Islamic Danger to Americans

Are Muslims Infidels?

2010-04-30T21:42:00.000-07:00

Paul Eidelberg

It’s always a pleasure reading the lucid and logical Phillip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial. The title of his latest book , Against All Gods: What’s Right and Wrong About the New Atheism (2010), is co-authored with John Mark Reynolds. Johnson writes in the Introduction:

Our position in this book is that the arguments for atheism should be taken seriously and considered both respectfully and critically. One of the healthy aspects of the current atheist movement is that the atheists who are selling so many books say that they want everything to be put on the table for criticism, with nothing held back as too sensitive for such examination. They say that they deplore the fact that in some circles it is considered unacceptable to criticize a religion because somebody might be offended.

Contrast this statement with the attitude of Muslims to any criticism of their religion. Notice the “political correctness” or lack of intellectual integrity or courage on the party of so many pundits, professors, and politicians on the subject of Islam. Despite the awesome threat of Islam to the United States (and to Western civilization as a whole), hardly a word was said about Islam during the 2008 US presidential campaign—and we all know about the religious integrity of Barack. Obama, a Muslim as well as professed Christian who sonorously attended the irreverent sermons of Jeremiah Wright.

We also know about the Danish Cartoons, and how they aroused the wrath and violence of Muslims hither and yon. Contrast Jews who, century after century, have been burned at the stake, whose Torah scrolls and sacred books have been cast into the flames; Jews who, down through ages, have been the victims of vilification and pogroms. And yet, have you ever heard of their taking revenge on their tormentors? Have you noticed Jewish self-restraint against Arab terrorists despite the overwhelming power of the Israel Defense Forces? Nothing like this in history.

So what is there in his psyche that indices the Muslim to wreak the cruelest slaughter of “infidels”— mutilating men, women, and children and even exult in such barbarism?

It’s not enough to say, as the gallant scholar Bat Ye’or has said, that Islam is a “culture of hate.” It’s not enough to say, as the marvelous Brigitte Gabriel has written, Because They Hate—the title of one of her books. Nor is it enough to attribute Muslim hatred to A God Who Hates—the title of a book by the courageous Syrian-born psychiatrist Dr. Wafa Sultan.

Of course, Muslims, having lost their erstwhile imperial glory, are now animated by envy of the Christian West, which has excelled Islam in so many ways. We know of their undying hatred of Western colonialism in the Islamic Middle East. We know how the Jews rejected Muhammad’s pretensions as the prophet of a new religion. Oh, how Muslims hate the Children of Israel—and with an overwhelmingly theological hatred! Which means they hate the God of Israel! That’s why Muslims compulsively intone the words “Allahu Akbar,” to convince themselves that Allah is the “greatest god”!

So let me offer a new and provocative hypothesis. Perhaps what animates the Muslim’s murderous hatred of “infidels” is that he himself is an infidel, meaning, he does not harbor in his soul unwavering belief in Allah and Islam? Perhaps he is tormented by a vague suspicion that all his beliefs or professions about Allah and Islam are a self-delusion. Perhaps this is the most fundamental reason why he loves death and exults in martyrdom.

There is only one way to deal with a mass delusion.

Martin Indyk: A Commentary on Post-Modern Education*

2010-04-27T23:59:00.000-07:00

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

To avoid misunderstanding, I must say at the outset that I am not interested in Martin Indyk per se, if only because I do not regard him as worthy of my attention. But since pundits take Indyk seriously, perhaps they may be enlightened if I use him to reveal the basic cause of Israel’s and America’s malaise. Hence, a brief bio of Indyk is necessary, for which Wikipedia will suffice.

Indyk was born in 1951 to a Jewish family in England, but grew up and was educated in Australia. He graduated from the University of Sydney in 1972 and received a PhD in international relations from the Australian National University in 1977. He immigrated to the United States and later gained American citizenship in 1993.

He has taught at the Middle East Institute at Columbia University and at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University. He also served as special assistant to U.S. President Bill Clinton (whose administration, according to military theorist and former U.S. Army Colonel Ralph Peters, was “the most cowardly administration in history,” having failed to react vigorously to terrorist attacks on U.S. forces abroad, a failure leading to 9/11.)

Returning to Clinton adviser Martin Indyk, he also served as senior director of Near East and South Asian Affairs at the United States National Security Council. While at the NSC, he served as principal adviser to the President and the National Security Advisor on Arab-Israeli issues, Iraq, Iran, and South Asia. He served two stints as U.S. Ambassador to Israel, from April 1995 to September 1997 and from January 2000 to July 2001.

Writing in the New York Times, and interviewed by Israel Army Radio on April 22, Indyk blamed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the rift with the Obama administration. He went so far as to say “Israel has to adjust its policy to the interests of the United States.” Since I am anything but a fan of Netanyahu, this report should not be deemed a defense of Bibi.

Notwithstanding Indyk’s education and his experience in the American executive department, he appears abysmally ignorant of facts documented in American sources and confirmed by U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye and former Chief of U.S Air Force Intelligence George Keegan that dollar for dollar, Israel gives more to the U.S. than the U.S. gives to Israel—to say nothing of the overt and covert U.S. military aid to Israel’s enemies, including the Palestinian Authority.

Like his Washington handlers, Indyk has long advocated a Palestinian state, even though one does not require military expertise to arrive at a former U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff conclusion that such a state would endanger Israel’s existence. This is why Netanyahu insists that an Arab Palestinian state must be demilitarized and barred from forming alliances with any Arab regime.

Never mind that no Palestinian leader would survive a day if he accepted such terms. Consider only the fact that Indyk wants Israel to negotiate with the PA, whose mentality and behavior have been shaped by Islamic scriptures permeated by murderous hatred of “infidels,” especially Jews. Hence, I am not impressed by Indyk’s academic credentials and experience in the Clinton government, no more than George Orwell was impressed by the British intelligentsia of the 1930s which held posts in the Chamberlain government.

When Indyk served as Clinton’s ambassador to Israel, Israeli conservatives called him a “court Jew.” Such labels are not helpful. We know court Jews in America bend over backwards to avoid the canard of “dual loyalty.” Israel pays a price for this “political correctness.”

For a Democrat like Clinton, whose presidential campaign funding depended very much on Jewish donations, his appointment of Indyk was “religiously” as well as “politically” correct. And since Yasser Arafat was reportedly the most frequent foreign guest at the Clinton White House, Indyk’s endorsement of a Palestinian state made him a virtual ally of Arafat.

But what is “political correctness” if not a label descriptive of someone who willfully avoids taking a candid position on controversial political issues? To put it plainly, “political correctness” is a euphemism to describe a person lacking intellectual integrity or moral courage. But this label short-circuits serious thought about the factors that have shaped Indyk’s mentality.

Would it be proper to regard him simply as ignorant of the bellicose and mendacious nature of Arab-Islamic culture? But how is this possible given his fields of study at various universities? Can it be that his mentors were dominated by moral or multicultural relativism—the same doctrine that has influenced Barack Obama?

Like other “politically correct” democrats, Indyk tends to “mirror image”—sees Arabs as he sees him own peace-loving face in a mirror. This may explain his inability to take the bellicose nature of Arab-Islamic culture seriously. Perhaps he imbibed the academic doctrine of “conflict resolution,” which reinforces the natural bent of diplomats—a doctrine that ignores the enormity of evil in the world? There are legions of such people in academia—especially at Columbia and Tel Aviv universities, where moral relativism and pacifism flourish.

This might explain why Indyk ignored Arafat’s remark that “peace for us means the destruction of Israel.” It might also explain why a person tainted by multicultural relativism cannot factor into his evaluation of Islam the significance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s vow to “wipe Israel off the map,” even though that Muslim leader sent tens of thousands of Iranian children to walk across and thereby explode Iraqi minefields in the Iraqi-Iranian war. (By the way, Ahmadinejad he was a recent guest of Columbia University!)

Hence, it is reckless folly to dismiss Ahmadinejad’s maledictions as mere rhetoric, as smug academics teach their students. The genocidal imprecations of Arabs and Muslims vis-a-vis Israel and America underlie what Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington have called the “clash of civilizations"—which means, to any person unaffected by academic obscurantism: It’s either them or us.” Does Indyk deem these renowned scholars ignoramuses or “extremists”?

Even more important on a practical level than Lewis and Huntington is Ralph Peters mentioned earlier. In two books, Fighting for the Future and Beyond Terror, Peters cautions us not to negotiate with terrorists—and the Palestinian Authority is nothing if it not a terrorist organization bent on Israel’s annihilation. I assume the learned Mr. Indyk has read the PA’s genocidal charter. If so, he seems to construe it as mere rhetoric for the masses.

Let me therefore urge him to study the extraordinary erudition and worldwide experience of Michael Radu, especially Radu’s recent book Europe's Ghost: Tolerance, Jihadism, and the Crisis of the West. What’s left of Europe is a “ghost”—nations disembodied by the multicultural relativism of their ruling elites (academics and politicians, judges and journalists). No wonder Barack Obama has been called an “empty suit.”

Of course, my remarks will have no impact on those who take civilization for granted. Like overindulged children, our decision makers and diplomats do not really understand—because they have not been taught to understand—how much hard work and stamina, how much self-sacrifice and heroism, are required in each generation to defend civilization against its enemies. Read Lee Harris to learn why. Or think of how much it cost in blood and treasure to save Europe from barbarism in the wars of the last century—a barbarism no less monstrous than that promised by totalitarian Islam.

Perhaps Ralph Peters, Michael Radu, and Lee Harris are beyond Mr. Indyk’s limited comprehension. I doubt men of their “politically incorrect” views are required reading at Columbia and Tel Aviv universities. I wonder if any academic today—despite all the drivel about academic freedom—can remain at his post if he were to explain, in scholarly terms, using Islamic documents, why it is futile and fatal to negotiate with the self-professed enemies of Israel and America, be they Fatah Palestinians or Iranian mullahs.

Since Martin Indyk surely does not want America and Israel to become mere “ghosts,” I wonder what he would say after reading Raymond Ibraham’s essay on the Islamic art of dissimulation, “taqiyya,” a military doctrine best revealed by Ibrahim in the Winter 2010 edition of the Middle East Quarterly (http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war).

Some readers may accuse me of arrogance by criticizing a man of Indyk’s academic and governmental background. But I feel obliged to do so not because I am a former officer in the U.S. Air Force who studied under Leo Strauss, a classical political scientist without equal in the twentieth century. No: you don’t need to be a soldier or a scholar to discern the enormity of evil confronting America and Israel. So I am not impressed by America’s erstwhile ambassador to Israel. Indeed, he reminds me of Nietzsche’s remark about German intellectuals: “great learning and great stupidity often go well together under the same hat.”

____________________
*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, 26 April 2010,

A WEAK PRESIDENT . . .

2010-04-22T17:52:00.000-07:00

Iran begins war games in Persian Gulf, taunts U.S.

from Jihad Watch:

Saber-rattling and thumbing their noses at a weak president whom they know will not act. "Iran begins war games in Persian Gulf oil route," by Nasser Karimi and Lee Keath for Associated Press, April 22 (thanks to Choi):

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard held war games Thursday in the strategic Persian Gulf oil route, the Hormuz Strait, a show of its military strength at a time when the country's leaders are depicting President Barack Obama's new nuclear policy as a threat.
Ahead of the military maneuvers, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused Washington of trying to dominate the world through its nuclear arsenal and vowed that Iran would not bend before what he called "implicit atomic threats."...

Iran has been holding military maneuvers, dubbed as The Great Prophet, in the strategic waters of the Persian Gulf annually since 2006 to show off its military capabilities -- and serve as an implicit warning of the consequences if the United States or Israel attack Iran's nuclear facilities....

On Thursday, the military unveiled a new attack speedboat, describing it as an "ultra-speed and smart" vessel called "Ya Mahdi." Iran also said 313 smaller speedboats with the capability of firing rockets and missiles would participate....

On Wednesday, ahead of the exercises, Khamenei spoke to a conference of nurses and denounced Obama's new nuclear guidelines. U.S. officials have said the changes aim to push Iran into cooperating with the U.N. on its nuclear program, but the supreme leader depicted them as dangling the threat of nuclear attack over his country.

"Implicit atomic threats against Iran will have no effect," he said. "The Iranian people will not submit to such threats and will bring those who make them to their knees." He repeated that Iran is not seeking to build a nuclear weapon.

"The nuclear powers, particularly the United States, are using their nuclear might to try to impose their authority over the world," he said....

Be sure to read the Comments

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/iran-begins-war-games-in-persian-gulf-taunts-us.html

AND from Israel Commentary, April 21, 2010:

Nuclear posturing, Obama-style - A slump in an insane direction
By Charles Krauthammer

Palm Beach Post, April 14, 2010

Nuclear doctrine consists of thinking the unthinkable. It involves making threats and promising retaliation that is cruel and destructive beyond imagining. But it has its purpose: to prevent war in the first place. During the Cold War, we let the Russians know that if they dared use their huge conventional military advantage and invaded Western Europe, they risked massive U.S. nuclear retaliation. Goodbye, Moscow.

Was this credible? Would we have done it? Who knows? No one’s ever been there. A nuclear posture is just that — a declaratory policy designed to make the other guy think twice. Our policies did. The result was called deterrence. For half a century it held. The Soviets never invaded. We never used nukes. That is why nuclear doctrine is important.

The Obama administration has just issued a new one that “includes significant changes to the U.S. nuclear posture,” said Defense Secretary Bob Gates. First among these involves the US response to being attacked with biological or chemical weapons. Under the old doctrine, supported by every president of both parties for decades, any aggressor ran the risk of a cataclysmic U.S. nuclear response that would leave the attacking nation a cinder and a memory.

Under President Obama’s new policy however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is “in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),” explained Mr. Gates, then “the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten, to use nuclear weapons against it.”

Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is up-to-date with its latest IAEA inspections. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.) However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT non-compliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come. This is quite insane. Ws like saying that if a terrorist uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections.

Apart from being morally bizarre, the policy is strategically loopy. Does anyone believe that North Korea or Iran will be more persuaded to abjure nukes because they could then carry out a biological or chemical attack on the U.S. without fear of nuclear retaliation? The naiveté is stunning. Similarly, is the Obama pledge to forswear development of any new warheads and even to permit no replacement of aging components without the authorization of the president himself. This action is perpetrated under the theory that our moral example will move other countries to eschew nukes. To the contrary, the last quarter-century — the time of greatest superpower nuclear arms reduction— is precisely when Iran and North Korea went hell bent into the development of nuclear weapons.

It gets worse. The administration’s Nuclear Posture Review declares U.S. determination to “continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks.” The ultimate aim is to get to a blanket doctrine of no first use. This is deeply worrying to many small nations who, for half a century relied on the extended US nuclear umbrella. When smaller allies see the United States determined to move inexorably away from that posture — and for them it is not posture, but existential protection — what are they to think? Fend for yourself. Get your own WMDs. Do you imagine they are not thinking that in the Persian Gulf?

This administration seems to believe that by restricting retaliatory threats and by downplaying our reliance on nuclear weapons, it is discouraging proliferation. But the opposite is true. Seeing America retreat, they will rethink. And some will arm. There is no greater spur to hyper-proliferation than the furling of the American nuclear umbrella.

Charles Krauthammer’s e-mail address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com

(Some believe Mr. Krauthammer is being extremely kind to Obama. Rather than calling his “posturing in an insane direction” a “slump” some consider it a deliberate move to weaken the US militarily, weaken our position as the predominant world power and hasten our descent into the level of third world, despotic, dependent nations that Obama embraces with such warmth. Whatever mentality drives Obama in this direction is beyond rational thought. Evidently, analysis will have to be left to the musings of the psychiatrists of the world - just as they have had to muse and disastrously too late, on the mentality of other destructive individuals that have cursed this Earth).

Jsk

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman
http://www.israel-commentary.org/archives/2010_04.html#001375

What to do about Obama‏

2010-04-20T18:31:00.000-07:00

A Message of National Importance

1) First, listen to Barack Obama here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

2) Second, learn about the Islamic art of dissimulation called “taqiyya” by reading an essay by Raymond Ibrahim which appeared in the Winter 2010 edition of the Middle East Quarterly here:

(http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war.)

3) Start a local community education program on the founding principles of American Government as articulated in the American Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and The Federalist Papers. (I can recommend some illuminating books for this education program.)

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Also see http://apathetic-usa.com/articles.htm

Commander: Iran Ready to Demolish US Forces

2010-04-17T15:37:00.000-07:00

TEHRAN (FNA)- A senior Iranian military commander downplayed recent speculations about a possible US attack on Iran, and said that Iranian forces have long been waiting to destroy the US forces and equipments in the region.

"First we should wait and see whether they (enemies) are able to take such a move (attack on Iran) or not since we have been prepared to destroy the US forces and equipments in the region for the last 10 years," Iran's Armed Forces Chief of Staff Major General Hassan Firouzabadi told reporters on the sidelines of an international conference on nuclear disarmament here in Tehran on Saturday.

"As I have already announced, if the US attacks Iran, none of its soldiers will go back home alive," the commander went on saying.

Firouzabadi also said that such war rhetoric by the US indicates that Washington is unable to confront the nations' vigilance and their movement towards restoration of their rights and spread of justice throughout the world.

The remarks by the Iranian General followed a US nuclear threat against Iran. The United States pledged never to use nuclear weapons against the states that comply with the Non-Proliferation Treaties (NPT) as part of a much-anticipated review of nuclear arms strategy released last week.

But the new pledge leaves open a nuclear strike against countries that have signed on to a global NPT but stand accused of violating its terms.

Obama, in an interview with the New York Times, said outright that the loophole would apply to "outliers like Iran and North Korea" that the US believes are developing nuclear weapons.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8901281093

-------------------------------------------
Via: IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il

What A Teleprompter May Conceal

2010-04-01T16:42:00.001-07:00

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

It is well known that countless college graduates require remedial reading and writing to qualify for higher degrees. This phenomenon, for non-genetic reasons, occurs more frequently among black than among white students. I have had such students. Some may be fairly articulate in ordinary conversation, but their writing and reading comprehension is awful! So how did they graduate college?

If they are black, then, unlike an Alan Keyes or a Thomas Sowell and other black students I know of, their teachers used lower academics standards to grade and advance them in high school and college. This is one consequence of the “affirmative action” policy of the late 1960s. Many professors were (and still are) reluctant and even afraid to flunk black students. This helps to explain why such students graduated college and went on to graduate school. But more is involved here than lowering of academic standards to accommodate disadvantaged students.

It should also be noted that cheating on exams and plagiarism are common among students of all races. One of my students wrote her doctoral dissertation on cheating in colleges and universities. Much to her dismay, she discovered that cheating was not only widespread in democracies, but that many people did not deem it reprehensible!

Cheating aside, legions of inferior students are quite capable of regurgitating the lectures of their professors who feel gratified by such mimicry. But this means that many students who receive good grades are incapable of independent or critical thought, or of relating general principles to facts not discussed by their teachers. Evident here is diminished ability to engage in deductive and inductive reasoning. Former U.S. Secretary of Education Dr. William Bennett, after visiting some yeshivas, said that American schools should adopt the pedagogical methods of these Jewish schools where the logical skills of students barely entering their teens surpass those of American college seniors!

Especially subversive of serious as well as logical thinking is the doctrine of moral and cultural relativism that permeates American “higher” education. Multicultural relativism undermines the incentive of students to take contradictory ideas seriously, having been taught by professors that a person’s opinions or beliefs about the good, the true, and the beautiful are purely subjective or culturally determined. Professors who propagate relativism dominate the social sciences and humanities. They foster the complacent and egalitarian notion that one person’s moral or aesthetic values are no more valid than another’s.

Relativists are agnostics. They deny the possibility of apprehending truths that transcend time and place. They would reject the “Higher Law” doctrine of the American Declaration of Independence, which affirms the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” the touchstone of individual liberty and human dignity.

By the way, what would former black slaves such as Frederick Douglass or Booker T. Washington say of Muslim rulers who utter the malediction “Death to America”—or of a black preacher that says “God damn America”? They would probably call such people evil or depraved. But this assertion would be deemed subjective or a “value-judgment” by the academic relativists that have corrupted black and white students at Harvard, Columbia and other elite universities during the past five decades.

We should also remember that the labeling of people as “racists” or “right-wingers” or “left-wingers” has long been a commonplace in journalism and public discourse. Such labels stultify the intellect. They enable mediocre minds to dismiss political ideas merely by using political labels. Entering college students, regardless of race, soon become addicted to abbreviated and smug thinking. It’s “cool,” it’s convenient—yes, and it short-circuits serious controversy.

No less significant is the dismal state of historical knowledge among university graduates. This means that students lack the ability to relate current political issues to past experience or to the wisdom of great men. Ignorance of history fosters arrogance, especially among modernists who think the living have a monopoly of wisdom. College students are attracted to “progressive” politicians who disparage the past and exalt Change. Such demagogues use or misuse the instinctive desire of youth for novelty. They also exploit the young person’s natural feeling of justice and revulsion for the many instances of injustice that punctuate history and real life. What is more, if injustice is perpetrated on the scale of colonialism, students can become alienated from their Western heritage.

Also noteworthy is that despite the inferior academic accomplishments of disadvantaged college students, many are quite glib. They can play the “race card” to attract influential sponsors and win scholarships to prestigious universities. They are quite capable of ingratiating themselves with their mentors to facilitate their academic escape from serious work and responsibility. They do not pursue knowledge for its own sake but as a means of self-aggrandizement. Their learning is inevitably superficial—enough to get by—another commonplace known to every teacher.

In such an environment, “successful” students become more arrogant, more cunning, more superficial, and more indifferent to the ideas, dedication, and heroic efforts of the people who have made America a great nation. But what can one expect when so many historians and political scientists inflate their own egos and advance their own careers by belittling the past. These cynics and Lilliputians bring great statesmen such as Washington and Hamilton, Jefferson and Lincoln, down to their own level. I’ve seen and more than enough academics that make a career of debunkmanship. What can one expect from their students even at Harvard? The burgeoning anti-Americanism among academics is indicative of relativists and other half-educated people who take civilization for granted. An adolescent mentality is rampant among anti-American professors.

Thoughtful Europeans, whose economies and social fabrics are being ruined by the influx of indigent, arrogant, ungrateful, prolific, anti-Western immigrants, nostalgically say “God bless America”—the America that saved Europe from Nazi and Communist tyranny and which alone can save the Old World from a new tyranny. Anyone who apologizes for America to nations abroad, especially to Islamic despotisms, is an ignoramus or morally retarded—a despicable wretch that must have been corrupted by anti-American professors ventilating at decadent universities. Alternatively, this wretch, financed by a billionaire, may be a Machiavellian skilled in the Islamic art of dissimulation or “taqiyya.”

We all know of prominent people who, having been educated in America and having prospered in this country, hate America, hate Western Civilization, and identify with the Third World, a world that hunted slaves and sold them to black men a well as white men; but let’s not discuss this in universities, especially with blacks in the classroom. The canard of “racism” is the weapon of choice in the domain of academia as well as in the domain of politics. It might be enlightening as well as embarrassing to investigate the extent to which the “race card” has contributed to the success of various actors in these two domains.

The DANGER OF VIOLENCE

2010-03-25T18:11:00.000-07:00

. . . when it is time for Civil Disobedience

First, from The Power of a President :

. . . In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.

***

. . . Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman [Maryland Secessionist] before him.The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling.

. . . after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.Copyright, 1999American Patriot Network

***

. . . during the Civil War these two policies—summary arrests and military justice—were of a piece. Both stemmed from the emergency of having an armed rebellion in the nation's midst, and they were viewed as two parts of a single policy.

***

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus refers to a common-law tradition that establishes a person's right to appear before a judge before being imprisoned. When a judge issues the writ, he commands a government official to bring a prisoner before the court so he can assess the legality of the prisoner's detention. When the privilege of the writ is suspended, the prisoner is denied the right to secure such a writ and therefore can be held without trial indefinitely. Habeas corpus is the only common-law tradition enshrined in the Constitution, which also explicitly defines when it can be overridden. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

***

. . . Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, on Lincoln's orders, suspended habeas corpus across the country and decreed that a range of civilian criminals and dissenters would face arrest and trial before military courts

***

Lincoln's actions at the time were somewhat controversial. Some of his most controversial decisions might actually be considered now to be abuses of the Presidential power. During his terms as president, he suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and upheld the Declaration of Independence above the Constitution.The writ of Habeas Corpus protects Americans from being unjustly imprisoned. Without it, law is a sham. The writ creates the gap between freedom and despotism. Its origin dates back to the formation of our country, and the tenet that all men have equality under the law. The writ ensures that no on can be unjustly imprisoned. Any prisoner feeling this right is being abused has the ability to petition to be seen before a judge, who can declare his arrest unlawful and have him released. Yet, during the initial year of the American Civil War, Lincoln used his power and removed that right, first in Baltimore, New York, and eventually the entire union. He authorized military officers to suspend the writ before he made an official proclamation.

***

. . . "when Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, he clothed himself with more power then any individual had possessed in America before, or since."--Joshua Kleinfeld

***

Lincoln . . . removed the Writ [of habeas corpus] . . . preserved more power for himself and removed a great deal from the United States legislative and judicial branches. The first proclamation to remove the Writ of Habeas Corpus . . . which had no scheduled end, remove the writ, it also established Mar[tial] law. It gave full power to close down "hostile, . . . newspapers," and to arrest individuals for protesting . . . .

Lincoln removed a great deal of power from the legislative branch with this proclamation. He was not empowered under the Constitution to make such a declaration. In fact, that right belonged to Congress alone. Roger Taney, Supreme Court Chief Justice, contended that Article I of the Constitution declares: "a state of rebellion is the only time when Congress could declare the writ removed." He also believed: "This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive branch.."

***

Lincoln contended that, "It was not believed that any law was violated". The fact that he got away with suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus gave more power to the presidency during a time of war than ever before.

***

By ignoring the rights of the judicial and legislative branches of the government, Lincoln abused the power of the presidency by giving it more power than it was allowed by the Constitution

More, details and references to original sources at
http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2009/06/power-of-president.html

SO WHAT'S THIS ABOUT "CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE?"

from Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs post "AINOS - AMERICANS IN NAME ONLY"

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/03/ainos-americans-in-name-only.html

***

The next seven months are going to be the ugliest this country has experienced in our lifetimes. Any and all opponents of ObamaCare will be branded as terrorists - indeed they are already. The Democrats will look upon their ObamaCare victory as a template, and attempt to ram through via bribes and corruption passage of amnesty for illegals, a carbon tax, a VAT tax, and every other major item on their Marxist Fascist agenda.Given the volcanic rage this will engender in so many people, it will be impossible for there not to be outbreaks and incidents of violence perpetrated upon Democrat politicians. This is exactly what the Democrats want. Their goal is to goad and provoke their opponents into violence so they can demonize them, so they can sic the FBI upon them.

***

Th[e] alternative for immediate personal action is: peaceful civil disobedience. Following TTP's call for a Defund and Disobey movement, Forbes Magazine is now quoting Ghandi - "civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless and corrupt" - and predicting the largest civil disobedience movement since the civil rights era.

Quote from Dr. Wheeler's column: ARE AMERICANS STILL AMERICANS?

Thanks to--and the whole thing at--Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs

The Smug Smile, the Pursed Mouth of the "Czar of Czars"

2010-03-24T21:14:00.000-07:00

AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS IS NEXT!

We MUST stop this madness now. TALKING about it, is not going to solve the problem. We must unite and defeat the socialist cancer that threatens to kill OUR America. It is easy to call yourself a patriot when there is no danger on your horizon. A TRUE patriot, is a patriot, even when it is dangerous to be so…
Comment by George on February 23, 2009 11:40 AM

. . . Where do we begin?
Comment by barenakedislam on February 23, 2009 12:12 PM

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/sieg-heil-obamas-gestapo-your-neighbors/

?
Comment by Leslie White on March 24, 2010 right here

AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS IS NEXT!

Do not think that this takeover of America can be reversed by elections, that the dictatorship of the people now in power can be overthrown at the ballot box!

Click on http://superstore.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=108 to see how they will make sure that they stay in power. (I am not connected with Whistleblower magazine.)

But Obama was democratically elected, wasn't he?

Sure, and so was Hugo Chavez in Venezuela (and Hitler in Germany).

http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2010/01/watch-whats-happening-in-venezuela-if.html

http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2008/11/can-obama-pull-off-hugo-chavez.html

http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2009/07/nation-half-socialist-and-half-fascist.html

http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2008/10/under-obama-you-will-shut-your-mouth.html

THE OBAMA CROWD ARE DETERMINED TO STAY IN POWER AND IMPOSE THEIR SOCIALIST-FASCIST AGENDA ON THE UNITED STATES . . . NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES!

Do not think that you are protected by the Constitution. Obama does not pay much attention to it, except to deride it.

SO, WHAT TO DO?

Right now, support--loudly and financially--those opposed to the looming Obama takeover of all sectors of our country.

What the future holds . . .

http://islamicdangerfu.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-on-way-to-chavez-type.html

?

. . . but think of this, me hearties: Thoughtcrime !

Obama's "Post-American" Foreign Policy

2010-03-22T13:51:00.000-07:00

The Worst Case Scenario*

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

On March 19, the day after this report was nearing completion, Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post’s brilliant political analyst, published an article entitled “Obama’s war on Israel.” My present report goes a bit further. No reflection on her perspicacity. I just want to pursue the logic of Obama to its ultimate logical conclusion, even if he is a fraud or an Alice in Wonderland, as some believe.

In deference to Glick, however, who takes Obama seriously—as one should—I will begin by quoting a salient aspect of her timely article. She writes:

On [March 12], Obama ordered his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to present Netanyahu with a four-part ultimatum. First, Israel must cancel the approval of the housing units in Ramat Shlomo. Second, Israel must prohibit all construction for Jews in Jerusalem neighborhoods built since 1967. Third, Israel must make a gesture to the Palestinians to show them we want peace. Fourth, Israel must agree to negotiate all substantive issues, including the partition of Jerusalem (including the Jewish neighborhoods constructed since 1967 that are now home to more than half a million Israelis) and the immigration of millions of hostile foreign Arabs to Israel under the rubric of the so-called “right of return” …

Only an idiot would fail to see in this ultimatum that Obama, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wants to “wipe Israel off the map.” Seeing this, the Arabs have no need to engage in negotiations, which suggests to me that Obama is tacitly inviting them to eliminate Israel by war! Ponder this: Obama ordered a consignment of Joint Direct Attack Munitions already on its way to Israel to be diverted to the US Air Force base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.

Nor is this all.

At the outset of his presidential campaign, I wrote that Obama’s slogan of CHANGE really meant “Regime Change.” A few months after the election, former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton reported that Obama is the first post-American president of the United States.

Accordingly, Obama’s policy of distancing America from Israel and drawing the US closer to the Muslim world is a logical, political, and metaphysical consequence of his anti-American mentality. Even if Obama lives in fairyland, the stakes are too high to use ordinary criticism when speaking of such a president—holder of the most powerful office in the world.

Obama’s anti-America and anti-Israel objectives are evident not only in his political statements and policies, but also in the attitude of some of his political appointments and advisers—court Jews as well as non-Jews. Among the latter, suffice to mention former President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, a crypto-Marxist. To this anti-Semite add Obama’s appointment of Samantha Power to the National Security Council, who proposed a US invasion of Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.

Now ponder Obama’s disparagement of the American Declaration of Independence—whose “Higher Law” doctrine is rooted in the Torah. I deem this a war on America metaphysically equivalent to his war on Israel. If we juxtapose his early Muslim upbringing and current Muslim appeasement, logic indicates that Obama’s war on Israel and America is nothing less than a war against Western civilization in favor of Islam’s global ascendancy. Here is further evidence.

Obama’s (absurd) reference to America as a Muslim state, his adulation of Islam at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University (the Harvard of the Middle East), his demotion of Judaism in his Inaugural Address, his indifference to Ahmadinejad’s maledictions “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” his bowing to Saudi King Abdullah—these and other signs are indicative of an insidious global agenda.

It will not do to describe Obama as a closet Communist or to reveal his Muslim sympathies. We know of his anti-American and anti-Israel gurus such as Marxist Saul Alinsky, terrorist Bill Ayers, PLO-supporter and Saudi-connected Rashid Khalidi, “Nation of Islam” Jew-hater Louis Farrakhan, or “God damn America” preacher Jeremiah Wright—to mention only a few of Obama’s charming mentors.

Professor of international relations Angelo Codevilla warns that Obama is conducting a “self-discrediting [hence anti-American] diplomacy toward Iran, Russia, North Korea, and China.” Add Syria, which aids insurgents in Iraq and ships Iranian missiles to Iran’s client Hezbollah in Lebanon. Obama is not only appeasing enemies and punishing friends; he is disarming America morally and militarily. Let me reiterate his “war on Israel.” Israel is not only America’s most steadfast ally, supplier of advanced technology and incomparable intelligence. Israel is the only outpost of Western civilization in the Middle East. The loss of Jerusalem would ignite Islam’s long smoldering ambition to establish a Muslim world order.

Admittedly, every American administration since Nixon and Kissinger has pressed Israel to risk its existence—it’s called taking “risks for peace”—by conceding geostrategic assets to the PLO, the wiliest spearhead of Islam. The American government, conned into believing the PLO represents “moderation,” secretly and openly bankrolled this Fatah-led mafia during the past two decades. Of course, this is nothing compared to the Carter-Brzezinski subversion of the Shah of Iran, which facilitated the Iranian Revolution the return of the Parisian-exiled Ayatollah Khomeini to Teheran.

America’s ruling class—its policy-making, opinion-making, and military elites—is now being led by an Islamophile, an enemy of America. This ruling class, thanks to America’s misnamed “higher” education, is not only ignorant of the true nature of Islam; it is also ignorant of, or has never internalized, the classics of statecraft and war. Tainted by multicultural relativism, this backward ruling class cannot even see that while there are “moderate Muslims,” Islam is anything but moderate. This ruling class cannot address the fact that what it misleadingly calls Muslim “extremists” increasingly dominates Islamdom. Indeed, these Islamic-true Muslims are spreading throughout American democracy where they exploit a mindless liberalism or tolerance of “diversity.”

Thus, to paraphrase Codevilla, when a Muslim shouts “Allahu Akhbar,” as did U.S Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan as he shot 51 colleagues as Fort Hood, Texas, the official reaction revealed the stupefied and pusillanimous character of America’s ruling class—politicians and journalists and even high-ranking military officers. After the shootings, President Obama warned against “jumping to conclusions,” and Army Chief of Staff George Casey added, “it would be a greater tragedy if diversity became a casualty here.” Codevilla comments: “Never mind that Hasan identified himself on his business card as “SoA” (a soldier of Allah).

Official obscurantism makes Obama’s appeasement of Iran all the more fearful. Armed with nuclear tipped ballistic missiles, Iran could control the oil resources of the Middle East, emasculate Europe, totally collapse the American economy, and even resurrect the Persian Empire—the startling conclusion of Robert Baer, former CIA operative in the Middle East.

An American president who praises Islam and displays contempt for America’s Founding Fathers now constitutes an existential threat to Western Civilization.

