirov and Labazanov's militia took control of the cities of Urus-Martan and Argun and on November 26, 1994, they moved on Grozny.
After the first shelling from Dudayev's men, the opposition infantry scattered, the tank crews, left without cover and not knowing the terrain, found themselves in a hopeless situation, 28 of them were taken prisoner, about 18 (data based on lists of names) were killed.
This event had a decisive impact on Yeltsin's decision to send in troops. On December 9, he signed a decree "On measures to suppress the activities of illegal armed formations on the territory of the Chechen Republic and in the Ossetian-Ingush conflict zone." A few days before, on December 1, a Russian air raid completely destroyed the planes that had been captured and bought by the separatists.
“THEY DIDN’T EVEN HAVE TIME TO COME UP WITH A NAME”
Finally, on December 11, 1994, units of the Russian Armed Forces, in accordance with Yeltsin’s decree, entered the Russian region of Chechnya.
The troops advanced in three groups. The first, under the command of Lieutenant General Vladimir Chilindin, advanced from the northwest, from the Mozdok region of North Ossetia. The second, from Vladikavkaz, under the command of Lieutenant General Alexander Chindarov, moved from the northwest through Ingushetia. The third, from Kizlyar, under the command of Lieutenant General Lev Rokhlin, headed from the northeast from the territory of Dagestan.
The overall command of the operation to restore constitutional order was entrusted to Defense Minister Grachev. "Pavel Grachev brought the army to a terrible state," Rokhlin later lamented. This concerned supplies, weapons, and the level of training of conscripts. However, it is unlikely that the problem was solely Grachev's, since he did not possess such outstanding abilities to destroy the mighty army organism to its foundations in just a few years. Structural problems in the armed forces arose much earlier.
An important point: it was difficult to talk about broad public support for the military operation. The media, controlled by media oligarchs Vladimir Gusinsky and Boris Berezovsky, broadcast if not a pro-Dudaev, then a "neutral" position. Not only liberals, but also the left opposition, including the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, criticized the operation.
Meanwhile, our group's problems began almost immediately: only the Mozdok group achieved relative success, reaching the village of Dolinskoye (10 kilometers from Grozny) the next day. The Vladikavkaz and Kizlyar groups were soon blocked and forced to either break through with a fight or bypass enemy-controlled settlements along a longer route.
Finally, 16 days after the start of the march (according to the plan, 3 days were given for the advance), all groups reached Grozny, blockading it from three sides. General Troshev later noted :
"According to some generals, the initiative for the "festive" New Year's assault on Grozny belonged to people from Pavel Grachev's inner circle, in order to coincide the capture of the city with the birthday of the Russian Minister of Defense (January 1). I don't know how serious this is. Another thing is that the operation was prepared hastily, without a real assessment of the enemy, his forces and resources, without careful preparation. This is a fact. They didn't even have time to come up with a name for this operation!"
"GOD, HELP ME BREAK FREE..."
The southern outskirts of Grozny remained unblocked. It was assumed that civilians would be evacuated this way, but in fact the militants were receiving supplies from here throughout the assault. On December 19, the first bombing attack was carried out on the city center, and on the 31st, the bloodiest battle of the war began - the storming of Grozny.
According to General Troshev, "many commanders with big stars, federal-level chiefs, believed that it was enough to go to Grozny, fire a couple of times in the air, and that would be the end of it." The military leader believed that it was precisely this method of intimidation that was the basis for the hastily approved plan to take Grozny, and, Troshev believed, it was approved "at the very top."
About 250 units of equipment entered the city with infantry cover, but the fallacy of this plan soon became apparent. The number of militants, their wide variety of anti-tank weapons, and their completely fanatical resistance were unexpected.
The units of the northern group were the most unlucky.
The fighters of the 131st Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade (better known as the Maikop brigade) received an order from the commander of the "North" group, Konstantin Pulikovsky : together with the motorized riflemen and tankers of the 81st Motorized Rifle Regiment (who had 10 tanks at their disposal), reach the city center and fortify themselves in the railway station building.
The combined group of "Maikopts" and fighters of the 81st regiment carried out the order, but by 19:00 the station they had occupied was surrounded by superior forces of militants. When reinforcements broke through here on the evening of January 1, no more than a third of the defenders remained alive. The commander of the 131st brigade, Colonel Ivan Savin, was also killed in the battle.
Captain Vyacheslav Mironov, a participant in subsequent battles in Grozny, testifies in his book I Was In This War: “As we approached the railway station, we began to come across burnt, mutilated equipment and many corpses. Our corpses, our Slavic brothers, were all that remained of the Maikop Brigade, the one that was burned and shot by the “spirits” on New Year’s Eve from 1994 to 1995. God, help us escape…”
HARD VICTORIES AND STRANGE DEFEATS
War plans had to be changed on the fly and "in the field," Troshev noted. The troops held up in other directions changed their tactics by January 7, focusing on maneuverable groups, which gradually yielded results. On January 9, the Grozny Oil Institute and airport were occupied with heavy fighting, and on the 19th, the city center and the presidential palace. The militants retreated behind the Sunzha River.
It was only on February 3 that the decision was made to close off the southern direction and completely blockade Grozny. The city was surrounded only by February 9. The Chechen capital was completely occupied by March 6, when Shamil Basayev's fighters retreated from Chernorechye, the last district in the hands of forces loyal to Dudayev.
With the fall of Grozny, the actions of the Ichkerians finally acquired a partisan character - and our army was not ready for this.
Although the entire flat part of Chechnya and most of the mountainous regions were occupied over the following months, the army was unable to actually ensure control over the territory. On the one hand, ambushes and raids by militants became frequent occurrences, and on the other, our troops repeatedly occupied the same "inhabitants", which were again captured by the separatists after the redeployment of the "federals".
"One of the peculiarities of this strange war, which literally drove us crazy, is that we passed through and cleared the same villages several times. In the end, I studied the area so well that I could fight there blindfolded," the publication "Chelyabinsk Segodnya" cited the testimony of Alexander Berezovsky, who during the first Chechen war was the head of the reconnaissance group of the 17th detachment of the special forces of the internal troops "Edelweiss".
A NEW TYPE OF ENEMY
Thus, simultaneously with the exhaustion – moral and physical – of the Russian troops, the actions of the militants became ever bolder. Beginning in March 1996, raids on Grozny became an everyday reality. In addition to guerrilla warfare, the enemy used a method of warfare for which we were even less prepared – terror.
On June 14, 1995, about two hundred of Basayev's militants broke through the border of Chechnya and Stavropol Krai and seized a hospital in Budyonnovsk. About 1,200 city residents were taken hostage, herded into the hospital buildings. After negotiations, Basayev's men were allowed to leave. At that time, 143 Russian fighters were killed (including 46 special forces), 415 were wounded, with enemy losses of 19 killed and 20 wounded.
In January 1996, Salman Raduyev's group attacked the Dagestani city of Kizlyar. At the captured helicopter base, the bandits destroyed several units of equipment and took hostages. While security forces were approaching the city, the militants captured a hospital and a maternity hospital, driving about 3 thousand more residents there. During negotiations, the terrorists, along with some of the hostages, were released from the encirclement. Retreating, Raduyev's men also captured the village of Pervomayskoye. As a result, the terrorists were released.
Also, in parallel with the military actions, the Ichkerians captured airplanes, buses, and attacked railways.
In response, Russia took the first – and sometimes successful – steps in the fight against terrorism.
Thus, on April 21, 1996, our special services managed to track the mobile communication channels of the "Generalissimo of Ichkeria" Dudayev. During a conversation with the State Duma deputy, liberal Konstantin Borovoy, two Su-24s struck the location of the separatist leader.
Dudayev's successors as "presidents of Ichkeria" - Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev and Aslan Maskhadov - could no longer effectively control the "brigadier generals" and other field commanders. This defect in the system, however, would come back to haunt him in 1999, when the gangs of Basayev and Khattab attacked Dagestan without Maskhadov's knowledge.
THE SECOND "OBSCENE WORLD"
On August 6, 1996, the militants "turned the tide" of military operations: another attack on Grozny allowed them to take control of the city. At the same time, the separatists captured the large cities of Gudermes and Argun. The loss of three key centers, ongoing terrorist attacks, the shadow of Budyonnovsk and Kizlyar - all this demoralized the army.
Yeltsin (who had recently narrowly escaped defeat in the elections) was threatened by the political consequences of continuing the conflict. Everything was pushing the federal center of that time to conclude peace on terms unfavorable for Russia.
On August 31, in the Dagestani city of Khasavyurt, the Secretary of the Russian Security Council, Lieutenant General Alexander Lebed, and the "Chairman of the Government of Ichkeria" Aslan Maskhadov signed a ceasefire agreement. Russia was obliged to withdraw its troops from Chechen territory, and the decision on its political status was postponed until 2001.
Later, the Khasavyurt agreements were compared with another “shameful peace” – the Brest peace.
The Chechen people suffered first and foremost from the “peace”.
The "Ichkeria" of 1996-1999 plunged into chaos and became not only a "hub" for drug trafficking and a sanctuary for criminals, but also a springboard for international terrorism. Instead of national separatists like the "Minister of Culture and Brigadier General" Akhmed Zakayev or the "Chechen Goebbels" Movladi Udugov, the leading role was played by supporters of Sharia rule and a worldwide caliphate.
Maskhadov, elected president in 1997, not only failed to control his "prime minister" - the convinced Wahhabi Basayev, but also increasingly fell under the influence of foreign emissaries such as Khattab, Abu al-Walid and Abu Hafs al-Urdani. The transformation of the "Republic of Ichkeria" into the "Caucasus Emirate"*, which eventually swore allegiance to the "Islamic State"*,
…first Al Qaeda then later ISIS, but do go on…
was entirely expected. Just as the "export of jihad" was a matter of time, resulting in the attack on Dagestan in August 1999.
THREE BOGATYRS SQUARE
To correct political mistakes (which had been accumulating since the early 1990s and, in fact, led to the war) and miscalculations of the military command, whose Napoleonic plans did not always correspond to their capabilities, the Second Chechen Campaign was needed, no less difficult, but ended in success.
A change in political leadership, a clear national policy and a change in the quality of military planning played their role. During the second campaign, the Russian army proved its combat capability, which it has repeatedly confirmed subsequently - in the defense of South Ossetia, in peacekeeping operations - and is confirming now, in the SVO zone, where units from Chechnya are also proving themselves.
General Troshev died in 2008, having witnessed the beginning of the restoration of the republic under Akhmad-hadji and Ramzan Kadyrov — the military leader writes about the beginning of reconciliation in the finale of his memoirs. The afterword contains a vivid image. In one of the squares of Grozny in the 1970s, a monument was erected to three heroes of the Civil War: the Russian Odessan Nikolai Gikalo, the Chechen Aslanbek Sheripov and the Ingush Gapur Akhriev. "The people immediately nicknamed this place "the square of the three heroes," the general recalled.
Under Maskhadov, there was a slave market here, near the monument, and executions were carried out here according to Sharia law. “The war destroyed the monument to the representatives of three nations. But the pedestal remained. Maybe the monument will be restored, or maybe a new one will be erected?” Troshev wondered and added, “I believe that nothing will ever destroy the surviving foundation, not even the war, which left a deep mark on people’s souls.”
In 2008, Friendship of Nations Square was opened in Grozny after reconstruction, with a restored monument to the “three heroes”.
[NYPOST] Five weeks after Election Day, The New York Times
...which still proudly claims Walter Duranty's Pulitzer prize... just came out with a useful explainer on one of the voters’ top concerns: the Biden illegal-immigration surge.
All the news that’s fit to print . . . once it doesn’t matter for Democrats ...every time you hear the phrase white people, white supremacy,white anything but paint, you're listening to a Democrat. Ask him/her/it to reimagine something for you; they do that a lot, though not well. They can hear a dog whistle a mile or two away. They invented the spoils system and Tammany Hall, and inspired the addition of the word (Thomas) Nasty to the English language. They want to stop continental drift and repeal the law of unintended side effects... ?
David Leonhardt, the Gray Lady’s crack numbers guy, lays out key info (all of which has already been reported in The Post): "The immigration surge of the past few years has been the largest in US history," and, "Total net migration during the Biden administration is likely to exceed eight million people" — "a faster pace of arrivals than during any other period on record, including the peak years of Ellis Island traffic."
The result: "the share of the US population born in another country" hit "a new high," 15.2%, topping the 1890 figure of 14.8%.
And even: "the Biden administration’s policy appears to have been the biggest factor" in the surge. Really?
Leonhardt even names some "downsides, including the pressure on social services and increased competition for jobs," and how the surge will reduce "wage growth for Americans who did not attend college" — which is a win for higher-income folks who thus pay less for services.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2024 2024-12-12 00:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under: Migrants/Illegal Immigrants
#2
It’s like the push pollsters herding towards the true result in the two weeks before an election. The Feds and Media are scrambling to herd to the truth that will surely be outed come January.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
12/12/2024 9:09 Comments ||
Top||
[NYPOST] Per leftists, snarks National Review's Jim Geraghty, progressive prosecutors implementing ''no cash bail, dropping charges, charging the minimum crime and pursuing minimum sentences'' and ''declining to prosecute two-thirds of those arrested'' have no effect on crime rates.
