Hamas and a Loss for Words

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Gaza, Hamas, Israel

Defending oneself or a nation seems only to be considered "defense" when you are being attacked; once the trigger is pulled in response no one seems to consider it defensive any more.

The deaths of civilians (real and imagined)...blood on hands...international "outrage"...

We really should try to remember from one day to the next what has and is going on.

Highlights from the Hamas Charter (selected by Ami Isseroff):

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

Hamas Charter in full on the same page

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Hamas - Gaza and its Talibanization

A strip of land once used as a buffer for protection is now a strip of nostalgia for the days of the Taliban as Hamas tightens its grip on the land in its quest for Sharia, the Islamization of the region and ultimately the world.

"The Gaza Strip has never been idyllic. But, under Hamas, as one New York Times reporter notes, “Gaza looks like Somalia: broken and ravenous.” Hamas conquered Gaza by force. It will need to maintain its grip on power by force. This is the beginning of the Talibanization of Gaza, and the end of hope for the rule of law."

At NRO, "Hamas Rules..."

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2016024333950658065

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, The Florida Masochist, Public Domain Clip Art, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Faultline USA, Wake Up America, 4 Time Father?, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Organization of the Islamic Conference Allies in the War on Terror

It’s always a pleasure when Mark Steyn’s work at National Review is available to the general non-subscribing public because it is at that time that I feel the most comfortable quoting and linking to something he has written.

In the July 16^th issue of National Review and available at Steyn Online is “Denial is a river in Washington.” In it he takes the various Western nations governments to task in their overly obsessive PC etiquette in conducting the war on terror. Read it and enjoy, but I am posting from within his essay to the references he makes to the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Western leaders, including most recently Jacqui Smith, the British Home Secretary under Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who was quoted as saying ‘“Any attempt to identify a murderous ideology with a great faith such as Islam is wrong, and needs to be denied.”’ This is in line with Brown’s disallowing the use of the word “Muslim” in any reference or connection with terrorism, as Steyn quoted from The Daily Express, “The shake-up is part of a fresh attempt to improve community relations and avoid offending Muslims.”

How we are expected to get anywhere in the war on terror is unknowable if we cannot in all seriousness use that which recent history is providing as example I do not know.

One of those groups that work to protect the Muslim identity is the Organization of the Islamic Conference; which in and of itself is very honorable and commendable. This honor is undeserved however when one of the conferences guidelines is to identify various terrorist entities as not terrorist due to their definition of the struggle.

Quoting Steyn with four quotes from the organizations 2002 “Declaration on International Terrorism;” the four that Steyn quotes are:

“5. We reject any attempt to link Islam and Muslims to terrorism as terrorism has no association with any religion, civilization or nationality;”

Fine. Whatever. Religion-of-peace boilerplate.

“10. We reject any attempt to link terrorism to the struggle of the Palestinian people in the exercise of their inalienable right to establish their independent state with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital;”

Er, okay. That gives a pass to Hamas and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and whatnot…

“11. We reject any attempt to associate Islamic states or Palestinian and Lebanese resistance with terrorism, which constitutes an impediment to the global struggle against terrorism;”

…and that pretty much absolves Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and everybody else. So are there any actual terrorists operating anywhere today that this “International Declaration” is designed to cover?

“12. We condemn Israel for its escalating…”

Why then do we and our leaders stoop and bow to this group and others like it (C.A.I.R. anyone) as though we have the same intended outcome? We certainly do not want to offend anyone and turn them off from assisting in wiping this current scourge from the earth; but if truth offends it is not the messengers fault.

We, nor can anyone else get to the root of any problem by ignoring the basis of the problem or those involved from the very beginning.

One point of interest that Steyn did not quote was the laughable connection to the U.N. when in regard to the groups currently involved in “national” struggles as opposed to “terrorism:”

“14. We reaffirm our commitment to international action in combating international terrorism undertaken in conformity with the principles of the Charter of United Nations, including the principles of non-intervention in internal affairs and respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as international law and relevant international conventions and instruments;”

Would the conference recognize this “charter” if it hadn’t at first identified that which it refuses to see as terrorist? No it would not since it would not fit within the “charter.”

The OIC is an organization that leadership looks to in the joint effort of combating terrorism, yet the OIC’s bottom line is combating the war on terror, leaving time and space to allow for the possibility of victory in behalf of terrorist organizations. This is very apparent when one reads the Declaration on International Terrorism; and in closing the offering of the conferences “Convention on Combating International Terrorism, which begins:

“Pursuant to the tenets of the tolerant Islamic Sharia which reject all forms of violence and terrorism, and in particular specially those based on extremism and call for protection of human rights, which provisions are paralleled by the principles and rules of international law founded on cooperation between peoples for the establishment of peace;”

Wondering already where they get the gall? Read on…

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2437899208518292632

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Nuke's news and views, Webloggin, Wyvern dreams, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Right Voices, Pursuing Holiness, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Al Qaeda, Hamas, Those in Support – Pirates (I kid you not)

Disclaimer:

Skip over my introduction if you wish, by all means, BUT do not pass up the post being introduced. It can be considered lengthy, however, it is by far a very thought provoking and usable definition according to US Code Title 18, Chapter 81 regarding piracy and how this can and should be applied to those at war with this nation. This is a must read

Who in their right mind would ever consider terrorists, pirates? In the course of conversation perhaps, but truly and by what most consider a pirate to be or look like.

“Piracy is an activity, which has bounds and definitions placed upon it of which the 'swashbuckling' form of it from previous centuries is only a sub-part of the larger and broader definitions of Piracy.”

One of the debates in the Edwardian “bumper sticker war” is the outrage over those held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It is without doubt a serious question as to what it is we do with these people; if only because they are “enemy combatants” of the kind we haven’t really dealt with before in a war of the same lack of experience; a war, which will not end any time soon. So what to do with those captured and detained until the end of hostilities when those hostilities have every indication of consisting of decades time?

We know the arguments, the very basics of which are; treat them almost as though they have committed a civil crime and try them in the criminal court system with all the protections that entails or keep them locked up, gain intelligence and deal with them via military tribunal, treating them through the military community’s means.

“Enemy combatant,” “unlawful enemy combatant,” or other such nomenclature not yet thought considered?

A Jacksonian has done much research to date and finds that there is little or no need to classify or reclassify as each detained, involved, in support of whether individual, group or nation are by definition involved in piratical activity or pirates themselves.

Sound ridiculous, have your doubts or does it peak your interest? Regardless, read what has been posted to date before one considers snickering in amusement thinking they know better.

From A Jacksonian at Dumb Looks Still Free: “Why do we refuse to call terrorism for what it is?”

“I have looked at the Federal Piracy Laws in two posts: When Terrorists are Pirates, and A deeper look at Terrorism and Piracy, and why it matters.

This piece now works off of the more finalized views of the second piece, but do understand the background given in the first as necessary to this.

Piracy is an activity, which has bounds and definitions placed upon it of which the 'swashbuckling' form of it from previous centuries is only a sub-part of the larger and broader definitions of Piracy. Consider the very broad part of the US Code Title 18, Chapter 81 on this:

Sec. 1651. Piracy under law of nations

Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.

This is the very broad view of keeping the traffic lanes on the seaways open from illegitimate and unlawful attacks, seizures and other activities that put the commerce of the seas and navigation of the seaways at peril. Those that endanger such, even if they endanger NO US owned or operated vessels, are Pirates. That is more simple brigandage upon the high seas, but also delineates that Nations at War are respected in their ability to hamper shipping against their enemies that directly supports those enemies, as that is a lawfully declared purpose of Sovereign Nations. Putting war material on a passenger liner, however, is a violation of that as it comingles civilian and military affairs in wartime and is, thusly, considered to be shipping in support of the war effort of one Nation.

Beyond that, however, this is a very broad purposeful law that does NOT put forth that non-State organizations cannot be considered Pirates. In point of fact that is why the law is addressed in such a broad way: to include anyone who commits laws against Nations on the High Seas to put shipping at peril. And as Civil Law may not hold here, it is the Admiralty part of the US Armed Forces that are to apply these Laws.

Sounds ancient, doesn't it?

Consider this news report from 15 JUL 2006 by ABC News, confirmed by multiple sources:...”

READ THE REST AND FOLLOW THE LINKS TO PREVIOUS POSTS ON THIS SUBJECT

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2454549331067827652

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, Public Eye, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Friday Sermon from Iran; Iran Ready to Talk

This Friday Sermon from Iran is much shorter than usual; the reasoning for this is twofold. One, you can click the link and read the ludicrousness for yourselves and two, who cares; it’s the same garbage spouted 24/7 from Tehran.

Of the most interest is the warning and imparting of wisdom from Provisional Friday Prayer Leader of Tehran Hojjatoleslam Ahmad Khatami when he said:

“Passing a chain of resolutions against Iran is not going to solve any problem. The only solution to that problem is through negotiations, since logical and rational talks always yield fruit."

Ah, yes the “logical and rational” mind of the mullahs, leadership of the tehrrorists of Tehran. Note that resolutions is not the answer as they will get you nothing, oddly though the only yield from “talks” is more time for Iran to continue with its peaceful nuclear development.

In order to grasp rational logic one must accept that neither option bears any fruit, just like Iran bears no peace only the offer misery.

The peaceful pastor also gave warning to the U.S.’ President in reaction to his saying all options, including military are on the table with:

"The US president had also better know that the Iranian nation, too, has all options, including a big fist on the mouth, on the table for countering America severely."

Wonderful, peace be unto you but consider that while all you can muster is a “big fist on the mouth,” the U.S. could and should cut off Tehran’s communications, what little oil production and refining capacity it has, all electrical and anything else of the paltry offerings of a positive nature the Islamic Republic allows from within its borders. One on the U.S. side could say, remember how Saddam and his punks were cut-off and down? From Tehran the expected response might be, yes and look at how you have been mired in Iraq and elsewhere? At this point in these talks it might be fun to point out much like Iraq Iran would be once it has been turned upside down worse than it. Tehran could then enjoy its own quagmire within its own borders as it attempts to continue all its Middle Eastern proxies.

The situation being tough for the U.S. does not mean it would be easy for Iran; although the media wouldn’t portray it accurately like that though.

Watch your mouth and what you wish for little man. As much of a pushover the U.S. can be civility-wise, you might push just a wee bit too much sometime soon. You could then moan and whine about how much it is the U.S.’ fault, but you will know better.

On the bright side however, Secretary of Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali “Larry” Larijani said:

“Iran is ready for talks as a means for return of peace and tranquility to the region.”

Again it is very interesting and revealing that Iran is always ready to talk and repeats this as often is humanly possible; all the better to point later to the fact that Iran said, ‘it’s ready to talk.” The only problem with this is talk is what diplomats love as that’s what they’re paid to do and Iran knows the talk codeword will make those same diplomats fall all over themselves; thereby giving Iran oddly more time to continue with its peaceful nuclear development.

Iran wishes to talk overtly, whilst it sews murder, destruction and mayhem on civilians in the region of the world they claimed to be the purveyors of peace for. Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Hamas, Hezbollah and all the rest of the covert peaceful initiates that Iran embarks on.

By all means, talk that way Iran can continue its course of action. Eventually there may be peace once enough people have been killed and all submit to Iran and its dreams of Islamic hegemony over the entire planet.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/3485623235090268767

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Right Pundits, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, 123beta, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, On the Horizon, The Pet Haven Blog, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, , The Florida Masochist, Colloquium, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, Church and State, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

In Consideration of Hunkering Down and Waiting

When one reads about discussions going on at the White House between State Department lifers and supposed Hawks within the Cheney circle and one of the contentious issues is that:

the few remaining hawks inside the administration, especially those in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office who, according to some people familiar with the discussions, are pressing for greater consideration of military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.”

One has to wonder where do these “foggy bottom” people have their heads? I hear or read the moniker “foggy bottom,” and think; foggy, unclear and bottom. I see concerns like the ones they have there and think, ‘yes your thinking us unclear and you are somewhere near the bottom or that is where you brains are.’

A “greater consideration of military strikes,” is a concern? Why would a “consideration” be so offensive? Outsourcing the Iranian peaceful nuke talks to the EU-3 plus has resulted in bupkis; likewise our talks with Iran regarding their “peaceful” input in Iraq.

So, no “options” are off the table, but just to be clear, certain “considerations” are.

Since its inception, the Bush Doctrine of “Pre-emptive strikes” has not gotten much good press. This can certainly be understood, especially in an age where “intelligence” is not all it’s cracked up to be. If one stops and thinks about it though; when has it ever? Well for one, we hear that it really stank the place up to be in the run-up to the U.S. entry into Iraq; that or it was administration manipulation of the “facts” (see “few remaining hawks in VP Cheney’s office”). Everyone has lamented the poor level of competency the “intelligence” community displayed, however it takes a big upswing when it reports that things aren’t so swell in Iraq.

Pre-emption is also an offensive tactic rather than defensive, so it follows that a relatively peaceful nation such as the U.S. (according to BUs “intelligence” reports many disagree) have trouble settling its stomach on a new tack (many thanks Dave; see comment to Iran Strategy being Debated at White House).

Many “hawks” outside VP Cheney’s office by the way, also would like greater consideration of a “military option” on the table as well. Not just for the sake of “killing them over there,” as everyone knows how much we “hawks” love other people dying for us; but because without it, all options are not options, which makes the discussions in question pretty fruitless when you consider the past few years success rate with Iran.

We won’t even threaten it because we don’t want to be seen as a belligerent, nor do we want to approach “incendiary rhetoric” as in the words of Alan Colmes, “they're (Iran) going to feel they've got to defend themselves if they think an attack is imminent and people...”

So, the best bet is to do as little as possible. Continue the “diplomatic” approach, which no longer includes anything military and wait. Wait for what? Wait for the tide to change like Neville “Henry Strange” Chamberlain did. Or, as Seth Leibsohn suggests this morning in “Land for Peace….or land in pieces?” That “where once a democratic state “occupied” Gaza, a terrorist Fatah took over under the watchful eyes of the U.N. In less than two years, the even-more-radical Hamas blasted Fatah out of power and took over from there…”

Leibsohn also points out the obvious that oddly is not obvious enough; “a democracy showing weakness where terrorists thrive is a sure recipe for disaster if only one condition is met: Cede land to the terrorists and encourage the democracy to withdraw.”

We hope for a clean cut war, unlike what we have in Iraq; perhaps just a six-day one, those are easy. Or we wait…wait for what we are more or perhaps most comfortable with; wait until attacked again or until we all realize that a huge chunk of the world is being taken over by a movement more explosive than anything related to a syndrome in the bowels. We wait until we have to do something. We wait until a time when we open our eyes to the reality that this isn’t all Bush; it’s not just about Bush. Open our eyes to the fact that they were there the whole time and we have allowed them to flourish and expand. Wait until it is “imminent” as the president never claimed Iraq to be. Wait until just before we all re-enter the stone age and have to fight it with sticks and stones.

Hopefully we won’t wait until it’s too late; we might though.

"Iran & the Mideast"

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/504046735646784794

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Committees of Correspondence, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, On the Horizon, DragonLady's World, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Colloquium, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Blue Collar Muse, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Iran-Backed Terrorists in Gaza Exploit Press Neutrality

If your claims are legitimate, why use illegitimate means? If with your violent actions the world turns a blind eye, why use illegitimate means? If you use illegitimate means, the world turns a blind eye and your true aim is the annihilation of Israel; keep it up. No two state solution will ever satisfy the bloodthirsty ignorance of those intent on the destruction of Israel

From The Israel Project:

On June 9, the Iranian-backed terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a radical offshoot of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party, used a vehicle labeled "TV" to try to kidnap Israel Defense Force (IDF) soldiers. [1]

The Israel Project condemns PIJ's use of a vehicle disguised as a TV van to perpetrate terrorist attacks against the IDF across the Gaza border. This contravenes international conventions relating to the neutrality of the press. It also jeopardizes foreign journalists' ability to perform their work in a fair and -- more importantly -- safe manner.

The attack against Israeli forces took place at Kissufim Crossing, a Gaza border throughway located just north of Kerem Shalom Crossing, where Cpl. Gilad Shalit was kidnapped nearly one year ago. Cpl. Shalit was taken hostage on June 25, 2006 by Hamas' military wing Izzedeen al-Qassam Brigades, together with the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) and the Army of Islam - the group currently holding journalist Alan Johnston - while stationed near the Kerem Shalom border crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip. [2]

Palestinian Islamic Jihad spokesman Abu Ahmed claimed that the terrorist attack was thoroughly planned out beforehand, hailing the assault a "superior" and intricate suicide mission. [3]

The attempted kidnapping was just the latest in a long and deadly series of attacks perpetrated by Iran-backed terrorists and Palestinian militants, who continuously exploit and sometimes harm the press in Gaza. [See List Below]

