Anyone following the news can't but have noticed a substantial difference in reaction, from press, muslim organisations and diplomats alike to the french journos taken hostage by the really truly absolutely fringe element that is decapitational Islam.
This then begs the question: What is different? Why suddenly this outcry, where previously the tenor used to be "sad, but it was to be expected"?
The idea that somehow the French, by grace of having supported the regime of Saddam Hussein, acquired a magical aura of immunity for its nationals is so mind-boggingly stupid that it doesn't pass the giggle test. Indeed, french nationals have been killed as early as January this year.
Then the independent variable must be that the actual demand of the would-be decapitators is, relatively speaking, too far-out even for contemporary terrorism standards. It's one thing to demand withdrawal of troops from, or the cessation of any economic activity whatsoever with Iraq, it seems. But now, it would appear, the terrorists have gone too far and violated some unwritten causal connection rule that ought to govern terrorist demands.
But you must be stark raving mad or a journalist to begin with to think that terrorists have any use whatsoever for rules. Terrorism is what you can get away with.
When the French raise their hands to heaven and question the Gods why this ordeal is befalling them who have been always true and upright, it is not Job but the pharisees who come to mind. The terrorism was there all along, they just preferred not to see it so they called it "legitimate resistance".
Even now, the press, diplomats and muslim organisations refuse to acknowledge the presence of the elephant in the living room, and talk about mistakes. The hostagetakers have taken the wrong hostages. They are making the wrong demands. Clearly they will see this when we point this out to them and they will beat their chests, sigh, acknowledge the error of their ways and duly chastised resume the less-controversial killing of Jews and American Auxiliaries.
Or we could hunt them down and kill them all. Sometimes, simplicity has its advantages.
And we have another volunteer for the rusty chainsaw: none other than the freakazoid Renaat Landuyt, who, wants to engage in the popular activity of making traffic-violation fines income-dependent.
But why stop there? Why not vary jail sentences according to the age of the culprit? Clearly a younger person, having longer to live, should proportionally serve a longer sentence? Why not give popular politicians a voting-handicap so elections can proceed "fairly"? And why not have lawyers who lose their case share the sentence with their clients?
Ah! Enough "socialist logic" run rampage.
Voice your displeasure at firstname.lastname@example.org
A United Nations investigator has called on governments to stop whipping up exaggerated fears of terrorism among their populations, in an apparent reference to the United States and Britain.
"Undue fear can foster religious or ethnic intolerance," said the document, presented to a session of the U.N. Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
Captain Ed has some choice words on the matter:
I notice that the UN found the fears of terrorism so exaggerated that it bugged the hell out of Baghdad at the first bombing and have yet to return.
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
I for one welcome our new "Gazet van Antwerpen" overlord.
De internetredactie Van Gazet van Antwerpen wenst Luc alvast veel succes met zijn nieuwe functie en de daarbij behorende uitdagingen.
Oooh. Cheecky bastards.
We did notice but didn't report upon Flemish daily "Gazet van Antwerpen" having "to let go" its editor in chief Luc Van Loon. It may have been equal parts lazyness on our side, or just the fact that we were waiting for a more substantial report in their own columns. Better scrap that substantial.
Dit weekend heeft de directie van De Vlijt, uitgeefster van Gazet van Antwerpen, de arbeidsovereenkomst met hoofdredacteur Luc Van Loon (62) verbroken. Van Loon leidde Gazet van Antwerpen sinds 1996. Eerstdaags wordt een opvolger aangeduid.
We fired Luc van Loon. Don't ask us why, we don't have a statement prepared. Hell, we don't even have a replacement yet.
De directie van De Vlijt achtte begin dit jaar de tijd rijp om een nieuwe kracht aan het hoofd van de redactie te plaatsen. Luc Van Loon werd een andere functie binnen het bedrijf aangeboden. De onderhandelingen daarover zijn helaas vastgelopen.
We also asked Luc to participate in a charade. This being a family paper, we can't print his exact reply. It was mostly negative.
Luc Van Loon heeft acht jaar lang aan het hoofd van de redactie gestaan. Hij voerde talloze vernieuwingen door en gaf Gazet van Antwerpen in korte tijd een nieuw elan. De directie betreurt de afloop van deze zaak en beklemtoont dat dit ontslag geen afbreuk doet aan de prestaties van Luc Van Loon in het verleden.
By convention, we have to say a few good words about Luc. Again, we can't print what we really think about that a**hole.
Notorious blogger LVB (also a Luc) keeps silent on the matter on his blog, but those frequenting some obscure or trashy usenet groups may have noticed his gratuitously juxtaposing the fact of other-Luc's dismissal with that of Tony Martens, head honchette of Concentra, owner of the "Gazet", enjoying royal favour. It's almost as if he wanted to insinuate something, but for the love of Xenu, we can't imagine what.
ADDENDUM: my lawyer nixed my original cartoon based on Luke's images, so i must circumvent with this Cartoon Construction Kit: