The Coffeespy

British authorities have stopped a kidnapping plot linked to terrorists:

Police thwarted a terror kidnap plot when they arrested eight men in early morning raids across Birmingham this morning.

According to security sources the plot was to snatch an ordinary member of the public for an Iraq-style abduction and there was mounting speculation they would have gone so far as to behead them on video.

Those radicals are at it again, eh?  Wait, maybe they aren’t so radical.  The NY Times tells us Great Britain’s Muslim population is taking a turn for the worse:

Older Muslims were less likely than younger ones to feel punishment by death was an appropriate response to a Muslim who converts to another religion. About 20 percent of respondents over 55 thought this sounded about right, compared with 31 percent of those 16 to 24.

One third of younger Muslims feel death is an appropriate punishment for changing your religion?  Does that make it mainstream yet?

• Pajamas Media has more on the terror plot story.
• Anti-Dhimmi has some words on the steady advance of radical Islam into mainstream British life.

No, I’m not kidding.  From a Reuters story on Yahoo!:

Immigrants to the small Quebec town of Herouxville must not stone women in public, burn them alive or throw acid on them, according to an extraordinary set of rules made public by the local council.

The only thing extraordinary is that people had to be told these things.

• More clarity from the Liberal Avenger: No immigrants were harmed (or even affected) in the making of this law.  Seems it may all be a show, folks.

You know that time of December when you haul our your Christmas lights only to find you balled them up the previous year?  You stare at the mass of intertwined, rainbow bulbs and wonder if it’s possible to make a straight line out of what looks like a giant, robotic cat’s hairball.

From an Early Birded story in the Washington Post in Iraq:

A Shiite cult leader, who claimed to be a revered Muslim figure who vanished in the 10th century, was killed Sunday along with scores of fighters who were poised to attack a holy city in southern Iraq and assassinate the country’s Shiite religious leadership, Iraqi officials said Monday.

Well, that seems a little insane.  Scores of fighters, some accounts claim up to 200 armed men attacked in unison, followed this guy?  Then I read an Early Birded piece from the New York Times (in the Houston Chronicle) detailing another incident where Iraqis called in for U.S. support after being repelled by another cult on the outskirts of Najaf:

A commander in the Scorpion Brigade said the combined American and Iraqi forces killed 470 people. He also said some of the dead Soldiers of Heaven fighters were found bound together at the ankles and suggested that the chains had probably been used to keep people from fleeing and to keep them moving as one unified group.

I start to wonder with the ease the Iraqi public seems to be controlled by madmen and monsters, is it possible to allow the security forces to concentrate on threats like Iranian agents, insurgent forces, and rogue clerics?  Tangled ball, indeed.  To add an even deeper dimension, between the two stories from the WaPo and NY Times there are conflicting messages.  From the WaPo:

“This is a very clear message from the government that no one except the government carrying arms is acceptable, whether Shia or Sunni,” said Sadiq al-Rikabi, a political adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. “It reveals the firm commitment of the prime minister that any outlaw will be dealt with very strongly.”

…

“The aggressive manner in which the Iraqi soldiers performed north of [Najaf] going after the anti-Iraqi forces was impressive,” said Col. Michael Garrett, commander of the 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division, in the statement.

Then from the NY Times:

Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity of an obscure renegade militia in a weekend battle near the holy city of Najaf and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed, American and Iraqi officials said Monday.

…

The Iraqis and Americans eventually prevailed in the battle. But the Iraqi security forces’ miscalculations about the group’s strength and intentions raised troubling questions about their ability to recognize and deal with a threat.

Various cults, varying accounts.  Iraqis are standing up.  Iraqis are lying down.  They don’t need the U.S.  They do.  Maybe if I start untangling the Christmas lights in January this year I’ll be able to sort through all the wacko cultists, slanted reporting, differing views, and varied accounts so I can come to a decision as to where the U.S. and Iraq really stand by next December.

Oh, wait… I still have to untangle that ball of blue and red lights before they get too tightened up in partisan squabbling to work.  Nah, let’s just criticize whoever makes any decision at all.  Wouldn’t want to upset the status quo.

Is it a word?  I don’t know for sure, but antisensical was the first thing that came to mind when I read this piece from The Hill:

Anti-war protesters were allowed to spray paint on part of the west front steps of the United States Capitol building after police were ordered to break their security line by their leadership, two sources told The Hill.

According to the sources, police officers were livid when they were told to fall back by U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) Chief Phillip Morse and Deputy Chief Daniel Nichols. They were the commanders on the scene,” one source said, who requested anonymity. “It was disgusting.”

The account of another witness said the crowd had already stopped at a point far from the Capitol when the officers were told to fall back.  What was the reasoning here?  USCP Chief Phillip Morse explained to The Hill:

He added, “It is the USCP’s duty and responsibility to protect the Capitol complex, staff and public while allowing the public to exercise their First Amendment rights … at the end of the day, both occurred without injury to protestors or officers.”

So, graffiti on government property, not to mention national symbols, is covered under the First Amendment?  I’m just taking a wild guess that if I were to stroll down to the Lincoln Memorial this morning, color in his beard, and spray “Support Our Troops” at the base I’d likely be arrested.  USCP’s duty is to protect the Capitol complex, indeed.  When someone spray paints the Capitol in full view of your officers, Mr. Morse, and you don’t even arrest and fine them after the fact, you’ve failed in your duty.

While I am definitely a supporter of what we are doing in Iraq, and would have been even without the arguments of WMD and terrorist links, it’s important for those defending the actions over there to remember the human cost.  We pay lip service to it all the time.  But I think it’s our personal responsibility to have personal knowledge of the price we have paid and are still paying by being there, no matter the justification you use for being there.

I’ve been there as a soldier.  I know others have as well.  Some go as journalists.  Some go with charitable organizations.  Some feel the effects because their family members or close friends are there.  But there are those that are unable to go and have no connection to the war other than what they see on TV or overhear on the metro.  For these people, it’s the work of journalists like Damien Cave that give them their glimpse of Iraq.

From an Early Birded piece in the New York Times:

“Don’t freak out on me, Doc,” Sergeant Biletski shouted to the platoon medic, Pfc. Aaron Barnum, who was frantically yanking at Sergeant Leija’s flak jacket to take the weight off his chest. “Don’t freak out.”

Two minutes later, three soldiers rushed to help, dragging the sergeant from the kitchen. A medevac team then rushed in and carried him to a Stryker armored vehicle outside, around 9:20. He moaned as they carried him down the stairs on a stretcher.

Read the whole thing, please.  It’s as worthy a story as you’ll ever find in a newspaper in my estimation.  If I could shake Mr. Cave’s hand, I would.

• From the Left - The Common Ills calls Cave’s story “rah rah” reporting and largely condemns the account, implying that the story was probably edited or at least reviewed by the government.
• From the Right - Villainous Company says the story is meant to take a U.S. victory and show a U.S. defeat.  He blasts the times for ignoring the life and the fallen Staff Sergeant and focusing only on his death.

I’d say with the Right and Left taking polar opposites on their opinions of the piece, it might just fall somewhere in the center, hm?  In my humble opinion, this story shows that there is defeat in victory, heroism in fear, determination in despair, and a cost even when the cause is worthy.

Note: Many thanks to the Moderate Voice for linking to this post.

Amidst cries of “blood for oil” on one side and “eff you moonbat” on the other, you have an Iraqi law being looked at that some say was what “the Americans” were hoping for.  From an Early Birded story by AP:

Reports in the Middle East said the proposal would provide for so-called product-sharing agreements that would give foreign oil companies 70 percent of the oil revenues to recover their initial investments then allow them 20 percent of the profits with no tax or restrictions on transferring funds abroad.

From the Left you’ll hear “told you so” and from the Right you’ll hear something about tinfoil hats.  Stripping away the spectrum, let’s look.

The law would make it possible for companies from any country in the world to take advantage, according to the report.  So there would be competition.  That’s capitalism.  The company with the best processes, most attractive offer, and best marketing to the Iraqis will come out on top, theoretically.

In addition, “the Americans” didn’t propose the law and vote on it.  That’s what the Iraqis did.

Now to the concerns… did “the Americans” put some Iraqis up to proposing the law?  Well, that’s possible.  Will “the Americans” have some accrued brownie points in taking advantage of it?  Again, that’s possible.  Heck, I’d even say probable.  But you know, every time something occurs that gives the U.S. an advantage, it’s not a conspiracy.  Sometimes, it just works out.

What about the law in general?  Well, I think it’s a bad move.  Why export your best asset and then allow all the profits to leak out of the country?  It didn’t work for Latin America in the twentieth century unless you happened to already BE wealthy.  It increased class differences, retarded the growth of a middle class, and pretty much guaranteed they’d be where they are now: categorized as the “third world.”

Final analysis: Bad law - potential payoff for the U.S. - conpiracy theories will increase exponentially if passed.

Learn Stuff 

• While I’m not big on the anti-oil crowd, there is a pretty good “against” article at Platform.
• There’s also a fairly good list of stories leading to where Iraqis are now with their oil law on Niqash.
• A longer AP story, I think the last paragraph sums it up nicely.

The fastest man alive is in need of a serious overhaul.  The rebooted series had a lot of promise but has failed to deliver.  From issue one, the Flash has had its problems.

The writing team of Bilson and Demeo aren’t breaking enough new ground for me to care about reading and it takes them a long time to develop many of the story points.  In fact, I had a lengthy discussion at the comic shop a few days ago on how the Griffin, quite possibly the lamest villain idea in recent memory, was poorly done.  In a single issue, the lackadasical roommate of Bart Allen is transformed into a superpowered menace who, in a fashion completely unrelated to his powers or even explained at all, understands the hi-tech equipment he gets from S.T.A.R. labs.  Unfortunately, it takes nearly all of the first six issues of the series to chronicle the rise and fall of the Griffin…

What happens next?  The Flash goes from being threatened by his roommate to having to face a teenager: Inertia.  Ugh.  Worse, Inertia is soon to become a villain of mastermind-like proportions when he builds a small team of adult supervillains to take on Flash in issue 9.  I’m left wondering why any one of the villains mentioned would follow the kid.

On to the art… it’s inconsistent at best.  Proportions are off, shading is weird in a lot of scenes.  A good example is issue 6 at the bottom of the page where Flash pulls the Griffin out of the water and onto the shore of rubble.  The bottom picture profiles the Flash.  His head is huge, almost Roswell-like, and his left arm seems to have withered into uselessness.  Also, the Flash is the only thing in the picture with intense shading.  Going back to issue 1, when Bart meets Valerie Perez it’s the exact same problem.  In the top right panel it’s huge head, withered arm, he’s shaded into obscurity.  That’s six issues of learning that didn’t happen.

Word at the shop is the Flash is getting a whole new creative team.  Issue 8 was definitely an improvement art-wise.  I’m hoping they’ll get into some real Flash storylines and develop Bart a little bit.  Issue 8 seems to be headed to some sort of character development with Bart saying he’s going into forensics and moving to L.A., but then we’re saddled with Inertia being his protagonist so it’s a toss up.

Actor-vists Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins were joined by an old hand at grandstanding for causes not understood by the grandstander:

FOR HER next act, Jane Fonda has entered the fight against the Iraq war.

Towards the end of Saturday’s anti-war rally Fonda stood onstage with the Capitol behind her and addressed the tens of thousands of protesters. “I haven’t spoken at an anti-war rally in 34 years,” she said. But “silence is no longer an option”.

Silence is always an option, and one only the wise exercise.  You’ll remember Fonda from such hits as “American POWs aren’t tortured in North Vietnam” and “U.S. soldiers are war criminals.”  You’ll remember Fonda lipped a much publicized apology for having her picture taken behind a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun in 2005, when her latest movie happened to be screening.  What you may not remember is the end bit to that series of carefully worded “I need some credibility back” press tours:

“Both sides were using the POWs for propaganda.  It’s not something I will apologize for.”

Ah, so she regrets taking a bad picture…

Snopes.com has the full story complete with sources for all self-rightous, self-important, empty-headed Fonda fare including several apologies over the years for, well, you can decide what for.

Before today, I lumped Sarandon and crew into that group of mentally lazy actors believing their fortunes gave them the right to have their opinions heard.  Now I see they’re dangerously out of touch.  They forget that there are two sides in a conflict: those who attack and those who resist.  The insurgents are resisting a free Iraq.  That’s something these actor-vists can’t get behind because they have no idea what it’s like to fight for anything other than a leading role.

• The Crazy Politico believes Fonda’s wearing political dentures.  Personally, I think she ‘bites.’
• I can only assume Onegoodmove forgets that Jane was not only an anti-war activist, but an active North Vietnamese supporter when they say, “Welcome back Jane, and thanks; your voice still rings true.”  Did it ‘ring true’ when she said U.S. soldiers weren’t tortured in the North?  I suspect the only ‘ringing’ that was heard had to do with the Bells of Meme.
• Blue Star Chronicles doesn’t pull punches and actually has full Fonda quotes rather than the pared down version the Post used.  Speculate on WaPo’s motives yourself.
• Little Green Footballs has pictures of other parts of the rally.  At first I thought maybe the celebrities drew the focus from those who may actually have something substantial to say, but after seeing the ‘giant duck of peace’ I’m really doubting there was any meaningful discourse to be had.

Note: The ‘news story’ claims that the Hanoi Jane moniker was what “conservatives” called Fonda.  In fact, that’s what a majority of Americans called Fonda in the years after we realized what a disservice we had done to your soldiers in that conflict.  That’s not a “conservative” label by any means.

It’s going to be comic books this morning.

DC seems intent on killing off The Question, which highly annoys me.  In this week’s “52″ title, Montoya of Batman fame drags a cancer-ridden Question to the one place on Earth his ailing body can sustain itself: Nanda Parbat.  He expires en route leaving Montoya at the gate of the fabled city.

Now DC is also running the Helmet of Fate miniseries which will show us the journey of the now vacant mask as it selects a new Dr. Fate.  Last week it went to Detective Chimp and this week visits Ibis, an obscure occult character.  I’m hoping for one of two events to occur:

1) The Question is visited by the helmet and claims it becoming the new Dr. Fate or

2) Ralph Dibny, who has spent some time with the helmet, becomes the new Dr. Fate.

Neither is likely to occur, in my opinion.  I’m wondering if they’re actually going to give it to Montoya.  This would be in line with DCs new “progressive” character line-up.  Montoya is a former lover of the new lesbian Batwoman.  Montoya’s a fairly cool character and I wouldn’t say I’d mind it, but I think it’d be a cop-out.

Any other choices are going to leave me thinking they picked names out of a hat.

They’re going for nukes:

Last week, Tehran informed the IAEA that a long list of its members would no longer be allowed to enter Iranian territory. The decision came after hard-line government elements demanded a harsh reaction to the U.N. Security Council’s vote to impose limited sanctions on the Islamic Republic over its refusal to stop enriching uranium.

They’re going for space (read: battlespace):

Iran has converted one of its most powerful ballistic missile into a satellite launch vehicle. The 30-ton rocket could also be a wolf in sheep’s clothing for testing longer-range missile strike technologies, Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine reports in its Jan. 29 issue.

They’re going down in Iraq:

The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran’s influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.

The only thing that surprises me here is that shooting Iranian agents rather than using a fishing limit policy is a change.  Catch and release?  We’re talking about spies and insurgent coordinators, not salmon and trout.

• Blue Crab Boulevard is dead on: helping the insurgents is an act of war.
• The Gun Toting Liberal urges us to understand Iran’s point of view.  However, in the analogy presented in GTL’s post I would expect any of our spies not only to be shot by the Iranians but also tortured, dismembered, and made into propaganda videos if they’re caught.