This worst case scenario will be dismissed as scare-mongering. But whoever thought PLO chief Yasser Arafat, an Arab terrorist expelled from Lebanon, holed up in Tunis, without Iranian oil or arms, without even a minute fraction of Iran’s population and territory—who ever dreamed that this villain would become a mortal threat to Israel by gaining worldwide support for a PLO state in Israel’s heartland—and with the endorsement of Binyamin Netanyahu?! If the despicable PLO could accomplish this objective, it would be foolhardy to dismiss my worst case scenario.

As many scholars have warned, the West is involved in a clash of civilizations with Islam. We are in a world war having metaphysical significance. This war will not be won or even waged by democracies steeped in multicultural relativism. The trial of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders exemplifies the decadence of such democracies. Recall how they treated the gallant Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, who dared tell the truth about Islam in her book The Rage and the Pride. Recall how a Swiss judge issued an arrest warrant for her alleged violations of the Swiss criminal code and requested the Italian government to either prosecute or extradite her. Recall how an Italian judge ordered Fallaci to stand trial on charges of "defaming Islam" in her book The Force of Reason, most notably for her reference to Islam as "a pool that never purifies." But there is more.

Note Europe’s permissive immigration laws, the influx of millions of prolific anti-Western and economically ruinous Muslim immigrants—a sociological disaster documented by Michael Radu, Europe’s Ghost: Tolerance, Jihadism, and the Crisis of the West (2009). Fearful of the canard of “racism,” and animated by a perverted humanitarianism that permits the immigration even of Muslim terrorists expelled by Arab countries, England and Europe are committing national and cultural suicide.

This madness is invading the United States and it has anti-Semitic consequences for Israel. A countermovement to preserve Western Civilization is urgently needed. I will discuss this matter in a future article. Some people may want to send this article to Caroline Glick.
____________________

*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, March 22, 2010.

Paul Eidelberg
http://futureisrael.org/
http://www.foundation1.org/
http://thejewinyellow.blogspot.com/2008/04/urgent-public-message-from-prof.html

Caroline Glick's article A revolutionary proposal

Soros Group Preparing to Steal 2012 Election.

2010-03-22T02:23:00.000-07:00

. . . important enough for me to shamelessly copy it from Israel Commentary
http://www.israel-commentary.org/archives/2010_03.html#001357

(This is one of over a dozen articles appearing in Whistleblower Magazine, March 2010. For those interested in seeing that our country and way of life is not indeed stolen, please read
Whistleblower )

Redacted from article By Matthew Vadium

copyright 2009 The American Spectatorm

History’s most notorious Georgia turned-Russian, the politically astute Joseph Stalin once remarked, “The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” The lesson has not been lost on the increasingly notorious Hungarian-cum-American George Soros.

A group backed by Soros is gearing up to steal the 2012 election for President Obama and congressional Democrats by installing left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state across the nation. From such posts, secretaries of state can help tilt the electoral playing field. This is, of course, the same Soros, the same hyper political left-wing philanthropist, who makes no secret of his intention to destroy capitalism. In an interview with Der Spiegel last year, Soros said European-style socialism “is exactly what we need now. I am against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government involvement is always bad has been very successful — but also very harmful to our society.”

The vehicle for this planned hijacking of democracy is a below-the-radar non-federal “527” group called the Secretary of State Project. The entity can accept unlimited financial contributions and doesn’t have to disclose them publicly until well after the election. It was revealed during a panel discussion at the Democratic Party’s convention last year that the Democracy Alliance, a financial clearinghouse created by Soros and Progressive insurance magnate Peter B. Lewis, approved the Secretary of State Project as a grantee. The Democracy Alliance aspires to create a permanent political infrastructure of nonprofits, think tanks, media outlets, leadership schools, and activist groups — a kind of “vast left-wing conspiracy” to compete with the conservative movement. It has brokered more than $100 million in grants to liberal nonprofits, including ACORN.

The latest fundraising appeal from the SoS Project warns: “In the 2000 and 2004 elections, we saw the results of extreme Republican tactics to intimidate voters steal the presidential election — the disastrous presidency of George W Bush. Today, we watch as Republicans go to even greater extremes — even carrying guns to town hall meetings. If they are willing to go to such extremes now, how far will they go on November 2012 to steal the election from President Barack Obama?

At the top of the SoS Project’s slate of candidates for level secretary of state positions in 2010 is Minnesota’s radical left-wing Mark Ritchie, a former community organizers cavalier attitude toward electoral fraud and whose shamelessly partisan conduct during the recount process cleared the way for Al Franken to steal last year’s U.S. Senate election then-Senator Norm Coleman. R-Minn. Ritchie was first elected Minnesota secretary of state in 2006. Franken and Obama, by the way, were endorsed last year by ACORN Votes, ACC federal political action committee.

In 2006, the Minnesota ACORN PAC endorsed Ritchie, a longtime ACORN ally, and donated to his campaign. According to the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disc Board, contributors to Ritchie’s campaign included liberal philanthropists Soros, Drummond Pike and Deborah Rapp along with veteran community organizer Heather Booth, Alinsky disciple who co-founded the Midwest Academy, a radical ACORN clone that breeds Marxist agitators. One article in Ritchie’s 2006 campaign website brags about the fine work ACORN did in Florida to pass a constitutional amendment to raise that state’s minimum wage.

The 2010 slate also includes California Secretary of Debra Bowen, whom the group describes as “one of the progressive Secretaries of State in the nation.” California ACORN PAC endorsed Bowen, in her previous run. SoS Project is also endorsing Jocelyn Benson, candidate for secretary of state in Michigan, whom it lauds as an election law “scholar and community organizer.” Benson is a candidate ACORN would love. Assuming the desperately mismanaged Michigan continues to exist through Election Day next year, count on the desperately evil ACORN endorsing Benson.

To the Secretary of State Project, Republican secretaries of state are always snidely whiplashes trying to undermine progressive Dudley Do-Rights. SoS claims to advance “election protection” but only backs Democrats, and religiously believe that right-leaning secretaries of state helped the GOP steal the presidential elections in Florida in 2000 (Katherine Harris) and in Ohio in 2004 (Ken Blackwell).

The secretary of state candidates the group endorses all sing the same familiar song about electoral integrity issues that we routinely hear from ACORN: Voter fraud is largely a myth, vote suppression is used widely by Republicans cleansing the dead and fictional characters from voter rolls should be avoided until embarrassing media reports emerge, and anyone who demands that a voter produce photo identification, before pulling the lever, is a racist, democracy-hating fascist.

The group was co-founded in July 2006 by James Rucker, formerly director of grassroots mobilization for MoveOn.org Political Action and Moveon.org Civic Action. Rucker is also a co-founder of Color of Change, a race-baiting left-wing hate group. Its website claims, “A modest political investment in electing clean candidates to critical Secretary of State offices is an efficient way to protect the election.” Indeed. Political observers know that a relatively small amount of money can help swing a little-watched race for a state office few people understand or care about.

The strategic targeting of the SoS Project yielded astounding results in 2008 and 2006. In 2008, SoS Project-backed Democrats Linda McCulloch (Montana), Natalie Tennant West Virginia), Robin Carnahan (Missouri) and Kate Brown (Oregon) won their races. Only Carnahan was an incumbent. The Center for Public Integrity reported that the group performed this electoral feat in the 2008 election cycle with a mere $280,000.

In 2006, along with Minnesota’s Ritchie, SoS Project-endorsed Jennifer Brunner (Ohio), who defied federal law last year by refusing to take steps to verify 200,000 questionable voter registrations, trounced her opponent 55 percent to 41 percent. Democrats supported by the group also won that year in New Mexico, Nevada and Iowa. The group claims it spent about $500,000 in that election cycle.

Talk about return on investment! Stalin would be impressed.

Matthew Vadium is a senior editor at Capital Research Center, a Washington, D. C, think tank that studies the politics of philanthropy. The preceding first appeared on The American Spectator website at spectator.org and is reprinted with permission.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman
from:
Israel Commentary
http://www.israel-commentary.org/archives/2010_03.html#001357

How Obama's Healthcare Opens the Floodgates . . . to Government Takeover!

2010-03-13T23:41:00.000-08:00

The Healthcare Bill Would Be Obama’s ‘Enabling Act’
By Michael Zak

Article printed from Big Government: http://biggovernment.com/

Why are Barack Obama and other Democrat leaders so intent on passing a government takeover of healthcare now…Now…NOW?

They must know that costs will rise and the quality of care will fall, right? They must know that Obamacare would destroy the economy, right? Of course they do. But, they also know that the federal government would tighten its grip on the nation. They know that Obama’s czars and other appointees would be authorized to bypass Congress in enacting sweeping regulations on nearly every aspect of a person’s life. And, they know that these new powers of the federal government would be concentrated in the hands of the Democratic Party and the President.

Here’s what else they know. History affords many examples of regimes whose motto was “Never let a crisis go to waste.” In 1933, having campaigned for “hope” and “change,” the National Socialist Worker’s Party forced through the German parliament a Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation, also known as the Enabling Act.

This new law enabled the German chancellor and his appointees to bypass parliament in imposing sweeping regulations on the people:

“In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich [i.e., the Cabinet].”

The constitution of the Weimar Republic became so irrelevant that the new regime never saw a need to actually repeal it.

By this vote, the National Socialist Workers Party assumed absolute power and the Chancellor made history. [1]

Article printed from Big Government: http://biggovernment.com/

URL to article: http://biggovernment.com/mzak/2010/03/13/the-healthcare-bill-would-be-obamas-enabling-act/

Copyright © 2009 Big Government. All rights reserved.

ALSO

see

The Joining Together of Islam and the Left: The Perfect Death Machine
In Obama, Islam and the Left (socialists, marxists, communists) have found their perfect instrument.

"Forbidden Thoughts" Burst Out...Let the Shi--"Chips"--Fall where It May!

2010-02-28T14:00:00.000-08:00

.
Comment by Fjordman at "Gates of Vienna"

Fjordman's THIRD Comment there, where he quotes

Lawrence Auster:
from http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/015463.html

"I think it's reasonable to say that Obama's paramount objective in the health care bill and his other initiatives is to bring down white America, by punitively taxing middle class whites in the health care bill and transferring their money to nonwhites and illegal aliens; by siding with Islam against the United States ('I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear'); by sending U.S. soldiers to die for the sake of Afghans who are not our friends (see Diana West on this); by appointing the blatantly anti-white Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous anti-whites to posts in his administration; by supporting vastly expanded nonwhite immigration and amnesty (though he may not move forward with that this year); and by declaring, in his March 2008 race speech, that whites deserve to be hated by blacks with Jeremiah Wright type hatred until they make blacks equal to themselves in all outcomes and goods. He said this very clearly in that speech, as I've explained, but your typical conservatives were so awed by his criticisms of blacks and his nuance and his 'thoughtfulness' that they didn't notice it."

***

Later on, in this SAME Comment, after making the same case for "Eurabia," Fjordman finishes with:

"I suspect that future historians will refer to the early twenty-first century as a low point in the history of the white race, when hostile outsiders such as Muslims can abuse us in our own countries with impunity. We can probably get a little bit lower still, unfortunately, but we are approaching a low point. And a turning point, too?"

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/02/mohawk-model.html

Lawrence Auster, in the cited article, also makes the following statement:

"The health care bill is the main initiative of his presidency. Since it would be financially ruinous to the white, wealth producing, independent part of America for the sake of the nonwhite, non-wealth producing, dependent (and illegal alien) part, while also subjecting free Americans to a paralyzing bureaucracy from which they could never escape, it is his main way of breaking the back, crushing the independent spirit, of white America, of slaying the White Whale. That's why he must succeed and cannot compromise or accept defeat."

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/015463.html

Marching Toward Martial Law

2010-02-25T03:07:00.000-08:00

Obama is quietly building a coalition of forces within the U. S. A. (06:14)

From http://www.theobamafile.com/

WHAT DO YOU DO WITH A CAPTURED TALIBAN?

2010-02-17T14:13:00.000-08:00

Two ways of looking at counterinsurgency warfare:

From Islamabad Boys

During his December visit to Afghanistan, Mullen*--who strongly supports Obama’s troop surge--held a shura with a group of local elders on a U.S. base in Kandahar. "I would rather listen than speak," said the admiral, who wore a tan desert camouflage uniform. "Tell me what you think I need to understand that I may not understand." Mullen sat patiently as the men, grizzled under their turbans and dusty robes, bombarded him with rambling complaints about corruption and unemployment. He didn’t flinch when one tribal elder, upset that some Taliban detainees were being released by corrupt Afghan security forces, made a suggestion: In the future, he said, "just kill them on the ground. Do not turn them over to the Afghan forces." At the session’s end, Mullen assured the men that he’d heard their concerns, especially on corruption. Of the detainees, he added diplomatically, "The solution to just kill them on the street probably won’t work for us."

http://www.tnr.com/article/world/islamabad-boys?page=0%2C1

Whose way is better? Who's to say?
_________________________
*Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff

Getting Away With Murder - the Saudi Relation with the United States

2010-02-16T21:07:00.000-08:00

by Hugh Fitzgerald
from his "66 Suitcases"
at The Iconoclast
[truncated]
***
Saudi Arabia is not and never has been, and never could be, a "close ally" or an "ally" or a "friend" or anything at all except a mortal enemy, of the United States, as the most powerful of Infidel countries. Occasionally the Saudis find that their interests, and those of the Americans, may overlap -- the Saudis wanted the Red Army defeated in Afghanistan, because it was an army of Infidels suppressing Muslims, and the Americans wanted the Red Army defeated in Afghanistan because it wanted the Soviet Union defeated everywhere it chose to project its military power. The Americans wanted to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait because they feared the aggressive nature of his regime and his pretense of becoming King of the Arabs; the Saudis wanted to push Saddam Hussei out of Kuwait because they feared his designs on Saudi Arabia and the appeal of any rhetorical attacks by his regime on the corrupt Al-Saud.
[see my footnote regarding this. lw]

Saudi Arabia has spent nearly $100 billion over the past three decades on the Jihad to spread Islam. That money has paid for mosques, both buildings and maintenance, and madrasas, and propaganda disseminated in those mosques and madrasas that preach hatred and violence toward all Infidels; that money has paid for a vast army of Western hirelings, deployed in the capitals of the West to present Saudi Arabia as, precisely, a "close ally," with the real Saudi Arabia, the one described by J. B. Kelly in his essay "Of Valuable Oil and Worthless Policies," hidden from view -- as for decades it was hidden from American view by incessant Aramco propaganda. That money has also been used to buy influence to prevent any sensible energy plan that might diminish reliance on oil from being adopted by the government.

Saudi Arabia (and Kuwait and the Emirates as well) needs to be read the riot act. Its rulers should be told they can no longer send money to this country to spread hatred through the kind of propaganda disseminated in the mosques it pays for -- or at least, not without severe consequences. They can no longer be allowed to send money to pay for campaigns of Da'wa, targetted at the most vulnerable citizens in this country (if Muslims want to conduct missionary work, local Muslims will have to do it, not as part of a geopolitical campaign by Saudi or other rich Arabs). Any monies that come from Saudi Arabia should be carefully monitored, and those who receive those monies publicized -- so that all those influence-peddlers, those writers of Op/Ed articles and deliverers of lectures about "our friends the Saudis" and "America's real interests in the Middle East" -- given by those who cash their Saudi-generated checks even as they mutter darkly about "the Israeli lobby" -- and of course those who pay, directly or indirectly, for such groups as the "Council on the National Interest" -- which "National Interest" seems to be defined in one way only. Any such monies will be monitored, and the sums given public attention, or if a way can be found to do it, seized. There is no sense in regarding Saudi Arabia as anything other than an enemy, the chief provider of the Money Weapon for the world-wide Jihad. pay for these mosques, madrasas, or to such groups as do their bidding in lobbying the government. There is nothing that the Saudis can do to us. But the Al-Saud depend on us, in the end, for their own family's security. They depend on the West for petroleum engineers, and doctors, and every sort of expert to run their country. They depend on the West for medical care, education or at least the receipt of plausible-sounding degrees (a different thing), for the children of the ruling family's princes and princelings and even, here and there, possibly a princelette or two, and also for the children of the courtiers and middlemen and fixers who have made money from their connections to the Al-Saud, all essentially creatures of the oil bonanza, that is to say, of unstoppable torrents of money, where once there were only seasonal rivulets from wadis, that are the result only of an accident of geology.

Saudi Arabia depends entirely on the Western world for that medical care, that access to education, that fun-fair-cum-brothel-cum-gambling-den that Monte Carlo, and Las Vegas, and Marbella, and London, and even McLean, Virginia, and Aspen, Colorado (see that conduit for BAE bribes, Prince Bandar). The Al-Saud think they are above the law, and the British government, in choosing not to follow through on the BAE investigation’s results, has shown that at least they are above British law. Now we shall see if the scandal of the 66 suitcases, stuffed with heroin (or was it cocaine?) and brought into France, on a plane owned by a Saudi prince who now claims diplomatic immunity, will be dropped, which means that the Al-Saud would also be above French law.

And the final question remains: will the Al-Saud continue to get away with murder, that is to say with funding those who are hostile to, and who wish to undermine in every way, our own legal and political institutions because these institutions flatly contradict both the letter and spirit of Islam?

When will Saudi Arabia be re-dimensioned? When it will be seen as the primitive kingdom, ruled by Johnny-jump-ups who happen to have driven out the Hashemites, and to have defeated the Shammar tribe, and rule because they stand by the mutawwa, stand by the worst Wahhabis who, in turn, provide them, despite their enormous corruption and theft of national wealth, with the legitimacy that so far has allowed them not only to stay in power, but also not merely to dare to bully, but also to hire Western hirelings who help mislead the American public as to the supposed power of Saudi Arabia.

Cut it down to size, but begin by calling in Adel Jubeir and telling him not only that the “ally” business is long over, but the Saudi Arabian rulers, and Saudi “stability,” are dispensable as far as the American government and people are concerned. After all, in the end, if the oil wells of al-Hasa were to fall to those who are even worse, even more open, about their Islam-inculcated hatred of Infidels, we can – and would – seize those oil wells. And if the Saudis reply, as they will, with some blague about how they have “mined” the oilfields, don’t believe it. And if they further allude to all the money they can pull out of the American market, then they can be told that a great deal of Saudi wealth, especially of individuals, can be located and seized; that the corrupt behavior of Saudi princes can be easily tracked, filmed, and put on the Internet which would not make the lives of those princes any easier at home, and that there is a great deal more that can be done –unless they stop funding campaigns of Da’wa, not only here but elsewhere.

Posted on 01/31/2008 1:07 PM
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_months.cfm/m/1/y/2008
_____________________
Footnote
Ever wonder why George W. Bush chose to attack Iraq--after he attacked Afghanistan, the seat of bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership that planned and executed 9-11)? G.W. attacked Iraq, which was not the source of Al Qaeda and the 19 who crashed planes into U.S. buildings and one pasture, to divert our attention from Saudi Arabia, from whence came the financing for 9-11. Saudi should have been punished for 9-11, its oil fields taken from it, and its incursion of Islamic propaganda and literature into the U.S. stopped. As G.W. had connections to the Saudi "royals," he directed all attention to their rival Saddam and Iraq. --lw

The "Goldstone Factor" in Modern Warfare

2010-02-16T02:36:00.000-08:00

Fight a "just" war against those who have attacked and threaten to attack you again until you are destroyed, and you run the risk of raising the spectre of "Goldstone."

Yaakov Kirschen of Dry Bones hit a bullseye with that one:

To clarify, I'll let "Bones" explain:

the latest from Canada's Globe and Mail:

NATO strikes kill 12 civilians in Afghanistan "NATO rockets missed their target and killed 12 civilians in southern Afghanistan on Sunday, as NATO and Afghan forces continued a massive attack on two Taliban-held regions.

U.S. General Stanley McChrystal, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, apologized to Afghan President Hamid Karzai for the accident.

In a statement released by NATO, Gen. McChrystal said he regrets that innocent lives were lost in Nad Ali district.

Mr. Karzai issued a statement minutes earlier saying 10 members of the same family died when a rocket hit a house. Before the offensive began, Mr. Karzai pleaded with Afghan and foreign military leaders to be extra careful to avoid civilian casualties.

About 15,000 coalition troops are involved in Operation Moshtarak, named for a Dari word meaning "together" and launched before dawn Saturday. It’s one of the West’s biggest attacks since the start of the war in 2001." -more

So what's with the "Goldstone Factor?"

Caroline Glick explains:

"Late last week, the Zionist student movement Im Tirtzu published a detailed report demonstrating that 16 anti-Zionist NGOs funded by the post-Zionist New Israel Fund worked hand in glove with the UN Human Rights Council and Richard Goldstone to bring about the establishment of the Goldstone committee and give credibility to its allegations that Israel committed war crimes during Operation Cast Lead.[*] According to the Im Tirtzu report, 92 percent of Israeli allegations that Israel committed war crimes in its campaign against Hamas came from these 16 NIF-funded organizations." -more

[emphasis and color mine. lw]
__________________________
*Israel's operation in Gaza
__________________________

http://drybonesblog.blogspot.com/

Troops Held Back by Rules of Engagement

2010-02-15T14:36:00.000-08:00

Pier Paolo Cito / The Associated Press

U.S. soldiers and an Afghan soldier exchange fire with insurgents during a patrol in the Badula Qulp area, west of Lashkar Gah in Helmand province, on Feb. 14. In the fight, one soldier was wounded and at least one insurgent was killed. The soldiers are operating in support of a Marine offensive against the Taliban in the Marjah area.

Troops: Strict war rules slow Marjah offensive

By Alfred de Montesquiou and Deb Riechmann - The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Feb 15, 2010 15:08:51 EST

MARJAH, Afghanistan — Some American and Afghan troops say they’re fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap — strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.

Although details of the new guidelines are classified to keep insurgents from reading them, U.S. troops say the Taliban are keenly aware of the restrictions.

“I understand the reason behind it, but it’s so hard to fight a war like this,” said [a] Marine Lance Cpl. . . . . “They’re using our rules of engagement against us,” he said, adding that his platoon had repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians.

If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon — or if they did not personally watch him drop one.

What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can’t count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooters.

“This is difficult,” [another] Lance Cpl. . . . said Monday. “We are trained like when we see something, we obliterate it. But here, we have to see them and when we do, they don’t have guns.”

NATO and Afghan military officials say killing militants is not the goal of a 3-day-old attack to take control of this Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan. More important is to win public support.

They acknowledge that the rules entail risk to its troops, but maintain that civilian casualties or destruction of property can alienate the population and lead to more insurgent recruits, more homemade bombs and a prolonged conflict.

But troops complain that strict rules of engagement — imposed to spare civilian casualties — are slowing their advance into the town of Marjah in Helmand province, the focal point of the operation involving 15,000 troops.

“The problem is isolating where the enemy is,” said . . . . a Marine company commander from Stillwater, Okla. “We are not going to drop ordnance out in the open.”

That’s a marked change from the battle of Fallujah, Iraq, in November 2004. When Marines there encountered snipers holed up in a building, they routinely called in airstrikes. In Marjah, fighter jets are flying at low altitude in a show of force, but are not firing missiles.

Politically, it’s not the best time to campaign for relaxing the rules in Afghanistan. On Sunday, two U.S. rockets struck a house and killed 12 Afghan civilians during the offensive in Marjah, NATO said. On Monday, a NATO airstrike accidentally killed five civilians and wounded two in neighboring Kandahar province.

It was public outrage in Afghanistan over civilian deaths that prompted the top NATO commander, U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, last year to tighten the rules, including the use of airstrikes and other weaponry if civilians are at risk.

Afghan civilian deaths soared to 2,412 civilians last year — the highest number in any year of the 8-year-old war, according to a U.N. report. But the deaths attributed to allied troops dropped nearly 30 percent as a result of McChrystal’s new rules, according to the report.

Under the current rules of engagement, troops retain the right to use lethal force in self defense, said U.S. Col. Wayne Shanks, a spokesman for the international force.

The rules seek to put the troops in the “right frame of mind to exercise that right,” Shanks said. They require troops to ask a few fundamental questions:

• Even if someone has shot in my general direction, am I still in danger?

• Will I make more enemies than I’ll kill by destroying property, or harming innocent civilians?

• What are my other options to resolve this without escalating the violence?

On Monday, Marines in the northern part of Marjah followed the rules of engagement, but a civilian still ended up dead.

As troops fought teams of insurgent snipers throughout the day in heavy gunfights, a young Afghan man ran toward the Marines. More than once, the troops warned him to stop, but he kept running.

Following the rules, the Marines uttered a verbal warning, and fired a flare and a warning shot overhead. Still the man didn’t stop. Marines shot him dead.

Afterward, Marine officers said the victim appeared to be a mentally ill man who had panicked during the gun battle.

“Sadly, everything was done right,” said Lt. Col. Brian Christmas, commander of 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines. “The family understood.”

Christmas said his troops might be frustrated, but understand the reasons behind the strict rules. As he spoke, Cobra attack helicopters fired Hellfire missiles nearby. Ground forces under intense fire had requested the air support 90 minutes earlier, but it took that long to positively identify the militants who were shooting at the allied forces.

“We didn’t come to Marjah to destroy it, or to hurt civilians,” Christmas said.

That message was drilled into the troops in the run-up to the offensive.

“What are we here for?” Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, the top Marine commander in Afghanistan, would shout to his troops.

“The people!” was the troops’ refrain.

Afghan forces cite examples of the restrictions too.

Col. Shrin Shah Kohbandi, commander of the new Afghan army corps in Helmand province, told reporters that his troops saw militants running away from the battlefield toward a village in Nad Ali district where they disappeared among villagers. “They hid their weapons so they became ‘civilians,’ ” under the rules, he said. “We didn’t kill them and we weren’t able to arrest them.”

Khan Mohammad Khan, a former Afghan National Army commander in neighboring Kandahar province, said being able to use heavy weapons and conduct air strikes only in selective situations has hamstrung troops in Marjah.

But Brig. Gen. Sher Mohammad Zazai, commander of Afghan troops in the south, said there is no plan to revise the rules.

“The aim of the operation is not to kill militants,” he said. “The aim is to protect civilians and bring in development.”

———

Associated Press writers Rahim Faiez in Helmand province, and Heidi Vogt and Amir Shah in Kabul contributed to this report.

All content © 2010, Army Times Publishing Company

SEE Fighting a War With Our Hands Tied--Once Again!

Taliban Attack Troops in Marjah

2010-02-15T14:30:00.000-08:00

Taliban steps up attacks on troops in Marjah

By Alfred de Montesquiou - The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Feb 15, 2010 15:09:26 EST

MARJAH, Afghanistan — Taliban fighters stepped up counterattacks Monday against U.S. Marines and Afghan soldiers in the militant stronghold of Marjah, slowing the allied advance to a crawl despite Afghan government claims that the insurgents are broken and on the run.

Taliban fighters appeared to be slipping under the cover of darkness into compounds already deemed free of weapons and explosives, then opening fire on the Marines from behind U.S. lines.

Also Monday, NATO said five civilians were accidentally killed and two wounded by an airstrike when they were mistakenly believed to have been planting roadside bombs in Kandahar province, east of the Marjah offensive.

The airstrike happened one day after 12 people, half of them children, were killed by two U.S. missiles that struck a house on the outskirts of Marjah. Afghan officials said Monday that three Taliban fighters were in the house at the time of the attack.

On the third day of the main attack on Marjah, Afghan commanders spoke optimistically about progress in the town of about 80,000 people, the linchpin of the Taliban logistical and opium poppy smuggling network in the militant-influenced south.

Brig. Gen. Sher Mohammad Zazai, commander of Afghan troops in the south, told reporters in nearby Lashkar Gah that there had been “low resistance” in the town, adding “soon we will have Marjah cleared of enemies.”

Interior Minister Hanif Atmar said many insurgent fighters had already fled Marjah, possibly heading for Pakistan.

In Marjah, however, there was little sign the Taliban were broken. Instead, small, mobile teams of insurgents repeatedly attacked U.S. and Afghan troops with rocket, rifle and rocket-propelled grenade fire. Insurgents moved close enough to the main road to fire repeatedly at columns of mine-clearing vehicles.

At midday at least six large gunbattles were raging across the town, and helicopter gunships couldn’t cover all the different fighting locations.

Allied officials have reported only two coalition deaths so far — one American and one Briton killed Saturday. There have been no reports of wounded. Afghan officials said at least 27 insurgents have been killed so far in the offensive.

Nonetheless, the harassment tactics and the huge number of roadside bombs, mines and booby traps planted throughout Marjah have succeeded in slowing the movement of allied forces through the town. After daylong skirmishes, some Marine units had barely advanced at all by sundown.

As long as the town remains unstable, NATO officials cannot move to the second phase — restoring Afghan government control and rushing in aid and public services to win over inhabitants who have been living under Taliban rule for years.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai approved the assault on Marjah only after instructing NATO and Afghan commanders to be careful about harming civilians. “This operation has been done with that in mind,” the top NATO commander, U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, said Monday.

Despite those instructions, NATO said two U.S. rockets veered off target by up to 600 yards and slammed into a home Sunday outside Marjah, killing 12 people. Six children were among the dead, a NATO military official confirmed Monday, speaking on condition of anonymity because the information had not been formally released.

In London, Britain’s top military officer, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, called the missile strike a “very serious setback” to efforts to win the support of local communities, who are from the same Pashtun ethnic group as the Taliban.

“This operation ... is not about battling the Taliban. It is about protecting the local population, and you don’t protect them when you kill them,” he said in an interview with the BBC.

NATO said the Kandahar airstrike was ordered Monday after a joint NATO-Afghan patrol saw people digging along a path “and believed that the individuals” were planting a roadside bomb. When they realized their mistake, troops flew the wounded to a NATO hospital, the statement said.

“We regret this tragic accident and offer our sympathies to the families of those killed and injured,” said Maj. Gen. Michael Regner, the NATO command’s deputy chief of staff for joint operations. “Our combined forces take every precaution to minimize civilian casualties, and we will investigate this incident to determine how this happened.”

About 15,000 U.S., Afghan and British troops are taking part in the massive offensive around Marjah area — the largest southern town under Taliban control. The offensive is the biggest joint operation since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan.

The main attack began before dawn Saturday when dozens of helicopters dropped hundreds of Marines and Afghan soldiers into the heart of the city. Ground troops began moving just before sunrise, using makeshift bridges to cross the irrigation canals ringing the town because the main bridge was so heavily mined.

Although there was only scattered resistance on the first day, Taliban fighters seem to have regrouped, using hit-and-run tactics to try to prevent the Americans and their Afghan allies from gaining full control of the area.

The Taliban snipers appeared highly skilled at concealing themselves.

“I haven’t seen anything, not one person, not a muzzle flash,” said . . . a former Marine and retired police officer embedded with the Marines as a law enforcement professional. “And I’ve been looking a lot.”

———

Associated Press writer Rahim Faiez contributed to this report from Lashkar Gah.

All content © 2010, Army Times Publishing Company

Troops Moving into Marjah Engage in Firefights

2010-02-15T14:28:00.000-08:00

U.S., Afghan forces push deeper into Marjah

By Alfred de Montesquiou - The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Feb 15, 2010 10:36:41 EST

MARJAH, Afghanistan — Sniper teams attacked U.S. Marines and Afghan troops across the Taliban haven of Marjah, as several gun battles erupted Monday on the third day of a major offensive to seize the extremists’ southern heartland.

Multiple firefights broke out in different neighborhoods as American and Afghan forces worked to clear out pockets of insurgents and push slowly beyond parts of the town they have claimed. With gunfire coming from several directions all day long, troops managed to advance only 500 yards deeper as they fought off small squads of Taliban snipers.

“There’s still a good bit of the land still to be cleared,” said . . . a Marine spokesman. “We’re moving at a very deliberative pace.”

The massive offensive in the Marjah area — the largest Taliban stronghold and a key opium trafficking hub — involves about 15,000 U.S., Afghan and British troops and is the biggest joint operation since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan.

On Monday, Afghan military officials gave a more optimistic view of the progress being made, with Brig. Gen. Sher Mohammad Zazai saying Afghan and NATO forces have largely contained the insurgents and succeeded in gaining trust from residents, who have pointed out mine locations.

“Today there is no major movement of the enemy. South of Marjah they are very weak. There has been low resistance. Soon we will have Marjah cleared of enemies,” Zazai said at a briefing in Lashkar Gah, the provincial capital of Helmand province. He added that only three Afghan troops had been injured.

Interior Minister Hanif Atmar said he expected some insurgent fighters had already fled the area in advance of the offensive, possibly heading to the Pakistan border.

The enemy “had ample time to flee. Our intention was known to both our public and the enemy,” he said.

However, the mission faced a setback on Sunday when two U.S. rockets slammed into a home outside Marjah, killing 12 civilians. NATO said Monday that the rockets missed their target by about 600 meters, or about a third of a mile. NATO had earlier said the rockets missed their target by just 300 meters.

Six children were among the dead from the rocket strike, a NATO military official confirmed Monday, speaking on condition of anonymity because the information had not been formally released.

British Chief of the Defense Staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup called the off-target strike a “very serious setback” in efforts to win the support of local communities.

“This operation ... is not about battling the Taliban. It is about protecting the local population and you don’t protect them when you kill them,” he said in an interview with the BBC.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who had pleaded with NATO and Afghan forces to be cautious about civilian casualties ahead of the offensive, has called for a thorough investigation into the airstrike.

Differing accounts have emerged about the details. On Monday, Afghan Interior Minister Atmar said at the briefing in Lashkar Gah that nine civilians and two or three insurgents were among those killed, suggesting that insurgents were firing at troops from a civilian home.

“The reality is this ... the enemy did capture some civilians in their house and they were firing at our forces from this house. Unfortunately our forces didn’t know that civilians were living in that house,” he said.

The top NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, apologized for “this tragic loss of life” and suspended use of the sophisticated rocket system pending a thorough review.

The rockets were fired by the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, at insurgents who had attacked U.S. and Afghan forces, wounding one American and one Afghan, NATO said. However, the projectiles veered off target and blasted the home in northern Nad Ali district, which includes Marjah, NATO added.

Karzai spokesman Waheed Omar said the president “is very upset about what happened” and has been “very seriously conveying his message” of restraint “again and again.”

Inside Marjah, sporadic firefights increased by midday. One armored column came under fire from at least three separate sniper teams, slowing its progress. One of the teams came within 155 feet and started firing.

“It’s a pretty busy day but we expected that because we are penetrating,” said Lt. Col. Brian Christmas, commander of 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines, referring to a half-dozen major gun battles throughout town.

Marines said their ability to fight back has been tightly constrained by strict new rules of engagement that make their job more difficult and dangerous. Under the rules, troops cannot fire at people unless they commit a hostile act or show hostile intent.

“I understand the reason behind it, but it’s so hard to fight a war like this,” said [a] Lance Cpl. . . . “They’re using our rules of engagement against us,” he said, stating that his platoon had repeatedly seen men dropping their guns into ditches before walking away to melt among civilians.

Allied officials have reported two coalition deaths so far — one American and one Briton killed Saturday. Afghan officials said at least 27 insurgents have been killed in the offensive.

Separately in southern Afghanistan, NATO said two service members died Sunday — one from small-arms fire and the other from a roadside bomb explosion. Both were British, according to the British government.

All content © 2010, Army Times Publishing Company

Marines in Marjah - and how about the Afghan National Army?

2010-02-15T02:54:00.000-08:00

At his "The Captain's Journal," Herschel Smith has quite another view of what is happening than the news being leaked from official sources.

Writing about "The Battle for Marjah", Mr. Smith asks what is the ANA (Afghan National Army) really doing? And answers his question with “As Marines unloaded equipment needed to build an outpost at Five Points [and] others manned 'fighting holes' [foxholes]," the Afghan soldiers stayed in their trucks, with engines running, and heaters "at full blast.”

About the dozen noncombatants killed, Herschel Smith says, "Predictably, McChrystal has prostrated himself before Karzai. To be sure, we should pay the family, Marine officers should sit with surviving kin, and so on and so forth." This public posturing, however, he considers a "silly overreach, as if we are attempting to convince the American or Afghan public that there is any such thing as riskless war – war conducted in laboratories by men wearing white coats, where mistakes are mere failures to follow procedure and can be fixed by retraining men and retooling paperwork."

He concludes his analysis with, "It’s all a lie. The noncombatant deaths aren’t a mistake in procedure or protocol. They are a tragedy of war, a tragedy that can only be avoided by losing the campaign or losing our own warriors."

COMMENT: The point is, where do we want the casualties? Do we want to sacrifice our own troops to spare the civilians (who supposedly were given advance warning to get the hell out of Marjah until it had been secured)?

And then of course there is the very iffy Afghan National Army (ANA), that is apparently sparing itself from sustaining casualties.

If we can't depend on the Afghans to stand up to the Taliban--the same Afghans who are supposed to protect the civilians from the Islamic extremists (the civilians are also Moslems) when we pull out--then what in blazes are we accomplishing?

(a rhetorical question)

LW

See Fighting a War With Our Hands Tied--Once Again!

and Marines Under Fire Ahead of Assault
Continuation of the foregoing post: Fighting a War With Our Hands Tied--Once Again!

British Troops in Operation 'Moshtarak' near Marjah, Helmand province, Afghanistan

2010-02-14T17:43:00.000-08:00

"In this photo released by Britain's Ministry of Defense, members of the F Company (Fire Support) 1 Royal Welsh take position during operation 'Moshtarak' Saturday, Feb. 13, 2010, near Marjah, in Afghanistan's Helmand province. British troops are among the thousands of NATO and Afghan soldiers who stormed the Taliban stronghold of Marjah by air and ground Saturday. AP"

Bombs, Booby-Traps Slow US Advance In Afghan Town

By Alfred De Montesquiou

MARJAH: AP – Bombs and booby-traps slowed the advance of thousands of U.S. Marines and Afghan soldiers moving through the Taliban-controlled town of Marjah — NATO’s most ambitious effort yet to break the militants’ grip over their southern heartland.

NATO said Saturday it hoped to secure the area in days, set up a local government and rush in development aid in a first test of the new U.S. strategy for turning the tide of the eight-year war. The offensive is the largest since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan.

The Taliban appeared to have scattered in the face of overwhelming force, possibly waiting to regroup and stage attacks later to foil the alliance’s plan to stabilize the area and expand Afghan government control in the volatile south.

NATO said two of its soldiers were killed in the first day of the operation — one American and one Briton, according to military officials in their countries. Afghan authorities said at least 20 insurgents were killed.

More than 30 transport helicopters ferried troops into the heart of Marjah before dawn Saturday, while British, Afghan and U.S. troops fanned out across the Nad Ali district to the north of the mud-brick town, long a stronghold of the Taliban.

Maj. Gen. Gordon Messenger told reporters in London that British forces "have successfully secured the area militarily" with only sporadic resistance from Taliban forces. A Taliban spokesman insisted their forces still controlled the town. President Barack Obama was keeping a close watch on combat operations, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

The president will get an update from his national security adviser, Gen. Jim Jones, later Saturday. Vietor said Defense Secretary Robert Gates will also have the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, brief Obama on Sunday morning.

In Marjah, Marines and Afghan troops faced little armed resistance. But their advance through the town was impeded by countless land mines, homemade bombs and booby-traps littering the area. Throughout the day, Marine ordnance teams blew up bombs where they were found, setting off huge explosions that reverberated through the dusty streets.

The bridge over the canal into Marjah from the north was rigged with so many explosives that Marines erected temporary bridges to cross into the town. "It’s just got to be a very slow and deliberate process," said Capt. Joshua Winfrey of Stillwater, Okla., a Marine company commander.

Lt. Col. Brian Christmas, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines, said U.S. troops fought gunbattles in at least four areas of the town and faced "some intense fighting."

To the east, the battalion’s Kilo Company was inserted into the town by helicopter without meeting resistance but was then "significantly engaged" as the Marines fanned out from the landing zone, Christmas said.

Marine commanders had said they expected between 400 and 1,000 insurgents — including more than 100 foreign fighters — to be holed up in Marjah, a town of 80,000 people that is the linchpin of the militants’ logistical and opium-smuggling network in the south.

Saturday’s ground assault followed several hours after the first wave of helicopters flew troops over the mine fields into the center of town before dawn. Helicopter gunships fired missiles at Taliban tunnels and bunkers while flares illuminated the night sky so pilots could see their landing zones.

The offensive, code-named "Moshtarak," or "Together," was described as the biggest joint operation of the Afghan war, with 15,000 troops involved, including some 7,500 in Marjah itself. The government says Afghan soldiers make up at least half of the offensive’s force.

Once Marjah is secured, NATO hopes to quickly deliver aid and provide public services in a bid to win support among the estimated 125,000 people who live in the town and surrounding villages. The Afghans’ ability to restore those services is crucial to the success of the operation and in preventing the Taliban from returning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Article and photo thanks to Muslim World Today, founded by Tashbih Sayyed* ONE WHO STOOD UP AGAINST THE JIHAD]

Member of the Internet Link Exchange
Front Page Editorials South Asia Media Arab Media Focus Archives Subscribe to Muslim World Today Advertise on Muslim World Today

Copyright © 2010 Muslim World Today
____________________
*Tashbih Sayyed (1941–2007) was a Pakistani-American scholar, journalist, and author and was the Editor in Chief of Our Times, Pakistan Today, and In Review. Tashbih Sayyed worked from 1967-1980 for the Pakistan Television Corporation. In 1981, he emigrated to the United States. As a regular columnist for newspapers in the US, Pakistan, Germany and India, Sayyed wrote about what he perceived as the Islamist threat to the US. He is featured in the documentaries, Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in Israel and Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West.
from wikipedia

Army to Punish at Least 6 in Hasan Case

2010-02-13T17:44:00.000-08:00

[Hasan, murderer
in the name of Islam. lw]

February 12, 2010
Stars and Stripes

-->
The Army will punish at least six officers for failing to properly supervise or take action against the accused Fort Hood shooter in the years leading up to the attack, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.

Senior Army officials told the newspaper this week that the move reflects investigators’ belief that the November attack at the Texas base, in which 13 people were killed, could have been prevented if supervisors had reacted to the suspicious and erratic behavior of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

Colleagues say Hasan, an Army psychiatrist and practicing Muslim, often inappropriately interjected faith into workplace situations, even on occasion evangelizing to patients. Despite knowledge of those actions, Hasan was not reprimanded and was even promoted over the years.

The Journal reports that most of the officers facing punishment are stationed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., where Hasan worked for six years. The punishments will be detailed in an “accountability review” to be delivered to top Army officials as early as today.

A senior Army official told the newspaper that the investigation found military doctors at Walter Reed were so focused on teaching and clinical work that they failed to adequately supervise Hasan or alert authorities when he began to express extremist religious views.

The recommended punishments include a letter of reprimand, which would effectively end the officers’ military careers.

Sources told the Journal that as many as eight officers could end up facing punishment as a result of the investigation.

Separate White House and Pentagon reviews of the shooting found breakdowns in communication between Hasan’s colleagues, military units and even outside law enforcement agencies about Hasan’s radical Islamic beliefs.

Following the release of his department’s report, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said investigators found the military isn’t prepared to prevent similar attacks in the future, because commanders are unsure how to intervene if they think someone within the ranks is a threat. Military leaders were instructed to review policies and procedures to change that.

©

This article is provided courtesy of Stars & Stripes, which got its start as a newspaper for Union troops during the Civil War, and has been published continuously since 1942 in Europe and 1945 in the Pacific. Stripes reporters have been in the field with American soldiers, sailors and airmen in World War II, Korea, the Cold War, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Bosnia and Kosovo, and are now on assignment in the Middle East.Stars and Stripes has one of the widest distribution ranges of any newspaper in the world. Between the Pacific and European editions, Stars & Stripes services over 50 countries where there are bases, posts, service members, ships, or embassies.
Stars & Stripes Website
© 2009

Defeating IEDs in Operation Moshtarak in Marjah, Afghanistan

2010-02-13T04:37:00.000-08:00

BREACHERS

Afghanistan - In comes "The Joker."

That's the nickname given by the crew to one of the 72-ton, 40-foot-long Assault Breacher Vehicles. Fitted with a plow and nearly 7,000 pounds of explosives, the Breachers, as they are commonly known, are the Marine Corps' answer to the deadliest threat facing NATO troops in Afghanistan: thousands of land mines and roadside bombs, or improvised explosive devices, that litter the Afghan landscape.

The Breachers, metal monsters that look like a tank with a cannon, carry a 15-foot-wide plow supported by metallic skis that glide on the dirt, digging a safety lane through the numerous minefields laid by the Taliban.

If there are too many mines, the Breachers can fire rockets carrying high-grade C-4 explosive up to 150 yards forward, detonating the hidden bombs at a safe distance so that troops and vehicles can pass through safely.

The detonations - over 1,700 pounds of Mine Clearing Line Charges - send a sheet fire into the air and shock waves rippling through the desert in all directions.

***

Several Breachers - including "The Joker" and its twin "Iceman" - will be used in the Marjah assault. Commanders hope they will make a huge difference as troops pierce through layer after layer of minefields circling the town.

"I consider it to be a truly lifesaving weapon," said Gunnery Sgt. Steven Sanchez, 38, leader of a platoon from the 2nd Marines Combat Engineers Battalion.

A cross between a bulldozer and Abrams tank with a 1,500-horsepower turbine engine, Breachers are so valuable that they only travel outside bases along with a tank retrieval vehicle to drag them to safety if they are damaged.

Sanchez's platoon drove Breachers in their first combat operation in December, when Marines reclaimed a section of the heavily mined Now Zad valley farther north in Helmand province. "We made history, and the Breacher did well," says Sanchez, of Palm Desert, Calif.
http://www.military.com/news/article/mine-busting-breachers-join-marjah-assault.html

BREACHER IN ACTION

Bulldozer-tank hybrid takes out minefields

. . . the U.S. Marines – as they move on the Taliban in the Marjah district of Helmand province – are giving thanks for "the Breacher," the latest generation of mine clearance vehicles. Its full name is the Assault Breacher Vehicle and it looks like a cross between a bulldozer and a tank with a set of deadly steel teeth. Which it is: its frame is based on the A1M1 Abrams battle tank, while its plow was developed by a British company and can tear up the dirt to a depth of 14 inches.

The Breacher weighs some 70 tons and yet can travel at speeds of up to 45 mph. In development since the 1990s, it has arrived just in time for a stiff test of its capabilities.
The Taliban have had weeks to place hundreds of IEDs around Marjah, and the early going in the offensive suggests they have certainly slowed down the movement of some allied units. The Taliban are also planting much more powerful and sophisticated devices than they were a year ago. A recent NATO briefing showed that whereas 18 months ago the charge in most IEDs weighed less than 25 pounds, now about three-quarters weigh more than that.
　
When it hits and detonates a mine or IED, the Breacher hardly shudders. (Watch Marine Corps video of the Breacher in action)

But its greatest asset is the ability to fire rockets with high explosives into a minefield from a distance of some 150 yards. The rockets carry 1,700 pounds of C4 on a line charge – almost like a lasso. When the line lands, it's detonated from within the Breacher and shock waves set off many of the mines. The line can also be used to breach fortifications.

The Marines are probably pretty happy that they persevered with the Breacher after the U.S. Army cancelled a similar program back in 2001 to build a breed of mine clearance vehicles called the Grizzly. There are only a handful of Breachers in service in Afghanistan now, but the Marines hope to have about 50 operational by 2012. And the U.S. Army is now also ordering them. Perhaps that's why one Breacher crew calls their vehicle "the Joker."
http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/12/bulldozer-tank-hybrid-takes-out-minefields/

　

Marines Under Fire Ahead of Assault

2010-02-11T14:19:00.000-08:00

Continuation of the foregoing post: Fighting a War With Our Hands Tied--Once Again!

Marines Under Fire Ahead of Assault
　
U.S. Marines came under attack from insurgents armed with sniper guns and rocket-propelled grenades as they geared up Wednesday to overwhelm a Taliban bastion in Afghanistan.

Thousands of Marines along with foreign and Afghan soldiers are taking up position around the town of Marjah in Helmand, which officials say is one of the last areas of the southern province under Taliban control.

The flow of residents fleeing the imminent offensive has slowed, provincial officials said, after loaded-down cars, trucks, tractors and buses clogged roads from Marjah to provincial capital Lashkah Gar for days.

"We have announced and told people in Marjah not to leave their houses as our operation is well planned and designed to target the enemy," said Daud Ahmadi, spokesman for Helmand Governor Mohammad Gulab Mangal.

"Civilians will not be harmed," he said. Another 75 families had left Marjah, on top of 164 families who left earlier, the spokesman said. Other officials have said more than 400 families have fled.

***

It is seen as a key test of a comprehensive counter-insurgency strategy that aims to follow up what officials predict will be a decisive military victory by establishing Afghan government control.

But Taliban fighters appear defiant in the face of the enormous fire power being amassed in the region, where they have held sway for years in tandem with drug traffickers.

On the northeastern edge of Marjah, an AFP photographer said U.S. Marines arrived by helicopter at a deserted junction and immediately came under sniper fire from insurgents.

The Marines' encampment, reinforced with sandbags, also came under rocket fire. U.S. Cobra helicopters were called in to attack Taliban positions, the photographer said.

More--Read it all http://www.military.com/news/article/marines-under-fire-ahead-of-assault.html?col=1186032325324

Also

Marines Wait in Cold for Afghan Offensive
Mine-Busting ‘Breachers’ Join Marjah Assault
US Faults Command Over Deadly Afghan Ambush
Marine Deaths Underscore US Struggle The incident, deadly and tragic as it was, rated only one short sentence on the official NATO website. The violent deaths of Marine Sgt. Daniel Angus, 28, and Lance Cpl. Zachary Smith, 19, underscore how quickly things can go from bad to worse in the frontline battle against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan....More
Marine Deaths Underscore US Struggle
US, Allies Tell Taliban About Offensive
Marines Under Fire Ahead of Assault
Al-Qaida Deputy Surfaces After Airstrike
McChrystal Orders AAFES Scaled Back
Video: Cobra Gun has no Mercy
Kit Up!: Stryker Pros and Cons

Fighting a War With Our Hands Tied--Once Again!

2010-02-04T04:03:00.000-08:00

The lessons that should have been learned in Vietnam and Korea appear to have been forgotten--by the military--can't expect them to be remembered by the nincompoop that poses and postures as their "Commander-in-Chief." I'm talking about restrictions on where troops are allowed to pursue the enemy--"de-militarized zones," parallels that cannot be crossed by our troops to pursue and destroy the enemy that is killing them, etc.

Comment at Military.com NAVY INSIDER:

I was in the navy in the vietnam fiasco. What we are in now is the same bull shit except at a grander scale.Our pilots were briefed to what they could bomb . No towns,no airports, no train stations,no fuel depots. They could bomb rice patties, foot bridges across a rice patty, water buffalo. . . .
Posted by: Barry Clark February 02, 2010 at 06:57 PM

Now with the a$$-clown ensconced in our White House and Gen. McChrystal, the latest expert on counter-insurgent warfare forcing impossible Rules of Engagement (ROEs) on our troops, we stand to lose another war.

Of course we DO NOT WANT VICTORY: the "Commander-in-Chief" declared that bluntly, it does not sit well with him, as he remembers (falsely) Hirohito (Jap. emperor during WWII) coming down to the USS Missouri to sign the unconditional surrender document. Of course his memory about WWII is sadly deficient when he remembers his uncle freeing concentration camps.

But back to Afghanistan, the war he wants to end, but not win.

Looking at Afghanistan today:

"The enemy IS their population. Can't we all just read the Koran?"
--1387FURF

When townsfolk can pelt the Marines with rocks and Taliban fighters can run amok in the crowds, U.S. forces are not respected. It’s an ominous sign – that the most feared fighting force on earth, the 911 forces of America, the most deadly, rapid and mobile strike forces of any nation anywhere, can be pelted with rocks and hit with sticks without any fear whatsoever. This isn’t likely to ensure belief by the population that they will be "protected" by our forces.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2010/02/02/are-the-rules-of-engagement-making-any-difference/

From Military.com NAVY INSIDER :

Troops Feel Growing Rage in Afghanistan
Troops Feel Growing Rage in Afghanistan Anger, frustration and a hunger for revenge are running high among U.S. Marines as casualties mount on the frontline of the battle against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan. Outside a tent housing the Marine unit responsible for firing mortars stands an improvised cross bearing the inscription: "Here lies the 81st, death by stand down."...More

http://www.military.com/news/article/troops-feel-growing-anger-in-afghanistan.html?wh=news&ESRC=navy.nl

New US Air Strategy in Afghanistan
Six months after Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S commander in Afghanistan, issued a tactical directive urging troops to walk away from a fight rather than risk killing civilians, the Air Force is engaging in a campaign of restraint. Instead of airstrikes, Airmen are increasingly searching for places they can drop bombs that can be heard and felt, but where they're unlikely to damage buildings or hurt people....More

http://www.military.com/news/article/new-us-air-strategy-in-afghanistan.html?ESRC=navy.nl

Are the rules of engagement making any difference?
BY Herschel Smith

In order to believe that the ROE is beneficial, one must believe that the higher casualties suffered now will redound to less in the future. But this is unproven doctrine, with the ROE is Iraq more robust than it has been thus far in Afghanistan.

… the Taliban feel utterly protected by being amidst the population. While it may be backed with all of the nice intentions mankind can muster, the unintended consequences of less robust rules of engagement are that more noncombatants die. Many, if not most, of these townsfolk would never have been there if they had believed that they were in mortal danger, and the Taliban wouldn’t have been there to instigate the event(s) if we were giving chase to them and they were running for their lives.

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2010/02/02/are-the-rules-of-engagement-making-any-difference/

Enlisted Marines on the Rules of Engagement
By Herschel Smith

Based on recent communications with enlisted Marines (of various ranks), a perspective is developing around the current rules of engagement for Afghanistan. There is no such thing as air or artillery support any more. The ROE General McChrystal has set in place is killing Marines. Sure, there was the ROE in Iraq, but Marines were genuinely encouraged to think for themselves, assess the situation, and ascertain the best course of action independently. This is not being done in Afghanistan, where rules are micromanaging the tactical situation. Many Marines with combat experience in Iraq are leaving the Corps for various reasons, but at least one reason for the exit can be traced to a lack of willingness to deploy to Afghanistan under the current circumstances. Deploying Marines to Afghanistan are mostly inexperienced.

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2010/02/02/are-the-rules-of-engagement-making-any-difference/

Stryker Network Fail in Afghanistan?
Roadside bombs and military grade land mines continue to cause the largest number of U.S. casualties Afganistan. If there are new tactics or pieces of equipment that can aid in the counter-IED fight we want to know about it....More

http://kitup.military.com/2010/01/stryker-network-fail-in-afghanistan.html#comments?ESRC=navy.nl

Announcing the Marja Offensive
BY Herschel Smith
From the WSJ

Getty Images
Marines take cover after hearing shots during a patrol in the outskirts of Marjah in Afghanistan's Helmand province on Jan. 19.
Photo from The Wall Street Journal WSJ.com

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2010/02/03/announcing-the-marja-offensive/

FINAL THOUGHTS

From COMMENTS at Stryker Network Fail in Afghanistan?

I am impressed by the intellectual depth of the 3 and 4 star politician generals. Converting our killing machine to Agency for international Developement is a formula for dissolution of the killing machine and the fullfilment of the dream of our adversaries.(break us financially and psychologically). Long engagement cannot be supported in domestic politics. All Vol Force will break, American people's will will break. These adversaries think in centuries, not presidential 4 yr term.
Posted by: Robert C Brenzel, Sr February 02, 2010 at 07:20 AM
　
Why is there no defined mission in Afghanistan? Just a vague "War on Terror". Afghans will fight any outsider who is in their country just because they have nothing better to do. We are trying to win over the populus by being friendly now. Offering to pay insurgents who "change their ways". The only thing these people understand is violence.This is ridiculous to a soldier who was trained to kill, but now has to write down and try to address every stupid grievance these people have. The same people that are waiting for my to turn my back so they can throw a grenade at it.
Posted by: Confused Soldier February 02, 2010 at 07:50 AM

http://kitup.military.com/2010/01/stryker-network-fail-in-afghanistan.html#comments?ESRC=navy.nl

Comment to Troops Feel Growing Rage in Afghanistan

1387FURF
Feb 1, 2010 2:13:43 PM

The enemy IS their population. Can't we all just read the Koran?

http://www.military.com/news/article/troops-feel-growing-anger-in-afghanistan.html?wh=news&ESRC=navy.nl

CAN ANY ISLAMIC COUNTRY EVER BECOME OUR ALLY--LET ALONE BE "ON OUR SIDE?"

First thought that pops into one's mind: "But we do have Islamic countries as allies, don't we?"

I mean, look at Saudi Arabia. Hand-holding and kissing buddies (only "royals" though) of George W. Bush, sells us their oil (which we discovered for them), buys armaments from us, and was on our side against Saddam Hussain.

. . . yes, sure, and all the while planting their poison (koran, madrassas, mosques) on our soil with the ultimate aim of making the United States into one of their vile "Islamic Republics."

Okay on that--maybe--but what about Jordan? Wasn't that a Jordanian that was "helping" the CIA people at that forward CIA base in Afghanis/Pakis-tan?

Yes, indeed, he was in fact the one who blew himself up and took nine Americans with him. Some "friend" and "ally."

Can Karzai be trusted?

As far as I could throw Michael Moore (if I wanted to get that close to the slob).

The enemy IS their population. Can't we all just read the Koran?
--1387FURF Comment to http://www.military.com/news/article/troops-feel-growing-anger-in-afghanistan.html?wh=news&ESRC=navy.nl

And Gen. McChrystal's "Rules of Engagement?"

They are killing our Marines and Soldiers. See Covering for the Rules of Engagement? by Herschel Smith at The Captain's Journal.

(NOTE: . . . that Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s vaunted new Afghanistan strategy — including his call more a troop surge — is not substantially different from the strategy Gen. David McKiernan advocated, but never got the resources to fully implement. From Off With Their Heads!)

THE LATEST

Associated Press - Marines Wait in the Cold for Afghan Offensive, by Alfred de Montesquiou

Times Online - Refugees Flee to Capital of Helmand to Avoid Huge NATO Afghan Offensive, by Jerome Starkey and Tom Coghlan

LA Times - Marines Focus on Civilian Safety in Afghanistan, by Tony Perrry and Laura King
Times

from http://www.understandingwar.org/press-media/commentary/global-news-alert-february-9-2010

NEW:

Obama understands that he has to extract American troops from Afghanistan before Taliban takes over the country, but the fundamentalist group refuses to negotiate. The Americans, therefore, decided to turn heat on Taliban with an assault on a town of Marjah in a backwater Helmand province.

The assumption is wrong. Taliban won’t take the defeat at Marjah as a problem. Unlike elected presidents, they think long-term and know that the Americans will withdraw, Marjah or no Marjah.

The real question is, what does it take for American soldiers to risk their lives for no cause?

http://samsonblinded.org/news/why-die-in-marjah-16179

This post continued at Marines Under Fire Ahead of Assault

Watch What's Happening in Venezuela . . . if you want to know what Obama wants for us

2010-01-26T14:30:00.000-08:00

Obama is of the same Socialist-National Socialist dictatorial mold as Hugo Chavez. He--Obama--would like nothing better than to shut down the media (that do not already adulate him).

Obama would love to control the Internet, shut down the websites and blogs critical of him and his policies.

Chavez came from the Venezuelan army, and that is his strength. His appeal to the non-working masses is that he can take property--land--away from those who hold it, and nationalize it for the benefit of these masses.

Obama draws his support and strength from ACORN, SEIU, and the "communities." As that is insufficient at present to make the country into a socialist dictatorship, he needs, he wants, armed power to force his will on us, the people.

That is why you hear from him and his retinue about an "armed security force" parallel to the armed forces.

He would love to have that to wield absolute power.

Even in Venezuela, however, where the population is not allowed to carry and keep arms, there are protests and rioting when the dictator--Hugo Chavez--shuts down all adversarial media.

Obama must be stopped before he can advance his agenda. He will try to do that via election fraud--ACORN and the unions, and Black Panthers armed with clubs at the polls.

At this time, we can still stop his "Change" to a socialist dictatorship by voting against his people.

At this time.

Obama will try anything--fraud, raising a domestic armed force, whether allowed him by law or not--to achieve absolute power. (It will not corrupt him, because he already is as corrupt as a politician can get.)

Will we become like the Venezuelan people--longing to be free--muzzled, controlled by the dictator's police, dispersed with gas and bullets, waiting for the nightmare to end?

Will we "suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or . . .

Some Reflections on Barack Obama

2010-01-23T16:01:00.001-08:00

Paul Eidelberg

1. Obama is not a deliberate liar so much as a culturally conditioned liar. This was evident in the lies he uttered in his Cairo speech. He simply uttered the lies typical of Muslims—lies he unconsciously internalized.

2. It’s natural for Muslims to blame the United States for their woes if only because Muslims—according to Islamic doctrine—do not have free will. Their sufferings are therefore the result of external forces—concerning which the United States is the main culprit.

3. Hence Obama apologizes (primarily to Islam) for America’s “misdeeds,” especially for its economic power or imperialism.

4. Obama may be deemed a college-educated Manchurian candidate primed to undermine American capitalism.

5. Obama has obviously been conditioned by his “mentors” to undermine the foundations of America: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He is really a man without a country.

6. Notice that Obama appeals to no higher authority for his actions, such as natural or divine law or the Bible. This accounts for his arrogance as well as his shallowness.

7. His professed reverence for Islam is merely a verbal contradiction: it stems from his lips, not from his heart. His heart is filled with disdain, or devoid of gratitude, of a grateful recognition of America’s contribution to the good of humanity. That’s why he does not put his right hand over his heart when patriotic music is played.

8. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton rightly referred to Obama as a “post-American” president—a deliberate euphemism for an anti-American president. This anti-American attitude will compel Obama not only to lie about America, but also to undertake anti-American policies under an American façade. Obama needs this façade to increase his power—and power or self-aggrandizement is the name of his game.

Don't Bring Moslem Terrorists to the U.S.! (to New York City)

2010-01-21T13:51:00.000-08:00

How insane is that? Obama's Attorney General--Eric Holder--has given our deadliest enemies--people who would like nothing better than to kill all of us--the full rights of American citizens: starting with Miranda rights--"You have the right to an attorney . . . to remain silent . . . etc."

Guess what that did to the not-too-bright Nigerian Moslem who had a bomb in his drawers, and tried to explode it on a plane about to land in one of our cities? It made him clam up. Supposedly he was blabbing all about who, when, and where, then shut up, on the advice of his no-cost-to-him attorney.

National Security Matters

from Newt Gingrich (like him or not, this makes sense):

Andy McCarthy has a superb article this morning [January 21, 2010] on National Review Online that discusses the role national security played in the election [of a non-Democrat from Massachussets on January 19, 2010].

Every American concerned about our safety in an age of terrorism ought to look at Brown's campaign and take heart that safety is a winning issue, and the left is absurdly on the side of putting terrorists' rights above protecting American lives. If you agree, I also encourage you to sign the Human Events petition protesting the civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (sign here).

[I]f you want to read the extended version of this article, visit newt.org.

Did the Islam-Placating President of the U.S. Receive a Bloodied Snout?

2010-01-20T00:07:00.000-08:00

. . . by the election of a non-Democrat Senator from Massachussets?

Probably. But don't count the O-bastard out--yet! He's from the Chicago school of politics. They don't like to be defeated, and they don't give up--easily.

This Islamic-born and -educated O-hole still is determined to force us to bend to his will. This reminds one of what Chavez is doing to Venezuela. Sure, the non-working masses love to have a man at the top--to get them what they have not earned without paying a price.

The O wants to lord it over Israel. Aren't the Jews the enemies of Mohammed?

This O-hole has to go. His memory must be sent onto the trash heap of history.

He wants to be emperor. We must show him what he is: an arrogant upstart, who has earned nothing that he has. He loves the perks of being the POTUS, O-hole that he is. He wants to mold us into the dream of the socialists and national socialists.

Let us show him that we live under a Constitution, not under the dictatorship of such as Obama and his cortege: Rahm Emmanuel, Axelrod, etc., Eric Holder, etc. ad nauseam.

Throw the Bums Out! With every election show this empty O that we are not awed by his mouthings of "Hope" and "Change." He is an idol with feet of feces.

AND . . .

From City Journal:

Tuesday’s stern rebuke can be directly tied to Barack Obama’s overreach. The president misread his victory over a weak John McCain, tethered to an even weaker Bush administration, as a mandate for European-style socialism. Brown’s position in the U.S. Senate, as the 41st vote upholding any Republican filibuster of the legislation that would increase the government’s involvement in health care, is both symbol and substance.

Daniel J. Flynn
Unsafe in Any State
The Massachusetts Senate shocker puts Democrats on notice nationwide.

READ THE WHOLE THING AT . . .

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0120df.html

MAINTAIN A STRONG MILITARY When Faced With Islamic Agression

2010-01-15T03:22:00.000-08:00

MAINTAIN A STRONG MILITARY

When faced with Islamic aggression

excerpted from Islam Watch:
"Humiliation of Muslims and the coming Siege of Vienna"
By Blake Gartner

[italics, emphasis and text in dark blue mine. lw]

NOTE: First published by me on January 2, 2008 at Islamic Danger in History, when Bush the younger was President here, and Ehud Olmert was the Prime Minister of Israel. That is why there are references to these two.

Now, please read on . . .

[circa 1000 C.E.] Muslims sensed another opportunity to spread their religion and civilization to the "darkness of barbarism and unbelief", when the Byzantine rulers decided to disband most of their military, preferring to pay mercenaries when troubles arose. The Byzantine army consisted largely of the elderly officers and untrained young kids (for centuries after its destruction, the word "Byzantine" was used to mean "effeminate decadence")**.

This weakness opened the floodgates to Islamic successes. But it so alarmed the weakened West that . . .

Faced with the decaying of what was arguably the only stable, viable state in Europe, the West was again on the brink of annihilation. In 1095, Pope Urban II hoped to organize Christendom around a fight for Jerusalem, a tactic frequently used before and after by Muslims.

. . . gave rise to the Crusades.

Victory followed by defeat

The Crusaders established the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1099. At its height, the Crusader Kingdom was about the size of Israel and West Bank. For more than a hundred years, Muslims could do little about the new country, fighting occasional wars, mostly to contain the Christians. But in the 12th century, a Jihad on Jerusalem was organized. In 1187, settlers lost Jerusalem – it was now the Kingdom of Jerusalem... without Jerusalem. A small strip of land along the seaside of what is now Israel and the southern half of Lebanon was all that remained. Subsequent Crusades recovered Jerusalem, but all was lost when Sultan Khalil captured Acre, the new capital of the Kingdom, and proceeded to either slaughter or enslave all remaining settlers.

The Crusades were a failure. Islam won, forever reinforcing its sense of invincibility against the infidels. I’ve heard many Muslims say, "It took us 200 years to defeat the Crusader Kingdom. Israel has existed less than 60. We have another 140 to destroy it, and we will.*"

But Islam did not stop at the defeat of the Crusader Kingdom. In the 15th century, the Turks finally destroyed the Byzantine Empire, conquering its capital Constantinople.

At the other end of Europe, much of Spain and Portugal was under Islamic rule for 781 years until 1492. Faced with Arab Muslims threatening from the West and Turkish Muslims threatening from the East, Europe struck back with a vengeance again. Spain and Portugal were won back, pushing Islam back into North Africa. But just like the first time when the West responded to Islamic aggression with violent Crusades, the new European attempt to defend itself and even the genocidal Inquisition fell short of taking back everything that was lost. Constantinople remained part of the Islamic world.

In 1526, Sultan Suleiman conquered most of Hungary, with Bulgaria already under his control. Three years later, the Turks reached all the way to Vienna and laid siege to it. The city stood up only because it was attacked too late by a Turkish force that was too tired from prior battles. In 1532, the Ottomans tried again, but faced stiff resistance in western Hungary.

For 150 years, the Ottomans tried to jump from southeastern Europe into its heartland before the epic Battle of Vienna. This time, the siege began in July of 1683. During the siege, 10,000 Viennese troops were surrounded by 140,000 Turks. They would probably fail, and allow Islam into the center of Europe, but King Jan III Sobieski of Poland sent a 30,000 man army to protect the city, possibly saving the Western civilization. The Battle of Vienna began on September 11. When the battle was over next day, 4,000 Christians had been killed – and 15,000 Muslims. Vienna survived again.

The rest is history. The Enlightenment and later the Industrial Revolution sent the West far ahead of Islam. In the 19th century, Napoleon showed just show dominant Christendom was over Islam. The Caliphate was eliminated when the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist. The West stopped fearing Muslims, viewing them as nothing more than "oil cows". And Islam truly ceased being a power.

That, of course, is what the West wanted to believe. Truth is that Christendom still didn’t recover most of the territories lost since the rise of Islam. Constantinople (now Istanbul), Egypt, Syria, Bosnia and Chechnya were all Christian lands in the past.

Islam did not invade the West continuously for a thousand years. Instead, there were many generations of peace, but that peace was eventually always interrupted by Muslim attacks on Europe. Each time Christians lost large parts of their territory, then fought back, but never fully recovered the lost territories.

For two centuries now, the West was strong enough to ignore the threat from the south. But Muslims felt "humiliated" because they did not have the strongest army, the wealthiest economy and the dominant political power.

Islam began to resurge in the 1960s (some say in the 1920s, but Islamists weren’t strong enough until after Israel "humiliated" Arab nationalists in 1967). First came terror. Then global Jihad. In the 1990s, massive Islamic immigration into Europe began to threaten a demographic takeover. Islam is on the move again. Will Vienna be under siege once more?

All of the above from Islam Watch

Blake Gartner's
Humiliation of Muslims and the coming Siege of Vienna

The following two footnotes are mine. Leslie White

______________________________
* Regarding Moslems boasting, "It took us 200 years to defeat the Crusader Kingdom. Israel has existed less than 60. We have another 140 to destroy it, and we will." There is a difference. The Crusaders could "go home." The Jews of Israel "are home;" they have no other place to go. They must either die under an Islamic onslaught or count on the "mercy" of conquering Islamics. Even with incompetents such as Ehud Olmert and his corrupt government, I wager that Israel will not count on the "mercy" of the Mohammedans. The Islamics have been taught by koran and ahadith, by learning about the life of Mahomet, that Jews are subhumans, descended from "apes and pigs (sic);" they hate Jews with a hatred ingested with their mothers' milk.

Israel has a strong military, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), but Israel has a weakness: a hope for "peace" with the Arabs, conjoined with an abyssmal ignorance of Islam and its teachings. In attempting to achieve "peace with Islam, Israeli governments look for approval towards the other Western nations, especially the United States. To show its "moral high-mindedness," Israel cares more for the well-being of its Arab-Islamic enemies than it does for either its soldiers or its citizens. The soldiers must fight house-to-house to "spare Islamic lives," while Israeli citizens must endure rocket barrages, apparently so as not to further enrage their enemies.

The mentally impaired U.S. President has ordered Israel to set up a "Palestinian State." (It was something that he has been dreaming of ever since he gained power, whether to please his Saudi cohorts or to have another "democratic" shariah state ["Palestine"] in the Middle East, besides Iraq, is difficult to distinguish.)

Israeli prime ministers have always followed Washington's orders and tried to comply in setting up the "Palestinian" state. What no one is saying is that the "Palestinian" Arabs do not want "peace with Israel" or a state alongside the Jewish state. The "Palestinian" Islamics want Israel.

BUT, what is most important, and gives us a valuable insight into the Islamic mind, is the statement:

"It took us 200 years to defeat the Crusader Kingdom. Israel has existed less than 60. We have another 140 to destroy it, and we will"

Why is that important? Because the Islamic revels in the glories of the past. He re-fights those battles of the past--when Mohammedans were victorious. He will base his present-day tactics on battles and Islamic victories of the past.

Or on words in the koran.

Osama bin Laden is of this mindset. He harkens back to the koran. he connects the present with past Islamic victories or humiliations--to either repeat the victories or blot out the humiliations.

Take the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York, NY, U.S.A. , for example.

Tower, towers.

"Wherever you are, death will find you, even in the looming tower."

Usama bin Laden used these words from the Koran in a video-taped speech to the 9/11 hijackers: [4]

The video was found on a computer in Hamburg after the attacks.

[4]The Koran, 4th Sura, "The Women" (7.8). In some translations "looming" becomes "lofty." See: Dexter Filken, New York Times, "The Plot Against America," 6 August 2006.

The foregoing material re the Usama bin Laden videotape and the "looming" or "lofty" tower comes from The Intelligence Officer's Bookshelf

The koran warns that wherever you are, even in in a lofty tower, death will find you. This came true for near 3000 of us, near 3000 too many, when a bunch of determined Arab Moslems crashed two planes full of passengers into the twin towers.

What gave Osama bin Laden the idea are the words of the koran originating from the 7th century on or so. Those words suddenly make the connection for us to to 2001 C.E. New York City, United States of America and the twin towers of the World Trade Center.

Koran "towers" in Sura 004.078

Here is the verse--with the three translations from http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html

004.078

YUSUFALI: "Wherever ye are, death will find you out, even if ye are in towers built up strong and high!" If some good befalls them, they say, "This is from Allah"; but if evil, they say, "This is from thee" (O Prophet). Say: "All things are from Allah." But what hath come to these people, that they fail to understand a single fact?

PICKTHAL: Wheresoever ye may be, death will overtake you, even though ye were in lofty towers. Yet if a happy thing befalleth them they say: This is from Allah; and if an evil thing befalleth them they say: This is of thy doing (O Muhammad). Say (unto them): All is from Allah. What is amiss with these people that they come not nigh to understand a happening?

SHAKIR: Wherever you are, death will overtake you, though you are in lofty towers, and if a benefit comes to them, they say: This is from Allah; and if a misfortune befalls them, they say: This is from you. Say: All is from Allah, but what is the matter with these people that they do not make approach to understanding what is told (them)?
[emphasis mine. lw]

The Looming Tower is the title of a book about al Qaeda and what led up to September 11, 2001 and the attack on America by Arab Mohammedans who hijacked our airplanes.

The title is based by its author, Lawrence Wright, on a sentence in the fourth sura of the Koran:

"WHEREVER YOU ARE, DEATH WILL FIND YOU, EVEN IN THE LOOMING TOWER."
http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/03/plot-against-america-review-by-dexter.html

You want to read the first chapter of Lawrence Wright's "Tower" book? Well, you can, see right here:

The Looming Tower - First Chapter
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/books/chapters/0806-1st-wrig.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

A review of the book The Looming Tower can be found at Central Intelligence Agency Web site

To understand Islamic actions today look to the past.

Therefore, my fellow-Western friends, it behooves us to become familiar with, to study, past struggles against the Mahometans, to see their tactics--whether they can be applied today--to understand how the Islamics were defeated in the past. History is the key to our victory over islam. Islam delenda est.

La Turquie, cheval de Troie islamique?

The Trojan horse rendering is from the European Resistance Blogs to whom a grateful hat tip is due. The Trojan Horse picture is captioned, "Turkey, the Islamic Trojan Horse?"

The Islamic Trojan Horse, however, also refers to the Islamics that are "peacefully" invading our Western countries, whether via the American State Department's "visa express," suicidal "asylum laws" or wide-open borders and lack of internal control of Islamic foreigners--whether visa residents or citizens (whose loyalty is not dual, but always first to Islam, Shariah, and the Koran) .

delenda est Islam

AND . . .

**An Opportunity Missed!

By the Byzantines, with whom we started this post

Had these Byzantines ("weak sisters") had a Strong Military, the could have nipped Islam in the bud--and saved themselves from its horrors.

from History of Islamic Imperialism

Two years before Muhammad's death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a report that a huge army had amassed to attack Arabia, but the report turned out to be a false rumor. The Byzantine army never materialized. He turned around and went home, but not before extracting 'agreements' from northern tribes. They could enjoy the 'privilege' of living under Islamic 'protection' (read: not be attacked by Islam), if they paid a tax (jizya).

History of Islamic Imperialism

read it

and never forget

delenda est Islam

Reprinted from
http://islamicdangerhistory.blogspot.com/2008/01/maintain-strong-military-when-faced_03.html

-30-

Is the UK Finished?

2009-12-31T03:08:00.000-08:00

. . . will it become an Islamic land?

or are there enough stalwart Brits with the gonads to keep England for the English, Wales for the Welsh, Scotland for the Scots, and Ulster for the Ulstermen?

Click on Is the United Kingdom (UK) Sliding into Islamization Without a Whimper?

Can We Trust Obama to Defend and Protect?

2009-12-29T16:59:00.000-08:00

Asleep at the switch--once again. Obama diddling on the golf course, enjoying the privileges of his exalted postion gained honestly or not, once again, while the jihad makes inroads. The "failure" of the Nigerian intent on killing Americans should not fool us. His handlers have learned a bunch.

The point of this post, however, is not the failure of the mechanism that Obama has set up (or failed to do so efficiently), but of the man whom the voters (or whoever dishonestly slid him into office) made president.

This man Obama does not recognize who the enemy is (it is Islam on its centuries-old fight against the non-Islamic world) , refuses to do so. Why is that?

Maybe he wants to be "President of the World" instead of only the United States? Maybe because he has a soft spot for --or never left--the Islamic ideology? Who know? who cares?

Fact is, this president is unfit for office. No matter how much he poses and preens and speaks with studied diction.

Does he know how to respond? Or is he unsure and confused?

Obama has appointed people unfit for office to safeguard our nation. Our nation, not his.

The failure is his. The buck stops with his (the president's) office, as Harry Truman so wisely said.

Should We Use Airline Profiling?

2009-12-29T13:01:00.000-08:00

The Case for Airline Profiling

We have this "sacred" revulsion to profiling airline passengers before boarding. Not "racial" profiling--not all "Asians" nor "Africans" nor "Middle-Eastern-appearing" passengers, but depending on immediately prior flights, point of origin, layovers, etc.

Continue reading at http://islamicdangerfu.blogspot.com/2009/12/case-for-airline-profiling.html

Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, or The 'Yeah, Whatever' School of Counterterrorism

2009-12-28T13:47:00.000-08:00

.
from internet haganah:

December 28, 2009

ABDUL FAROUK ABDULMUTALLAB, OR THE 'YEAH, WHATEVER' SCHOOL OF COUNTERTERRORISM

I'd like to be able to say with confidence that if this had happened in the USA, if Abdul's dad had walked into his local FBI office and told an agent that his kid was radicalized and was last known to be Yemen and had cut off all contact with the family, that this case would have been handled differently. In reality it probably depends on the particular office, and whether the analyst the matter was referred to understands that Yemen truly is the Waziristan of Arabia. In any event, whatever can be uncovered about Abdul after he tried to bring down NW Flight 253 could likely have been uncovered prior to his boarding the flight. If the current rules don't allow such an investigation to occur, they need to change. And to the extent current leadership in the various agencies discourage the pursuit of such leads, those people need to leave - preferably on a commercial airline flight.

My preliminary bibliography is here...Posted on 28 December 2009 @ 15:29 GMT

@ osint.internet-haganah.com• Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, or The 'Yeah, Whatever' School of Counterterrorism
http://osint.internet-haganah.com/archives/001698.html

ALSO SEE

Did Anwar Awlaki--the imam of the "Palestinian" Arab killer-psychiatrist of Fort Hood--bite the dust?
at internet haganah's Is that a dead Anwar Awlaki I spy under the tree? Main

America's Anti-Jihad Strategy: Building More Islamic "democracies" - Will it Work?

2009-12-20T00:04:00.000-08:00

.
First, we look at the immediate--the local--situation in Afganistan, as portrayed in The Captain's Journal:

Advocating disengagement from Afghanistan is tantamount to suggesting that one front against the enemy would be better than two, and that one nation involved in the struggle would be better than two (assuming that Pakistan would keep up the fight in our total absence, an assumption for which I see no basis). It’s tantamount to suggesting that it’s better to give the Taliban and al Qaeda safe haven in Afghanistan as Pakistan presses them from their side, or that it’s better to give them safe haven in Pakistan while we press them from our side. Both suggestions are preposterous.

That there is an indigenous insurgency (the so-called ten dollar Taliban) that bootstraps to the real religiously motivated fighters is irrelevant. We had to fight our way through this group in Iraq too, and it is the nature of these insurgencies. Complaining about it is acceptable – but using it as an excuse to abandon the campaign is not. That every contact isn’t with Arabic or Chechen or Uzbek jihadists is irrelevant. That doesn’t mean that Afghanistan is not a central front in the transnational insurgency called Islamic Jihad. The Taliban are important inasmuch as they gave and would continue to give safe haven to globalists.

For this reason the campaign in Afghanistan must be successful. Pakistan will take their cue from us and follow our lead.

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/12/16/the-battle-for-kandahar-and-helmand/

What about the bigger picture? How do we intend to defeat the jihad that is being forced on us? How are we trying to accomplish that in Afghanistan? Why are we there at all?

Immediately, it comes to mind that Osama bin Laden's training camps were there prior to our cleaning them out post-9-11.

They can be there once again, if we are not there to stop the jihadists. Pakistan is not a reliable ally.

What, however, is our goal for Afghanistan? Build up and secure another Islamic "democracy," as was thought to have been secured for Iraq?

What was the U.S. policy for combatting the jihad of the Islamics, financed by the Saudis?

Forward Strategy for Failure

It was not Obama who devised the current strategy for stopping the jihadist drive to defeat the United States.

It was the American strategy employed shortly after the attacks of 9-11.

The Objective Standard article "America's Self-Crippled Foreign Policy" goes to the core of this crippling foreign policy:

From examining the intentions and actions of our military in the field, it becomes obvious that what animated Bush’s policy was the notion of bringing elections and social services to Iraq and Afghanistan—not protecting American lives. And while Obama wants to be seen as the anti-Bush, his approach is animated by a similar goal. In his high-profile speech in Cairo last summer, he promised to fund and create “centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia.” What’s common here is the moral idea behind these policies—the idea that America must serve the meek and needy of the earth. We argue in the book[*] that this conventional outlook on morality has shaped American foreign policy, and that the effect has been inimical to our liberty and security.

The article then zeroes in on the cause of America's failure to defeat the jihad:

The “forward strategy of freedom”—Bush’s misleading name for his crusade to bring elections to the Middle East—lived up to the name we give it in the book: the forward strategy of failure. It served only to empower our enemies—the Islamists—by granting them legitimacy and political control, for example, in Iraq and the Palestinian territories. Near the end of Bush’s time in office, some of his supporters began trying to salvage his reputation by claiming that the “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq has worked a miracle. But a look at the facts refutes that idea. In chapter 6[*] we explore what actually happened. Washington’s policy was to throw around wads of cash so that insurgents who were murdering Americans would switch sides—for as long as the money flows.

Further, many Islamists used Iraq as a training ground and have taken their battle-tested expertise to other fronts, including Afghanistan. Suicide bombings were once unheard of in Afghanistan; now they’re commonplace. There were thirty such attacks in the first five years of the Afghanistan war. In the first six months of last year, there were more than twelve hundred. The Afghan-Pakistan border is now a hotbed of jihadist training camps. Many terrorist plots, like the plot to blow up airliners crossing the Atlantic, trace back to that part of the world. The Islamist threat not only endured but grew worse under Bush—who watched as the most active sponsor of Islamist terrorism, Iran, chased nuclear weapons. This is what passes for “success”?

______________________________
[*]Winning the Unwinnable War: America’s Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism (Lexington Books)
______________________________

More at http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/america-self-crippled-foreign-policy.asp

Dying for the Enemy - Afghanistan, A True Story

2009-12-17T00:42:00.000-08:00

. . . the team of Navy SEALs was on difficult terrain in an area rife with Islamist fighters. The four men set off after their quarry. But sometime around noon that day, the men were boxed into an impossible situation. Three Afghan men, along with about one hundred goats, happened upon the team’s position. What should the SEALs do?

***

. . . the men of SEAL Team 10 knew one more thing. They knew that doing the right thing for their mission—and their own lives—could very well mean spending the rest of their days behind bars at Leavenworth. The men were subject to military rules of engagement that placed a mandate on all warriors to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. They were expected to bend over backward to protect Afghans, even if that meant forfeiting an opportunity to kill Islamist fighters and their commanders, and even if that meant imperiling their own lives.

The SEALs were in a bind. Should they do what Washington and the military establishment deemed moral—release the herders and assume a higher risk of death—or protect themselves and carry out their mission—but suffer for it back home? The men—Lt. Michael Murphy; Sonar Technician 2nd Class Matthew Axelson; Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class Danny Dietz; and Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class Marcus Luttrell—took a vote.

They let the herders go.

Later that afternoon, a contingent of about 100–140 Taliban fighters swarmed upon the team. The four Americans were hugely outnumbered. The battle was fierce. Dietz fought on after taking five bullets, but succumbed to a sixth, in the head. Murphy and Axelson were killed not long after. When the air support that the SEALs had called for finally arrived, all sixteen members of the rescuing team were killed by the Islamists. Luttrell was the lone survivor, and only just.2

The scene of carnage on that mountainside in Afghanistan captures something essential about American policy. What made the deadly ambush all the more tragic is that in reaching their decision, those brave SEALs complied with the policies handed down to them from higher-ups in the military and endorsed by the nation’s commander-in-chief [Bush, at the time]. Their decision to place the moral injunction to selflessness ahead of their mission and their very lives encapsulates the defining theme of Washington’s policy response to 9/11.

More at http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/an-unwinnable-war.asp

Muslim Fellow-Travellers, Sympathizers, and One of Them is a Crypto-Muslim

2009-12-13T22:25:00.000-08:00

Are these two guilty of treason?

By allowing enemy combatants the protection of U.S. courts, this pair is committing treason against the United States.

Never mind that one of them was elected president, he is hiding his Muslim antecedents, and if nothing else is partial to the enemies of the United States.

What does he deserve?

And how about his attorney general?

Twisted Ideologies? (Quoting Obama)

2009-12-10T15:24:00.000-08:00

Commenting on the five "American" students arrested in Pakistan, Obama--first at a loss for words (no teleprompter)--stammered and hemmed-and-hawed before coming out with that these "twisted ideologies" are available on the Internet.

Twisted Ideologies? Now come on, haven't you read your koran lately Mr. president? Jihad is plainly called for, not "twisted" from some "peace-loving ideology."

. . . and ooh---uh--aah--'bout that "peace prize," see how we that momentous occassion is being celebrated at Gates of Vienna

Because We Have Cripppled Ourselves, We Are Fighting an Unwinnable War

2009-12-07T02:10:00.000-08:00

From "America's Self-Crippled Foreign Policy"
An Interview with Yaron Brook (YB), Elan Journo (EJ), and Alex Epstein (AE)
By Craig Biddle (CB)

CB: The Wall Street Journal recently reported that General McChrystal’s strategy in Afghanistan “puts a premium on safeguarding the Afghan population rather than hunting down militants.” What do you make of that strategy?

EJ: This same strategy was at the heart of Bush’s policy—and it meant that U.S. forces were never allowed to fight all out to defeat the Taliban. The Taliban and its jihadist allies scattered, then regrouped, and now are fighting to control Afghanistan and also Pakistan. U.S. casualties in the first eight months of 2009 are already higher than all of 2008, and more than double the toll during the first three years of the campaign. A key point we make in Winning the Unwinnable War is that this “compassionate” policy is self-destructive of American lives and security. It’s central to what has made the war seem unwinnable. Now we’re seeing that policy being implemented to the nth degree, and many more Americans—on the battlefield, and perhaps at home—will pay the price for it.

YB: In a chapter on “Just War Theory,” Alex and I discuss the moral ideas informing the policy you’re seeing unfold in Afghanistan. Those ideas—primarily the embrace of selflessness as a moral ideal—are why America today is unwilling to wage real war to defeat its enemies. Americans used to fight to win; think of General Sherman during the U.S. Civil War or Patton or MacArthur in World War II. But our policy in Afghanistan—seeking to win the love of Afghanis, rather than defeating the Islamists—can only serve to further embolden our enemies.

CB: With President Obama planning to pull most of our troops out of Iraq by next August and to increase the number of U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan, politicians and pundits are mired in a debate as to whether or not this is the right course of action: Should we or should we not be pulling troops out of Iraq and deploying them to Afghanistan? How would you answer this question?