The Board of the Foreign Press Association (FPA) released a statement on June 9 stating that " Armoured vehicles marked with TV are an invaluable protection for genuine journalists working in hostile environments...Today's abuse of this recognised protection for the working journalist is a grave development and we condemn those that carried it out." [4]

Palestinian Islamic Jihad's gross exploitation of press symbols caused the Palestinian Journalist Syndicate, the only journalists' union for the West Bank and Gaza, also to react. [5]

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on June 10 at the weekly Knesset (Parliament) meeting that PIJ attempted "to take advantage of the special sensitivity that we have in a democratic country, such as ours, to the right of the media to operate freely and independently in security-sensitive areas." [6]

Press Personnel Kidnapped by Palestinian Militants in Gaza since Sept. 2004:

March 12, 2007 - BBC correspondent Alan Johnston is kidnapped by a mafia-like Gaza-based clan calling itself the Army of Islam. This group is thought to have ties to al-Qaeda. Johnston's captors released a video on the Internet demanding that Britain release several Muslim prisoners including Islamist al-Qaeda cleric Abu Qatada, who is one of Britain's most wanted men. [7]

Jan. 7, 2007 - Jaime Razuri from Agence France-Presse is kidnapped and released almost a week later. The kidnappers have not been identified. [8]

Oct. 23, 2006 - Emilio Morenatti, an Associated Press photographer, is kidnapped by unidentified Palestinian gunmen and released on the same day. [9]

Aug. 27, 2006 - Fox News correspondent Steve Centanni and New Zealand-born cameraman Olaf Wiig are held for two weeks by a previously unknown group identified as the Holy Jihad Brigades. They were released unharmed after being forced to convert to Islam. [10]

March 15, 2006 - Caroline Laurent, reporter for the French-language weekly ELLE; Alfred Yaghobzadeh, photographer for France's Sipa Press; and Yong Tae-Young, a correspondent for South Korea's KBS are kidnapped from the Al-Dira Hotel in Gaza. Palestinian Security Services claim the kidnappers are members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The abducted journalists were released within 22 hours. [11]

Oct. 12, 2005 - Dion Nissenbaum and Adam Pletts of Knight Ridder (now McClatchy Newspapers) are abducted by renegade members of the Fatah party. The journalists were freed later that day. [12]

Sept. 10, 2005 - Journalist Lorenzo Cremonesi of Corriere della Serra (Italy) is abducted in the town of Deir el-Balah in the central Gaza Strip. He was released the same day. [13]

Aug.15, 2005 - Journalist Mohammad Ouathi, a French citizen of Algerian origin is kidnapped and released a week later. No group claimed responsibility. [14]

Jan. 8, 2005 - Ramon Lobo and Carmen Secanella, reporters for Spain's El Pais, are kidnapped briefly by Palestinian militants in Gaza's Khan Younes refugee camp. [15]

Sept. 27, 2004 - Riad Ali, producer for CNN is abducted at gunpoint and released the following day. Ali claims that the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades was behind his kidnapping but the militia has denied the allegations. [16]

Footnotes

[1] "A Fatah-Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist squad infiltrated Israel near the Kissufim Crossing to attack an IDF force," Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, June 11, 2007,

[2] Two soldiers killed, one missing in Kerem Shalom terror attack," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, June 25, 2006,

[3] A Fatah-Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist squad infiltrated Israel near the Kissufim Crossing to attack an IDF force," Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, June 11, 2007,

[4] Statements," Foreign Press Association, June 9, 2007,

[5] Cashman, Greer Fay and The Associated Press, "Press slams gunmen for using TV jeep," The Jerusalem Post, June 10, 2007,

[6] al-Mughrabi, Nida, "Gaza militants' "TV" sign draws reporters' anger," Reuters, June 10, 2007,

[7] "Timeline: Kidnappings of journalists in the Gaza Strip," Reuters, June 1, 2007,

[8] Ibid.

[9] Gaza: CPJ renews call for release of abducted AFP photographer," Committee to Protect Journalists, Jan. 3, 2007,

[10] Ibid.; [11] Ibid.; [12] Ibid.; [13] Ibid.; [14] Ibid.; [15] Ibid.; [16] Ibid.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -