AD....do you think Obama knows what they think of him???

Walking Eagle" is the name given to a bird so full of **** it can no longer fly.
President BARACK OBAMA was invited to address a major gathering of the American Indian Nation two weeks ago. At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribes presented Obama with a plaque inscribed with his new Indian name, "Walking Eagle." The proud President Obama accepted the plaque and then departed in his motorcade to a fundraiser, waving to the crowds. A news reporter later asked the group of chiefs how they came to select the new name they had given to the President.
They explained that "Walking Eagle" is the name given to a bird so full of **** it can no longer fly.

Bernice:

Alert... aLeRt.... ALERT>>>>>

This clip contains severe browning!!!

The Talented Mr Shorten...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=557_1335621847

Aviva suffered a major shareholder revolt today after more than half
of the votes at its annual meeting failed to back the insurer's pay
awards.

In another sign of growing investor activism, the defeat came despite chief executive Andrew Moss this week waiving a near-5 per cent pay rise which would have taken his annual salary over the £1 million mark.

Some 50 per cent of votes placed outside the AGM went against the pay report, while an additional 9 per cent were withheld, in one of the biggest ever shareholder protest votes.

The remuneration report would have been thrown out completely had new measures to give shareholders binding votes, as put forward by Business Secretary Vince Cable and backed by investor groups included the Association of British Insurers, been brought into effect.

The embarrassing defeat follows a similar showdown between shareholders and banking giant Barclays, in which nearly a third of votes failed to back its remuneration report after chief executive Bob Diamond took a £17.7 million pay package for 2011.

Similar scenes were playing out at Hovis to Mr Kipling owner Premier Foods' annual meeting, where just over 30 per cent of shareholder votes failed to back the remuneration report.

Premier, which saw its shares slide around 70 per cent throughout 2011, paid around £3.5 million to its executives last year, including a £1.9 million "golden hello" for new chief executive Michael Clarke when he joined eight months ago.

Back at Aviva, Mr Moss was awarded a 4.6 per cent rise in March on his £960,000 annual salary but has decided not to accept the increase following talks with major investors.

Mr Moss was also awarded a £1.2 million bonus, equal to 120 per cent of salary, while Trevor Matthews, Aviva UK chief executive, was awarded a £45,000 bonus despite just joining the board on December 2.

Aviva chairman Lord Sharman apologised to shareholders at the AGM for ignoring their views when setting executive pay.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/shareholders-reject-aviva-pay-plans-7711853.html

....... In these days of austerity measures, why do those at the top of the pay ladder (like Oliver Twist) want more?

Digging their own hole comes to mind.

In light of emails and evidence given at the Leveson inquiry, It appears the Conservatives didn't know what to do about the phone hacking....

... So they asked News Corp what should No. 10's (that's Downing street .. aka the PM's residence) position be!!

... An inquiry was thought to be not a good idea.. too many skeletons.

"""Secret CIA video tapes of the waterboarding of Osama Bin Laden's suspected jihadist travel arranger Abu Zubaydah show him vomiting and screaming, the BBC has learned.

The tapes were destroyed by the head of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, Jose Rodriguez.

In an exclusive interview for Newsnight, Rodriguez has defended the destruction of the tapes and denied waterboarding and other interrogation techniques amount to torture.

The CIA tapes are likely to become central to the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/11, at Guantanamo Bay.

When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed appeared before a special military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay last Saturday, he refused to put on the headphones that would enable him to hear the translator.

His civilian attorney, David Nevin, said he could not wear them because of the torture he had suffered during his interrogation."""

Mr Rodriguez states that all the waterboarding applications took less then 10 seconds each and the total time was less than 60 minutes.

That's a possible 360 times then...

.. anyone saying waterboarding is ok here on this board willing to go through 360 drownings?

Christopher Hitchens in his try of this torture via Vanity Fair has some views on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

Abu Zubaydah vomiting? Poor baby. What did he do to deserve that?

And Khalid Sheikh Mohammed "suffered" when interrogated? Awww, that's just not right. So he killed a few thousand innocent people, sliced off a few head of people while they were alive, and plotted more killing and mayhem. That's no excuse to torture him!