Indeed, ''it's just terrible luck'' those policies keep on ''generating a spike in violent mostly peaceful and property crime!''
''The most famous and infamous'' such DAs is Manhattan's Alvin Bragg ...Soros-owned and operated Manhattan DA. Putting vicious and blood-thirsty criminals in jail only makes them unhappy, and they've led such hard lives after all... , whose ''Javert-like pursuit of Trump over old business filings while the city suffered from a post-pandemic crime surge added to the perception that the Democrats ...every time you hear the phrase white people, white supremacy,white anything but paint, you're listening to a Democrat. Ask him/her/it to reimagine something for you; they do that a lot, though not well. They can hear a dog whistle a mile or two away. They invented the spoils system and Tammany Hall, and inspired the addition of the word (Thomas) Nasty to the English language. They want to stop continental drift and repeal the law of unintended side effects... obsessed over anything and everything Trump did while ignoring serious and worsening problems in the lives of the ordinary citizenry.''
Bragg ''won the biggest case of his career. And all it cost him was everything else.''
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2024 00:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
[American Greatness] Whether American presidents are successes or failures is measured by their major foreign and domestic actions. That has been the historical standard by which they are weighed and which defines their legacy. Some presidents are outstanding in every respect. Washington defined the American presidency. Lincoln saved the Union and kept foreign powers, most importantly Great Britain, from intervening to aid the South. Most presidents are heavily mixed; Buchanan employed the Army to suppress the Mormon Rebellion, but his monumental failure was that he did not act to stop the Civil War. Lyndon Johnson’s failure in Vietnam defined his presidency. Richard Nixon had many successes in foreign policy, but Watergate was his demise. Jimmy Carter failed abroad and at home.
With just over 40 days left, Americans are nearing the end of the Biden administration, and so it is fitting to provide an assessment of it and to place it in historical context. By any metric from American history and by any objective standard used to measure his predecessors in the White House, the Biden administration has been a catastrophic failure for the American people. Were that it was otherwise. An old man suffering from the horrors of dementia is a tragedy. Biden is not only a dementia patient but also President of the United States. It is clear that now he is more dementia victim than he is president. He cannot stay awake at international meetings and other fora, and he seems to willingly accept the deliberate snubs. Accordingly, as hard as it is to acknowledge, given that he is the President of the United States, world leaders, and Americans know that he has no business being in the nation’s highest office. This impacts all Americans and U.S. national security, and it is important to recognize facts that impact national security as they are, rather than as we would desire them to be.
In the years to come, the fiasco of the Biden administration will be explained by multiple factors. We may certainly anticipate that presidential historians will argue that his dementia was debilitating and precluded him from effective leadership, or that his presidency was just a Potemkin Village. Others may assess that Barack Hussein Obama was actually in control through his direct intervention and via surrogates like Susan Rice—who overreached in pushing a radical Marxist agenda. At this point, no matter the causes, it is essential to document the Biden administration’s failures and to learn from them as a cautionary tale about the disastrous impacts of the worst president in American history. Of course, we note that his greatest catastrophes may be yet to come.
In domestic policy, Biden destroyed the economy, inflation returned with a vengeance, and America’s borders were opened intentionally. This caused a flood of illegal immigration. Immigration took an unprecedented turn, even an unimaginable one; the U.S. government entered the business of importing people, some 12 to 15 million, and thereby funded the cartels and other criminals and criminal organizations. The true numbers will not be known until Trump comes into office and reveals how this happened and the true impact and parameters of the problem. Another domestic failure has been the massive increase in the federal deficit—one that impacts every American, as well as our national security posture. Likewise, energy security was compromised, and America’s energy independence was lost. These domestic disasters reveal the spirit of the American people was targeted deliberately—in order to usher in a new world order based on the tenets of collectivism and top-down control rather than the principles of individualism, freedom, and liberty.
[RT] With each passing day since October 7, 2023, the contours of the regional processes unfolding in the Middle East become increasingly clear. That day — a watershed moment for the entire region — left behind a multitude of questions that remain unanswered.
One of the most formidable intelligence agencies in the world, Israel's Mossad, failed to foresee or prevent the attack by Paleostinian groups, sparking widespread astonishment.
However,
death is not the end. There remains the litigation over the estate... beneath this shocking event lies a series of deeper processes, steadily propelling the region toward profound transformations. Mechanisms that once seemed hidden are now becoming more apparent, revealing a deliberate design to reshape those nations that long resisted Western influence and expansion.
On the morning of December 8, the region was shaken by news that, until recently, seemed unimaginable: Damascus had fallen to the forces of opposition and terrorist groups. The Ba'ath Party's rule under President Bashir al-Assad has been effectively destroyed. Assad's disappearance and the silence from official sources only amplified the sense of irreversible change.
Following a prolonged war with Hamas ..one of the armed feet of the Moslem Brüderbund millipede,... and the near-total defeat of Leb ...an Iranian satrapy until recently ruled by Hassan Nasrallah situated on the eastern Mediterranean, conveniently adjacent to Israel. Formerly inhabited by hardy Phoenecian traders, its official language is now Arabic, with the usual unpleasant side effects. The Leb civil war, between 1975 and 1990, lasted a little over 145 years and produced 120,000 fatalities. The average length of a ceasefire was measured in seconds. The Lebs maintain a precarious sectarian balance among Shiites, Sunnis, and about a dozen flavors of Christians, plus Armenians, Georgians, and who knows what else? It is the home of the original Hezbollah, which periodically starts a war with the Zionist Entity, gets Beirut pounded to rubble, and then declares victory and has a parade. The Lebs have the curious habit of periodically murdering their heads of state or prime ministers... 's Hezbollah, international and regional actors shifted their focus to Syria, a key player in the 'Axis of Resistance®' against Israel. Syria, which had long served as a cornerstone of Iranian policy in the region, became the latest link in a chain of nations succumbing to mounting internal and external pressures.
These events appear to be part of a broader scenario aimed at fundamentally altering the political and social landscape of the Middle East. With the weakening of key participants in the Axis of Resistance® — from Paleostinian groups to Syria and Lebanon — a crucial question arises: Who will be the next target of this rapidly unfolding plan? The fate of the region, as well as answers to pressing questions about the role of external forces in these developments, remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: The Middle East will never be the same again.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2024 13:45 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11139 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
The Middle East will never be the same again.
They'll still be at each others throats. Players change but the game doesn't. Being sat upon by the Ottomans or the Europeans only gave them a false sense of tranquility.
Prime Minister Netayahu's Message to the Iranian People: "Your oppressors spent over 30 billion dollars supporting Assad in Syria. After only 11 days of fighting, his regime collapsed into dust." pic.twitter.com/njhjXyHmmF
Text taken from the website of Elijah J. Magnier. The rest of the text is in Russian and behind a paywall.
[ColonelCassad] Rapid military developments in Syria, without resistance from the Syrian army, led to the fall of President Bashar al-Assad and his unopposed departure from Damascus. This transition was the result of high-level negotiations between key players, including Turkey, Russia and Iran. However, the surprises in the Middle East are far from over; they are only just beginning with this transition of power and the attempt to create a new state with very different standards.
One of the key reasons for the rapid fall of the Assad regime was the strategy employed by the advancing forces in the towns and villages they captured, especially in the countryside of Idlib, Aleppo and its surroundings (apart from isolated extremist actions), but also in Hama, Homs, Damascus and southern Syria.
The attackers deliberately distanced themselves from the brutal tactics that had united the world against the forces fighting the Syrian army since 2011.
This shift in approach allowed the regime to collapse like a snowball rolling down a mountain, with minimal resistance as one city after another surrendered. The orderly surrender occurred without significant bloodshed after protracted negotiations led by the main mediators: Turkey, Iran, and Russia.
Russia and Iran lost a staunch ally and a strong base in the Middle East, leaving Turkey as the dominant power. Istanbul provided military support to the advancing forces, coordinated their operations, and carefully directed their actions through a joint operations room. Under Turkish leadership, these forces achieved all of their objectives in areas previously controlled by the Syrian army. However, they did not extend their success to areas controlled by U.S.-backed Kurdish forces in the northeast, where power extended to Deir ez-Zor and Raqqa.
Syria remains deeply divided, with the northeast under Kurdish control, Israel expanding its occupation of new Syrian territory in the south, and no unified factions that could form a cohesive ruling authority. Instead, Prime Minister Mohammed Ghazi al-Jallali has been appointed to lead an interim administration running the country. What events have brought Syria to this point, and what does the future hold?
As head of the interim administration, Prime Minister al-Jallali will likely be responsible for the day-to-day functions of the state while preparing it for a longer-term transition. This includes maintaining basic governance, preventing a complete collapse of institutions, and overseeing negotiations to achieve a more permanent political settlement. Al-Jallali will have to navigate deep divisions as he works with opposition groups, external actors, and the remnants of the Assad-era bureaucracy. His ability to manage these relationships will determine whether Syria can move toward stability. His appointment signals to the international community that Syria is attempting to rebuild itself within a framework that combines continuity and change. However, it also raises questions about whether genuine reform is possible with a figure associated with the previous regime. Al-Jallali’s leadership during the transition will set the tone for Syria’s transition. Whether he can maintain stability and steer the country toward a new political structure will depend on his ability to build consensus among internal and external actors.
His tenure will likely determine whether Syria moves toward unity or remains divided and uncertain.
Many factions in Syria have united under the leadership of the Repel Aggression Coalition, forming a single alliance that includes groups such as Jaysh al-Izza, Jaysh al-Ahrar, Faylaq al-Sham, Al-Quwat al-Mushtaraka, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zinki, the Sultan Murad Brigade, Ansar al-Tawhid, Suqour al-Sham, Ahrar al-Sham, the Sulayman Shah Brigade, the Al-Hamza Division, and the Turkistan Islamic Party Brigades. Among them, Ahrar al-Sham and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham stand out as the largest and most influential.
A call has been announced for a “National Transitional Council” (NTC) to unite all elements of the revolution. This comes after Abu Muhammad al-Julani said that existing institutions would remain under the current prime minister in order to maintain stability following the unexpectedly rapid collapse of the Syrian government’s control over major cities.
However, the path forward remains uncertain. It is not yet clear how the state will be governed in the coming weeks or who will lead the effort to draft a new constitution and prepare for parliamentary elections. The main challenge will be creating a coherent governance structure and reconciling the diverse and often conflicting ideologies of the combined factions.
As these factions, with their different backgrounds and agendas, try to forge a unified vision for Syria’s future, questions remain about who will wield ultimate authority and how they will navigate the complexities of building a functioning state.
The success of this fragile alliance will likely determine whether Syria can move toward stability or remain divided and uncertain.
The creation of the National Transitional Council highlights the enormous challenges of uniting disparate factions into a coherent governing structure. While the Repel Aggression coalition suggests a temporary convergence of interests, the long-term sustainability of such an alliance remains questionable.
Factions within the NTC span a wide range of ideologies. Groups such as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and Ansar al-Tawhid advocate sharia-based governance of Syria. Their extremist vision risks alienating moderate factions and potential international supporters. Large groups such as HTS and Ahrar al-Sham may claim disproportionate influence, risking the marginalization of smaller factions and internal disunity. At the same time, Ahrar al-Sham and Faylaq al-Sham combine Islamic principles with nationalist aspirations, seeking a pluralistic model of governance that includes diverse Syrian groups.
On the other hand, factions such as the Sultan Murad Brigade and the Turkistan Islamic Party Brigades include foreign fighters and minorities, and they pursue unique goals, complicating the prospect of national unity. Smaller factions often support democratic or technocratic governance, which can conflict with the dominant Islamist forces in the coalition. These differences highlight the difficulty of creating a common vision of governance and policy.
Israel has formally abandoned the 1974 disengagement agreement with Syria, declaring its intention to renegotiate the dynamics on the border. In a bold move, Israel captured Mount Hermon and several villages in Quneitra, declaring Syria an open battlefield and signaling its intention to advance further into Syrian territory with blatant disregard for international norms. The Israeli Air Force conducted a sustained campaign, systematically attacking and destroying more than 100 strategic targets, including Syrian air defense systems, ammunition depots in Damascus, and key installations at several airports across the country, further weakening Syria’s already depleted defenses.
On the other hand, Russian forces, deployed on the Syrian-Israeli border primarily for stabilization following the Syrian civil war, acted as a buffer between Israeli and Syrian forces, preventing escalation. They were stationed primarily in the Quneitra and Golan Heights areas and served as intermediaries, restraining both sides from aggressive actions that could lead to a wider conflict. However, their presence was also a symbol of Russia’s influence in the region and its role as a security guarantor for the Assad regime.
Recent events have forced Moscow to abandon these positions due to the security risks to its soldiers, creating a vacuum that has allowed Israel to expand its operations and consolidate its control in southern Syria.
No international power has stepped up to defend Syrian sovereignty or oppose Israel’s annexation of additional Syrian territory. For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the occupation of parts of Syria represents a major achievement in Israel’s strategic ambitions. Not only does the move strengthen his political position at home, it also reinforces Israel’s territorial and military dominance at a key moment in the evolution of the Middle East’s geopolitical situation.
Moscow, which has provided refuge to Bashar al-Assad and his family, has announced that it remains in touch with all parties involved in Syria, maintaining a pragmatic approach toward the new authorities. However, uncertainty hangs over Russia’s strategic presence in the region. The possible loss of the Khmeimim and Tartus military bases would be a significant loss, as these facilities provide the only access to the warm waters of the Mediterranean, a critical geopolitical asset for projecting influence in the region.
Since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2012, Turkey under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has taken a firm stance against President Bashar al-Assad. Erdogan has repeatedly stated that his goal is to visit Damascus and pray at the Umayyad Mosque. Today, with the fall of Assad, this goal seems achievable, cementing Turkey’s status as the “godfather” of the new Syrian leadership.
Turkey has long-term goals in Syria: securing its borders, countering Kurdish autonomy, and strengthening its influence in northern Syria. To this end, Ankara has used military action, economic integration, and support for opposition groups and jihadists. However, achieving these goals depends on Turkey’s ability to balance domestic political objectives, regional rivalries, and international interests.
Turkey has established zones of influence in regions such as Afrin, Jarablus, and al-Bab, where it exerts significant administrative, economic, and military influence. Turkish currency and goods dominate local markets, and the establishment of schools and cultural institutions has helped spread the Turkish language and culture.
These actions also help Turkey address its domestic challenges. It hosts more than 3.5 million Syrian refugees, and anti-refugee sentiment has become a significant political issue. By creating “safe zones” in northern Syria, Ankara aims to repatriate significant numbers of refugees, reducing domestic tensions and demonstrating its role as a stabilizing force in the region. However, such ambitions have drawn opposition from Russia and Iran, especially in light of Turkey’s resettlement of opposition-supporting Syrians in areas cleared of Kurdish forces. This process of demographic engineering is aimed at weakening Kurdish influence and strengthening Turkey’s position.
Turkey’s military campaigns and support for offensive forces are also aimed at undermining U.S.-backed Kurdish militias in northeastern Syria. Although the United States relies on Kurdish militias such as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to fight ISIS, Ankara views the alliance as a threat to its security. Turkey’s operations demonstrate to Washington that it will not tolerate a prolonged Kurdish presence on its borders, even if it means disrupting American plans to stabilize the region.
Despite the fall of the Assad regime, the fighting in Syria is far from over. Fighting continues in northeastern Aleppo between Turkish-backed forces and U.S.-backed Kurdish militias. Turkey views these Kurdish forces not as Syrian militias but as affiliates of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which is designated a terrorist organization in Turkey and internationally. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan recently underscored this position, saying that these forces are “foreign fighters who have gathered in Syria and they must all be eliminated.” The Kurdish forces remain determined to defend their autonomy and continue to receive U.S. support, creating a protracted conflict that limits Ankara’s ability to achieve its goals.
The United States, however, takes a different stance. While Washington also considers Ahmed al-Shaar (Abu Muhammad al-Julani), the leader of the task force, a terrorist, it continues to support Kurdish groups, including militias linked to the PKK, which it also officially recognizes as terrorist organizations. Yet these same Kurdish forces play a key role in protecting the American presence in Syria. U.S. forces also provide them with air cover and prevent attacks on them, creating a paradoxical dynamic. The U.S. will only recognize new leaders in Syria if there is a smooth transition.
In recent days, Kurdish forces have advanced and taken control of Deir ez-Zor and Raqqa, adding these territories to the already-held regions of Hasakah and Qamishli, which are critical to Syria’s economy and resources. The new Syrian leadership is unlikely to accept this development, as it exacerbates tensions in the northeastern region, which contains the country’s grain basket as well as oil and gas resources. This Kurdish control presents an ongoing dilemma and raises the question of federalization, especially given the different identities of the Kurds, Alawites, and Druze in Syria.
However, Turkey’s staunch opposition to Kurdish autonomy will make the creation of a Kurdish state similar to Iraqi Kurdistan much more difficult. Ankara is unlikely to tolerate even the hint of a Kurdish enclave in northeastern Syria, ensuring that the issue remains a contentious and unresolved point in the country’s fragmented landscape.
Commentary by Russian military journalist is in italics.
[ColonelCassad] In Syria over the past 75 years, not counting external wars:
1949 – three military coups, the supreme power changes as many as three times in one year
1951 – military coup
1954 – general rebellion and coup
1961 – military coup
1962 – as many as two military coups in one year
1963 – military coup, the Baath Party comes to power (one of the leaders is Assad Sr.)
1966 – military coup, where Assad Sr. is one of the main participants
1968-69 – riots in the main cities of the country, suppressed by the army
1970 – military coup, Assad Sr. comes to power
1976-82 – civil war between the Assad government and the Islamists. Mass killings in Aleppo. The city of Hama, mentioned more than once in December 2024, was completely destroyed during the fighting in 1982...
1984 - President Assad's younger brother unsuccessfully tries to overthrow his brother and seize power.
Since 1985, 20 years of relative stability begin under the harsh dictatorship of the Assad clan
2000 - Assad Sr. dies, power passes to his son
2005 - Vice President Khaddam, a close associate of his late father, unsuccessfully attempts to overthrow Assad Jr.
Since 2011 - as we all know, an ongoing war.
So 2024 and even 2025 will not be the last years of the eternal Syrian turmoil...
P.S. And what beauty was happening there throughout the 19th century! Emperor Nicholas I first thought about introducing Russian troops into Syria in 1840, when the "Egyptians" and "Turks" were once again fighting for Damascus and Aleppo during the civil strife within the Ottoman Empire.
Russian military intelligence began systematic work on the lands of modern Syria while Pushkin was still alive...
For five years, from 1834 to 1839, Russian officers worked continuously in Palestine and Syria. The first to survey the region for the possibility of military operations was Colonel of the General Staff Alexander Duhamel, who was listed as consul in Egypt. Then Lieutenant Colonel Pyotr Lvov worked in Syria. This native of the Tver province, a veteran of wars with the Turks and Polish rebels, compiled the first military map and topographic description of Syria in the style: "... here a road cut into the rock winds, and Beilan in a military sense would deserve special note."
Beilan is now the Turkish Belan in Hatay, where there are still more Arabs than Turks, and the line of the Syrian-Turkish border was recognized by Damascus only in 2011 and almost immediately "unrecognized" after Erdogan supported the internal Syrian rebellion.
But let's go back to the 19th century.
Emperor Nicholas I personally familiarized himself with the map of Syria and other documents of Lieutenant Colonel Lvov, leaving his own notes on them. As a result of this acquaintance, the lieutenant colonel became a colonel and received a lifelong pension of 2,000 rubles per year.
Following Pyotr Lvov in Syria and Palestine in 1838-39, Captain of the Life Guards Pavlovsky Regiment Joseph Dainese, assistant to the quartermaster general of the Active Army, worked. This Italian, who transferred to Russian service, compiled a "military survey map" and a detailed "Memoire sur la Syrie en 1838" (written in French, "Report on Syria in 1838").
Based on the work of Duhamel, Lvov and Dainese in St. Petersburg, the Department of the General Staff of the Ministry of War compiled the following summary in 1840: "The conquest of Syria, given the disposition of the inhabitants to the advancing army, is possible by acting from Anatolia during one 7- or 8-month campaign, but given the hostility of the steppe and mountain tribes, offensive actions, even from Anatolia, will be extremely difficult, will require a strong army and can be successful only with the slowest course of the war, special caution and inevitable sacrifices."
https://t.me/alter_vij/3365 - zinc
PS. Find Bashar al-Assad in the picture, who has recently become a Muscovite. Perhaps he will vote for Sobyanin in the elections. The Sobyanin reference refers to Sergey Sobyanin, current mayor of Moskva who is apparently running for reelection.
Posted by: badanov ||
12/12/2024 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11140 views]
Top|| File under: Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (al-Nusra)
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
...every time you hear the phrase 
...Soros-owned and operated Manhattan DA. Putting vicious and blood-thirsty criminals in jail only makes them unhappy, and they've led such hard lives after all...
[American Greatness] Whether American presidents are successes or failures is measured by their major foreign and domestic actions. That has been the historical standard by which they are weighed and which defines their legacy. Some presidents are outstanding in every respect. Washington defined the American presidency. Lincoln saved the Union and kept foreign powers, most importantly Great Britain, from intervening to aid the South. Most presidents are heavily mixed; Buchanan employed the Army to suppress the Mormon Rebellion, but his monumental failure was that he did not act to stop the Civil War. Lyndon Johnson’s failure in Vietnam defined his presidency. Richard Nixon had many successes in foreign policy, but Watergate was his demise. Jimmy Carter failed abroad and at home.
..one of the armed feet of the Moslem Brüderbund millipede,...