I'd forget about all this torture stuff. It's bad policy. Obama's current practice is much better: Just kill them wherever you find them. Assassinate them. Send in the drones, drop a few bombs, kill a few bad guys (and some innocent people too - even kids) all in a day's work. Obama has even assassinated two American citizens with no due process and no trial. Just an "OK" and they were killed.

No mess. No press. Just some blood splatter and mangled bodies, mostly unrecognizable. That's the way to do it. Read them their rights first though:

"You have the right to be dead!" BOOM!

Artful Dodger:

And this question : ".. anyone saying waterboarding is ok here on this board willing to go through 360 drownings?"

I'm not a terrorist. I'm not worried. I say put him through 1000 more "drownings".

The nice thing about waterboarding is that anyone can do it. Sooner or later western intelligence agents will get caught and waterboarded too. It will be OK, because is not "torture".

Of course, defenders of it will prove to me that it is harmless when I see them put their own children through the treatment. If their kids puke and scream, we can all say "poor babies". But then, it is perfectly Christian to waterboard somebody until they puke and scream.

Artful Dodger:

> Obama's current practice is much better: Just kill them wherever you find them. Assassinate them.

And Bush never did that? No, Bush did better. Just put them all in Abu Graib.

Übergeek 바둑이: Always back to Bush? Because Bush did it you're saying it's ok?

Übergeek 바둑이: I agree with you on waterboarding. No to waterboarding. Just assasinate them. Drone killing. Much cleaner and you don't have to pay for their lawyer.

But are you willing to say that in ANY and ALL circumstances that waterboarding or ANY enhanced interrogation technique is a no-no?

rod03801: Yeah but if they had just blown him up they wouldn't get all this bad press about waterboarding. Heck, when I was a kid, we waterboarded all the time down at the beach!

Übergeek 바둑이: Speaking of kids, do you have any? lets say you do and they are 4 and 5 and have been burried alive in a small container with limited oxygen (4 hours). You have the guy who burried them. They will die of suffocation unless he tells you where he burried them. What would you do? (in this case I wouldn't use a drone nor would I use waterboarding - I'd Jack Bauer him.

May 15, 2012

More Drone Strikes Against AQAP in Yemen

This is getting interesting.

Long War Journal:

The
US launched two drone strikes today in a city in southern Yemen that is
currently under the control of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Seven
AQAP fighters and eight civilians are reported to have been killed in
the airstrikes.

The first strike targeted "a militant hideout" in Jaar, a city in
Abyan province that is currently under al Qaeda control, CNN reported.
The eight civilians were killed after they attempted to recover the
bodies of AQAP fighters, apparently after the unmanned US Predators or
Reapers launched a second salvo of missiles into the hideout.

This follows airstrikes and Yemeni military activity against AQAP over the weekend.

Read "civilians" as "people who just happen to hang with al-Qaeda on a Tuesday afternoon."

Come to think of it even the al-Qaeda are "civilians", they are unlawful belligerents.

"Speaking of kids, do you have any? lets say you do and they are 4 and 5 and have been burried alive in a small container with limited oxygen (4 hours). You have the guy who burried them."

Well what about the other way around.... you have older kids.. 4 or 5 of them that have chosen to join some 'cult' and have kidnapped a school bus full of kids.

One gets seen and captured by the authorities. He won't tell anyone where they are.... Would you be happy to have them tortured as 'legally' sanction by the US government to find out where those kids are??

........................ as quoted often... Jesus... Caesar... law of land.

One of your kids is a spy and gets caught. By the law of this other land, torture is allowed.

That then by the right wingers here is ok and legal.

But the pit keeps staring back.

(V): "Would you be happy to have them tortured as 'legally' sanction by the US government to find out where those kids are??"

No, I'd rather see the bus load of kids murdered. Can't have torture even if innocent people will die. Even kids. Doesn't matter. Let the kids die.

"One of your kids is a spy and gets caught. By the law of this other land, torture is allowed."

This already happens. The Taliban slices off your head. That must suck.

Artful Dodger: Ok.... so lets go back in history to past uses of water boarding and the consequences there of...

"After the Spanish American War of 1898 in the Philippines, the U.S. army used waterboarding, called the "water cure" at the time. It is not clear where this practice came from; it probably was adopted from the Filipinos, who themselves adopted it from the Spanish.[105] Reports of "cruelties" from soldiers stationed in the Philippines led to Senate hearings on U.S. activity there.

Testimony described the waterboarding of Tobeniano Ealdama "while supervised by ...Captain/Major Edwin F. Glenn (Glenn Highway)."[106]

Elihu Root, United States Secretary of War, ordered a court martial for Glenn in April 1902."[107] During the trial, Glenn "maintained that the torture of Ealdama was 'a legitimate exercise of force under the laws of war.'"[106]

Though some reports seem to confuse Ealdama with Glenn,[108] Glenn was found guilty and "sentenced to a one-month suspension and a fifty-dollar fine," the leniency of the sentence due to the "circumstances" presented at the trial.[106]

President Theodore Roosevelt privately rationalized the instances of "mild torture, the water cure" but publicly called for efforts to "prevent the occurrence of all such acts in the future.""

"The use of "third degree interrogation" techniques to compel confession, ranging from "psychological duress such as prolonged confinement to extreme violence and torture", was widespread in early American policing. Lassiter classified the water cure as "orchestrated physical abuse",[110] and described the police technique as a "modern day variation of the method of water torture that was popular during the Middle Ages". The technique employed by the police involved either holding the head in water until almost drowning, or laying on the back and forcing water into the mouth or nostrils.[110] Such techniques were classified as "'covert' third degree torture" since they left no signs of physical abuse, and became popular after 1910 when the direct application of physical violence to force a confession became a media issue and some courts began to deny obviously compelled confessions."

"Chase J. Nielsen, one of the U.S. airmen who flew in the Doolittle raid following the attack on Pearl Harbor, was subjected to waterboarding by his Japanese captors.[117] At their trial for war crimes following the war, he testified "Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again... I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death."[38] The United States hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American prisoners of war."

"Waterboarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in the Vietnam War.[122] On 21 January 1968, The Washington Post published a controversial front-page photograph of two U.S soldiers and one South Vietnamese soldier participating in the waterboarding of a North Vietnamese POW near Da Nang.[123] The article described the practice as "fairly common".[123] The photograph led to the soldier being court-martialled by a U.S. military court within one month of its publication, and he was discharged from the army.[122][124] Another waterboarding photograph of the same scene, referred to as "water torture" in the caption, is also exhibited in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City.[125]"

"The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission received testimony from Charles Zeelie and Jeffrey Benzien, officers of the South African Police under Apartheid, that they used waterboarding, referred to as "tubing", or the "wet bag technique" on political prisoners as part of a wide range of torture methods to extract information.[131][132]:pp.206 Specifically, a cloth bag was wet and placed over victim's heads, to be removed only when they were near asphyxiation; the procedure was repeated several times.[131][132]:pp.206 The TRC concluded that the act constituted torture and a gross human rights violation, for which the state was responsible..."

....................Now, if all these courts and cases state that water boarding is torture and illegal, and as such a war crime......

... How can you say it is not?

(V): I don't know why you think you need to give me a history lesson. I studied war history in college. And if you look at my posts below, I refer to waterboarding as torture. And I also say it's not the perferred way. Drone strikes are better. Better to kill them first and ask questions later. At least that's the Obama Administrations current policy. Seems ok to send in the bombs but not the water. OK, I'll go along with that.

There are better ways to question a terrorist. Electric voltage to his testicles would probably get some info. I'm not sure if that's torture though. They didn't cover that one in college but Jack Bauer used it and got lots of info.

Artful Dodger: Funny... it seems the recent and past posts of you stating that water boarding was torture and you supported it's use have ''''vanished'''!!

...almost... examples encapsulated in replies..."You say its torture, I say it's not. I want my government to have in its toolbox the right, under presidential order, to use waterboarding."

You've found 'Jesus' on torture

(V): What, now you're not happy I agree it's torture?

Artful Dodger: I'm just curious over why after 3 years odd of you supporting torture, you've now developed some common humanity on the subject.

... so you are admitting you were wrong?

(V): Sure, if it makes you happy. I was wrong.

(V): Besides, I've just moved on to killing them on the spot. That seems to be OK with the liberals and the conservatives. Maybe we can let all the terrorists go (release them in the desert) and then have a hunting party. You know, like target practice.

Artful Dodger: That would be murder, and a complete loss of moral high ground...

You didn't nick the idea from a movie like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" did you?

(V): It's not murder. Murder is a legal term and if they went to a deserted island with no laws or if done in secret, it's neither legal or illegal. Also, if we just built a ship to the moon, put all the bad guys on it, landed it on the moon with a limited amount of oxygen, they'd all die and it's not against the law. Giving someone a free ride to the moon is a generous thing. Sucks to run out of oxygen but hey, the terrorists would be closer to their heaven and they could get laid that very night by one of their 72 virgins.

And I didn't watch the chainsaw thing. So you have me at a disadvantage. I don't watch that crap.

Yale University has an excellent web site called the Avalon Project, which lists all of the documents, transcripts and pleadings from both the Nuremberg Trials and the Tokyo Trials.

Here is the actual Indictment:

There were seven individuals who were executed for war crimes
stemming from the International Military Tribunal for the Far East:

General Doihara Kenji, spy (later Air Force commander) Convicted on Counts 1, 27, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, and 54

Baron Hirota Koki, foreign minister Convicted on Counts 1, 27, 29, 31, 32, 54 and 55,

General Itagaki Seishiro, war minister , Convicted on Counts 1, 27, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36 and 54

General Kimura Heitaro, commander, Burma Expeditionary Force Convicted on Counts 1, 27, 29, 31, 32, 54 and 55

General Matsui Iwane, commander, Shanghai Expeditionary Force found
guilty of class B and C war crimes; e.g.; for his participation in the
atrocities committed at Nanking.

General Muto Akira, commander, Philippines Expeditionary Force Convicted of Counts 1, 27, 29, 31, 32, 54 and 55.

General Tojo Hideki, commander, Kwantung Army (later prime minister) Convicted of Counts 1, 27, 29, 31, 32, 54 and 55

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East_-_Sentences/id/1508175

http://www.trial-ch.org/en/trial-watch/profile/db/facts/akira_muto_82.html

None of these individuals were convicted for “waterboarding”!!
Although some of the Defendants were convicted of Count 55, which was
failing to observe and protect prisoners of war from the Allied forces
as per the laws and customs of war, it is a far far, downright
impossible stretch to conclude that any of the Generals who were
convicted and hung were convicted and executed because of their
involvement in anything that remotely resembles modern day
waterboarding!

Artful Dodger: Really.... you really think that!! You'd shot someone on an island and stand face to face to their family and say ... "it's ok I didn't break any laws"..

"Also, if we just built a ship to the moon, put all the bad guys on it, landed it on the moon with a limited amount of oxygen, they'd all die and it's not against the law."

Sounds like the Nazi's excusing the gas chambers.

"and they could get laid that very night by one of their 72 virgins. "

Like Revelations promising Christians they all go to heaven, yet all the rest of the world is burning and damned!!...

"And I didn't watch the chainsaw thing. So you have me at a disadvantage. I don't watch that crap."

Not even the likes of the George Romero Zombie films?

(V): You sure go out of your way trying to protect killers. You've even admitted you'd let your own kids die rather than waterboard a suspect to find out where he's hid them. I don't share those concerns for terrorists. I'm on the side of the innocent.

BTW, you're wrong about executions for waterboarding. Stay away from those far left websites.

Artful Dodger: What ever happened to "though shall not kill". That you say it's ok to kill the terrorists just like they say it's ok to kill anyone who they see as an enemy.

"I'm on the side of the innocent."

No just on the side of what is called 'blood lust'. If you were on the side of the innocents then you wouldn't say this...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Would you be happy to have them tortured as 'legally' sanction by the US government to find out where those kids are??"

No, I'd rather see the bus load of kids murdered. Can't have torture even if innocent people will die. Even kids. Doesn't matter. Let the kids die.


It seems like you just wanna kill islamists, just like the crusaders from old!!

(V): you have a real problem telling the difference between sarcasm, tongue in cheek, and a genuine position. Miss that class in college did ya?

(V): I missed nothing. Yer pettifoggin!

Nope... just pointing out that you seem to like the idea of killing so much.

Not very Christian.

(V): More to the truth: I like the idea of eliminating bad guys and saving the innocents. Even if that means using torture.

טז לֹא-תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל בְּעַמֶּיךָ, לֹא תַעֲמֹד עַל-דַּם רֵעֶךָ: אֲנִי, יְהוָה.

R2P

Artful Dodger: So you'd quite happily become what you say you are against!!

Hasn't history taught you anything... In the end killing does not work. You can't kill an idea.

If the USA did what you thought was a good idea, it'd have to be labelled as a terrorist state. Well, it'd have to be labelled as a state that has gone from using others (dictators/drug lords, etc) to direct acts of murder and terror.

N' in the process you'd be abandoning Jesus. Becoming an example of what is written of 'righteous' men gone wacko.. as written!!

(V): It's not terrorism trying to save lives of innocent people. That's what I'm talking about. You apparently are ok with the murder of innocent children, even your own! Amazing! I'm for pulling out all the stops and I don't care if it's "legal" or not. Why should I be concerned about some terrorist that wants to harm (kill) others? You speak of taking the moral high ground but to you that ground is letting innocent children be blown to bits! But at least you can say you didn't use torture against thugs, murderers, evil men! You just sat by and did nothing while they continued killing innocent people.

And not trying to kill an idea. Duh! Trying to kill known terrorists. BTW, your government has the same policy as does the USA.

Artful Dodger: I didn't say that. I said I was not happy to commit an act of torture.

"But at least you can say you didn't use torture against thugs, murderers, evil men!"

And become a thug, murderer and evil man in the process. Wow... Quite happy to be hellbound aren't you? Just like the Muslim version of "the book people".

"Trying to kill known terrorists. BTW, your government has the same policy as does the USA. "

Yes it does, but we are still accountable to the likes of the Geneva convention and other things.

I mean... you keep avoiding the point but, how does this idea of death and murder sit with what's in the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

.. it doesn't does it. Just as suicide bombers are breaking the word of Muhammed.

(V): Your basic position is to sit by and do nothing and let innocent people, even children, be murdered. You'd turn your neighbor in in Nazi Germany!

(V): It isn't murder to kill those who are trying to kill you and other innocent people. In fact, it's the responsibility of those stronger to protect those that are weaker. While you would let murderers kill and maim, I'd put a few hole in their heads.

Your answer is to do nothing. Maybe it's just that you have a yellow streak down your back.

Question: "What does the Bible say about torture?"

Answer: Torture can be defined as “the infliction of intense pain to punish, to coerce, or to derive sadistic pleasure.” Of course, sadism is never appropriate or just, but what about punishment or coercion? Is there ever a time when inflicting pain is justified in order to punish wrongdoing or to obtain a confession? What does the Bible say?

The Bible acknowledges the existence of torture. In a parable, Jesus spoke of a servant who was “turned . . . over to the jailers to be tortured” (Matthew 18:34). Such an allusion seems to indicate that the use of torture was common in the prisons of the day. The Bible also records the stories of many victims of torture: Jesus, Paul and Silas (Acts 16), the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 20:2; 38:6), and other unnamed saints (Hebrews 11:35). In every case, we see that the godly are the victims of torture, never the perpetrators of torture.

As individuals, we are not to seek revenge. Vengeance belongs only to the Lord (Psalm 94:1; Romans 12:19). Also, as individuals we have no authority to punish society’s wrongdoers or to extract confessions from them. Therefore, as individuals, we can have no license to torture; inflicting intense pain on others is wrong. God alone is able to mete out punishment with perfect justice, and it is His prerogative to make His punishment painful. Demons are aware of a future time of “torture” for themselves (Matthew 8:29). Hell is a place of “torment” and intense agony (Matthew 13:42; Luke 16:23-24). During the Tribulation, torment will be part of the plagues upon evildoers (Revelation 9:5; 11:10). In any of His judgments, God is holy and perfectly fair (Psalm 119:137).

(V): Yer so misguided. Where to start?

You see, killing the bad guys is what's it's all about in war. It has nothing to do with the Bible or Jesus or God. It has to do with the STATE's responsibility to keep its citizens SAFE. That is the Constitutional obligation of the US government. And IF these bozos were to come to the US, ANY US CITIZEN COULD DO THE SAME IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT.


For those of you that see it differently: Wise UP.

Artful Dodger: okies....Wised up here

Bernice:

May 24, 2012
Muhammad Raped while Bobby Stayed Mum
By Ryan James Girdusky

The cult of diversity has claimed four dozen more victims. On May 8, 2012, nine men were convicted of rape, conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with minors, trafficking for sexual exploitation, conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with children, sexual assault, and aiding and abetting a rape. All nine of the men are Muslim, eight are British Pakistani, and one is Afghani. The gruesome details of the crime are in themselves barbaric, but the responses from British police are languid and discomfiting.

The national scandal began in 2005 as the nine men in the Manchester area, some of them taxi drivers, would lure many young teenage girls, often 13 to 15 years old, with free food, drugs, and alcohol. The girls came from shoddy backgrounds; many were teenage runaways and living on social services. Once they were high or drunk, they were beaten and raped. They were passed around to other men, mostly of Pakistani descent, where they would be gang-raped by three to five men a night. One case involved a 13-year-old who became pregnant after she was gang-raped by three men. And yet another disgusting incident involved a 15-year-old who was so drunk that she threw up off the side of the bed while two Pakistani men raped her. Another involved a 15-year-old who was gang-raped by 20 men in one night.

The Telegraph stated, "There were 631 documented cases of abuse over a five-year period, and many will have been too afraid to tell their story."

The nine men were between the ages of 22 and 59. One of the men, Abdul Rauf, a married father of five, also happens to be a religious studies teacher at a local mosque. The men received a total prison sentence of 77 years.

The rapes are a tragedy -- it is a tragedy that vulnerable girls can be so easily abducted, raped, and abused. However, it is the delayed response by police and civil service in the area that is the national scandal. In August of 2008, one of the victims, then 15 years old, went to police and social workers; she provided the police with DNA evidence to back up her story of being gang-raped. Twice the police refused to prosecute. She continued to be raped by up to five men a night, four or five nights a week. Former Labour MP Ann Cryer said the silence of the Manchester Bobbies is due to the fact that they were "petrified of being called racists." The Manchester police and Rochdale social services publicly apologized, but their fears of being given the scarlet "R" were not in vain.

The accusation of racism can end public servants' careers, so oftentimes they must revert to political correctness.

Political correctness was also the fallback for most of the politicians in the House of Commons. Leading MP Keith Vaz stated that the gang-rapes were "appalling" but that it was important not to "stigmatize an entire community." He later stated, "I don't think this has anything to do with race."

However, Equalities and Human Rights Commission chief Trevor Phillips said, "I think anybody who says that the fact that most of the men are Asian and most of the children are white is not relevant, I mean that's just fatuous." Nazir Afzal, the chief crown prosecutor, who himself is a Muslim, stated that some immigrants bring "cultural baggage" with them from misogynistic societies.

The link between the crime and the girls' race is undeniable according to top officials in the Human Rights Commission, and yet most media outlets outside the U.K. still ignore the case. Had roles been reversed and it were twenty white men gang-raping a Muslim woman, the international media would not rest until there was blood in the streets. The hype of the Trayvon Martin murder is simply ignored when the victims cannot produce the narrative most multiculturalists in the mainstream media wish to project.

It is a sad day for Great Britain on the whole, not just for her victimized daughters -- for the nation which at one point had an empire so large that the sun never set on it has now been reduced to a nation of cowards. If a nation cannot perform its most basic obligation to protect its citizenry because its leaders prioritize protecting their multicultural ideology, that nation and its culture are dead. In the West, theological faith has given way to political religion -- a religion predicated upon self-deception and self-destruction, a religion, which may yet be proven to be as fatal for the West as it has so callously negligent toward these young girls. If Western civilization and all the fruit it has borne are to survive this seeming twilight, then both the ideology of multiculturalism and the cult of diversity must be defeated.