YB: Just as Bush did on several occasions, Obama warns us not to expect “victory” in Afghanistan. And top U.S. military officials tell us the Taliban are winning. It is immoral to send any troops to fight in any war that our leaders believe to be—and through their policies have made—unwinnable. More broadly, it is outrageous that the mighty United States should find itself with two unresolved conflicts like these. In a sense we’re in an impossible fix, because neither option you mentioned is particularly good, nor is it clear which option is the least bad. This is precisely the kind of situation that our foreign policy should never get us into.

As for Iraq, what purpose do American troops serve there today? In what way does their presence make Americans safer or help in winning this war? Leaving the Middle East today would be horrible—it would embolden our enemies and make it more difficult to deal with future threats. But staying only places our troops in harm’s way, with no real benefit to U.S. security.

EJ: The options you bring up in the original question, Craig, are emblematic of the dominant approach to foreign policy. This is the ad hoc, crisis-management approach of dealing with each flash point or crisis in isolation, and throwing some policy at it to see what “works.” And “works” here means something like “makes the crisis momentarily less urgent.” The view we convey in the book is that America can achieve victory, but only if it adopts a principled, integrated approach [*]. We can crush Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Islamists in Afghanistan-Pakistan. We can deal with Iraq. We can deal with sundry hostile nations in the region. To do that, though, requires a larger project that begins with defining and defeating our primary enemy—the Islamist regime in Tehran, which inspires and leads the Islamist movement. Our goal should be to defeat that movement and its followers, so that the Islamist goal of imposing sharia rule comes to be widely acknowledged as a lost cause. Read the whole thing
____________________
*Also see There is nothing more un-realistic than trying to create a plan without knowing where we are going—or assuming that no plan is possible since reality is "really" always in flux and more in the last paragraph of Winning is not an Option; It is the Only Way to Defeat an Enemy Determined to Defeat You
____________________

Fighting "An Unwinnable War"

. . . the “strictly correct military decision would still be to kill them [the Afghan goat herders] without further discussion, because we could not know their intentions.” Working behind enemy lines, the team was sent there “by our senior commanders. We have a right to do everything we can to save our own lives. The military decision is obvious. To turn them loose would be wrong.”

But the men of SEAL Team 10 knew one more thing. They knew that doing the right thing for their mission—and their own lives—could very well mean spending the rest of their days behind bars at Leavenworth. The men were subject to military rules of engagement that placed a mandate on all warriors to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. They were expected to bend over backward to protect Afghans, even if that meant forfeiting an opportunity to kill Islamist fighters and their commanders, and even if that meant imperiling their own lives.

--Brief excerpt from the article "An Unwinnable War?" by Elan Journo in The Objective Standard http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/an-unwinnable-war.asp

From the introduction to Winning the Unwinnable War: America’s Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism. The book is being published by Lexington Books and is scheduled for release this November

Craig Biddle writes: I recently interviewed Dr. Brook, Mr. Journo, and Mr. Epstein of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Mr. Journo is the editor of a new book, Winning the Unwinnable War: America’s Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism (Lexington Books, 2009. 250 pp. $27.95 [paperback]), which contains essays by all three men. The book is scheduled for release this November and can be preordered through the Ayn Rand Bookstore (http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/). This interview was conducted orally and retains the character of an informal discussion. —Craig Biddle

Read the whole article at http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/an-unwinnable-war.asp

FOR MORE on SEAL Team 10 and Marcus Luttrell, see

Answer to "Compassion in Combat"

and
　
COMPASSION IN COMBAT

Winning is not an Option; It is the Only Way to Defeat an Enemy Determined to Defeat You

2009-12-06T03:33:00.000-08:00

To win in war, you must break the enemy's will to fight. This is not the goal of the war against Islam, that we are fighting today.

Yes, "Against Islam," not against militant Islam nor Islamic fundamentalism nor Islamists (as differentiated from Islamics), because it is the ideology of Islam that is being tried to be imposed on us by Moslems--and the name of that ideology is Islam.

I do not care what the present president of the United States thinks of "victory," it is either that or "defeat."

Which shall it be?

Excerpts from 'No Substitute for Victory': Replies to Criticisms
Posted by John David Lewis in The Objective Standard:

Regarding my article "No Substitute for Victory": The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism in The Objective Standard, readers have brought up several questions that I'd like to answer. Among them are two of great importance: (1) Isn't the enemy stateless, i.e., without the kind of centralized political state that controlled Japan? and (2) Can religion and state be separated in Islam, which is a social-political-legal system as much as it is a religion?

***

. . . we do need to demonstrate the will to remove an Islamic government that we deem a threat, without apologizing every time a civilian is hurt. This demonstration would sweep across borders and be seen by every government in the world. It would show that while Islam might be stateless, we recognize that Islamic dictatorships are not, and that to side with such a state is to become a target of the most powerful military in the world.

Islam itself is stateless; it respects no borders. It was designed precisely to unite all those who submit to Allah, regardless of where they live and what tribe they belong to. We have to adopt the same attitude, only with freedom and individual rights as our uniting ideals. By defining the enemy as Islamic Totalitarianism—government imposition of Islamic Law— we exempt no such state from our reach and yet enable every state to avoid the title and our wrath.

***

Islam . . . . is an all-encompassing way of life. But it is not true that unserious Muslims cannot live under non-Muslim laws; the majority in western countries do—they compromise Islamic law to obey the laws of civilized society.

Identifying the enemy as Islamic Totalitarianism would enable us to end attempts to import Islamic Law into our own country, and it would empower our allies to end such attempts in their own countries. It would enable individual Muslims to comply with our demands, and it would expose those who refuse. It would also demonstrate the failure of Islam as a political movement, and thus challenge the premise, in the minds of many, that the Islamic Totalitarians are some kind of misguided idealists, right in principle but going too far.

As to the issue of realism: There can be no realistic discussion of a proper "strategy" (a means to attain policy ends) without a proper statement of the end that the strategy is intended to achieve. There is nothing more un-realistic than trying to create a plan without knowing where we are going—or assuming that no plan is possible since reality is "really" always in flux. The realism that we need is the recognition that those supporting Political Islam—rule by Islamic Law—are the real enemy. I'll gladly listen to anyone who has a different strategy for eliminating Islam as a political power and ending the threat it poses to us—but I've not yet heard anyone offer such a strategy.

John David Lewis

Obama and Afghanistan

2009-12-02T15:33:00.000-08:00

Obama skims over some Afghan realities

FACT CHECK[S]: from the Associated Press article:
　
The problem with Afghan forces is not just their lack of numbers. And it's not an unwillingness to fight. The problem too often is their effectiveness, once trained for combat. Too many get into the fight but don't remain or don't perform.

Obama's confidence skirts years of mostly empty-handed American efforts to get others, including allies in NATO, to deepen their commitment to combat in Afghanistan.

It's true the Pakistani army this year has launched offensives against extremist elements in the areas cited by Obama. What he did not mention, however, is that the groups being targeted by the Pakistanis are those that threaten the Pakistani government--not those, also based in Pakistan, that are focused on attacking U.S. and Afghan forces on the other side of the porous border.

Click to read the whole thing. Worth your time.
　

"INNOCENTS ABROAD"

Depending on the Afghans

The Main Question: Can Afghanistan and the Afghans be compared to Iraq and the Iraqis? Will the Afghans be able to be trained to field and army and a quasi-dependable police force? Iraq's are still being shored up by U.S. troops.

Iraq was once a coherent whole, able to feild an army and a police force.

Afghanistan appears to be incoherent as far as its population and more difficult than Iraq as far as its tribal structure is concerned.

The U.S. Generals

There are Generals and then there are Generals. It took Lincoln a while--dithering about with General after General, until he found those who could get the job done. (Include Sherman in the last-mentioned category, but not McClellan.)

I am not casting aspersions at any present General or Generals. But as the old saw goes, "The proof's in the pudding." So, with the rest of us, I'll just sit back* to wait and see. Not that I want to see the proposed policies in Afghanistan fail. After all, I am in the same Lifeboat as the rest of us and the captain--ah well--the Captain of that leaking vessel, does he know what he's doing?

For another view on Obama and Afghanistan, see Assessing the Afghan Surge - Dr. Kimberly Kagan's interview with the Council on Foreign Relations
To read the full Council on Foreign relations opinions article, visit http://www.cfr.org/

As an aside, the Obama speech at West point was more about himself than about the men who would be risking their lives in war. See how many "I"s he was able to insert in this speech at: http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2009/12/george-w-bush-west-point-speech-vs.html
___________________________
*not comfortably, because U.S. Marines, soldiers, and sailors are getting killed and maimed. But then so were men getting killed in the Civil War, until General Sherman found a way to end it by waging Total War, which is the only way to achieve victory.

The anti-American President of the United States of America

2009-11-28T22:08:00.000-08:00

Not only is he un-American, he is actively anti-American. He knows nothing of American history nor of American values.

Why should he? He was born God-knows-where, probably Kenya in Africa, perhaps the issue of a couple not married according to the prerequisites of U.S. law, as the male had wives in Kenya as was customary for a Moslem.

American history and American values are taught in the primary schools of the United States. Barack Hussain Obama never attended these. He went to Moslem schools in Indonesia*, and he was a good little moslem from the testimony of people who knew him them**.

What he learned after that were Communist-Marxist values. A Communist in Hawaii*** and Alinsky**** imprinted him with his Marxist values.

Then came the express train of education--Affirmative action of a "colored boy" from Occidental college to Columbia University and through Harvard Law. Greased by Moslem Arabs and Leftist hands.

Obama's claim to being American is tenuous to say the least.

He is un-American, anti-American.

THE UN-AMERICAN PRESIDENT

From MOST OUTRAGEOUS STATEMENT EVER MADE BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL

at American Jingoist

UNBELIEVABLE PRESIDENT???HERE IS HIS RESPONSE WHEN HE BACKED OFF FROM HIS DECISION TO REQUIRE THE MILITARY PAY FOR THEIR WAR INJURIES.
WHAT AN EMPTY HEADED PERSON HE MUST BE…. Bad press, including major mockery of the plan by comedian Jon Stewart, led to President Obama abandoning his proposal to require veterans carry private health insurance to cover the estimated $540 million annual cost to the federal government of treatment for injuries to military personnel received during their tours on active duty. The President admitted that he was puzzled by the magnitude of the opposition to his proposal.

If he thinks he will ever get another vote from an Active Duty, Reserve, National Guard service member or veteran of a military service he ought to think it over.. If you or a family member is or has served their country please pass this to them.

Please pass this to everyone.I’m guessing that other than the 20-25 percent hardcore liberals in the US will agree that this is just another example why this is the worst president in American history. Remind everyone over and over how this man thinks, while he bows to the Saudi Arabian king.

MOST OUTRAGEOUS STATEMENT EVER MADE BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL
http://theamericanjingoist.net/index.php/2009/11/21/most-outrageous-statement-ever-made-by-a-public-official/
　
Barack Hussein Obama is, essentially, a foreigner. He may (or not) be born in the United States, but the values shared by the American people, the values that made this country great and prosperous, are as foreign to him as his Arabian, Kenyan, Indonesian roots are to us. He has nothing vested in this country. All his life here, he was closely associated with its enemies. He will destroy it with no regrets. The very fact that seven years after the devastating attack visited on the United States by Arabs, the Americans . . . place[d] an Arab into the White house demonstrates the depth of the crisis we are in.
http://www.middleeastfacts.com/yashiko/RevSit_eng.html

from Sheik Yer'Mami http://sheikyermami.com/americas-muslim-potus-praises-islam/

America’s Muslim POTUS Praises Islam

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." quote from page 261 of "The Audacity of Hope" by America’s first (and hopefully last) Muslim POTUS Barrack Hussain Obama.

J। Grant Swank, Jr., who writes from a Christian perspective, saw him coming:

I believe Obama is a Muslim.

Why do I think so?

First, he’s lived twenty years with a cultic preacher who has proclaimed hate against America। Yes, hate against America.

Jeremiah Wright has contexted that hatred against whites, but when you get right down to his rants, they are hatred against America, disrespect for America, slamming America for being responsible for 9 / 11 and so forth।

A Muslim hates America, has no regard for its Constitution, its history and is an anarchist at heart। Wright’s sermons border on if not endorse outright anarchism as blackism.

Second, Obama is a liberal to the nth degree, the left of the left in Congress। That would fit a Muslim who is for death bottom line: death to unborn babies, death to biblical definition of family and marriage, death to Judeo-Christian backdrop, death to freedom of religious expression, death to biblical morality.

Muslims live to die। They embrace death as the final glory offering to Allah.
________________________
* http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12745.htm
**http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=579
****Frank Marshall Davis, spied on U.S. military installations in Hawaii for the Soviet Union, edited a communist newspaper, authored pornographic novels, and wrote poetry in praise of Joseph Stalin
http://ironicsurrealism.blogivists.com/2009/11/30/how-in-the-hell-did-obama-get-elected/
****Saul Alinsky. http://ironicsurrealism.blogivists.com/2009/11/30/how-in-the-hell-did-obama-get-elected/

Thanksgiving 2009

2009-11-26T02:33:00.000-08:00

The year's at the spring;
The day's at the morn;
Morning's at seven;
The hill-side's dew-pearled;
The lark's on the wing;
The snail's on the thorn:
God's in his heaven
...All's right with the world!
--Robert Browning

Happy Thanksgiving to All!

But at night, brother Howlet, far over the woods,
Toll the world to thy chantry;
Sing to the bats’ sleek sisterhoods
Full complines with gallantry:
Then, owls and bats, cowls and tw*ts,
Monks and nuns, in a cloister’s moods,
Adjourn to the oak-stump pantry!
--Robert Browning, Pippa's Song

Pippa Passes was a dramatic piece, as much play as poetry, by Robert Browning published in 1841 as the first volume of his Bells and Pomegranates series.
Browning ends his poem with th[e foregoing] verse . . .
http://cyberbrahma.com/tag/maple/

Brothers in Ebullience? (Eller)
Is not Pippa's song precisely the thanksgiving to which Kierkegaard exhorts? The truth of the matter is that Robert Browning, the Ebullient Englishman, was more aware of suffering, sorrow and sin--the dark side of life--than most critics give him credit for. However, he remained ebullient, for he was a man of faith. And the truth of the matter is that Søren Kierkegaard, the Despondent Dane whom many know only as the siren of somber shades, was much more ebullient than most critics give him credit for. He too was a man of faith. Miles apart? Browning and Kierkegaard stand arm in arm--or, rather, they march upward toward the light singing a hymn of thanksgiving, the Dane's basso profundo blending with the Englishman's lyric tenor. And the little soprano between them, whose hands they hold and whose song they sing, is: Pippa.
http://www.hccentral.com/eller1/cc101762.html - 9k - Cached - Similar pages -

FOR MORE ABOUT Søren Kierkegaard, see

First of all http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_sep2001.htm which goes into his life, his relationship with Hegelian thought, etc.

then

http://web.ku.edu/~acudd/phil140-s27/sld001.htm

http://web.ku.edu/~acudd/phil140-s27/index.htm

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Kierkegaard/kierkegaard_individuality.html

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_of_faith

FOR

The context of the lines of Browning's poem cited, and a synopsis of the play in which they occur, see
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O54-PippaPasses.html

More about Robert Browning's Pippa Passes, see
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001814.html

A Robert Browning Biography see
http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/rb/rbbio.html

The first part of the play Pippa Passes: Part I: Morning; scroll way down to "The year's at the spring; The day's at the morn,"etc.
http://oldpoetry.com/opoem/20448-Robert-Browning-Pippa-Passes--Part-I--Morning

Are We Heading for a Crash? Here's Someone Who Thinks We Are

2009-11-24T01:10:00.000-08:00

Fjordman, love him or hate him, when he speaks, you listen, because . . . well . . . he may be right . . . and that can scare the bejeezus out of you.

Moe, over at Moe's Jihad News, turned me on to this, from Fjordman, at Gates of Vienna. You can read it there, at Moe's, or here. Wherever you read it, I think it's important enough to spread far and wide:

Its Title: The Coming Crash

[quoting Gates of Vienna]

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna. For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

[quoting Fjordman]

I am preparing a text which I will publish at The Brussels Journal in the not-too-distant future, but I will begin the discussion here first. When I read the various comments at Lawrence Auster’s* place and Dennis Mangan’s blog**, Takuan Seiyo’s recent piece ***at TBJ and the latest post by El Inglés****at Gates of Vienna, I get the feeling that tensions are building up and that something big is going to happen within the coming generation, probably within the next five to ten years. Since I have been writing about geology lately I will use an analogy from plate tectonics: The tectonic plates of the Western world are now about to make a big move.

Tensions have been building slowly beneath the surface for many years and sooner or later these forces will be released in the form of a series of devastating earthquakes, followed by some secondary political and economic tsunamis. Some of the structures that currently appear to be rock solid will collapse like a house of cards during this period and the political landscape will change considerably. What appears unthinkable today will appear natural or inevitable twenty years from now. This is the discontinuity that El Inglés talks about. I would rank Britain as the Western European country most likely to first get a civil war caused by mass immigration and Multiculturalism. Denmark follows as number two and possibly Holland as number three. Both Belgium and Sweden are pretty bad, but too repressive to be first in line. Germany is too weighed down by her history to be first. This leaves France as a potential dark horse. I admit I don’t understand how the French think. On the surface, France looks screwed. On the other hand, France is historically speaking a revolutionary nation, for better or worse. Maybe there is some mini-Charles Martel in hiding somewhere. If so, he better show up soon.

I think we need to be realistic and realize that the current political-ideological order is completely broken and beyond repair. Instead of wasting time and energy on attempting to fix what cannot be fixed we need to prepare as best as we can for the coming crash and hopefully regroup to create something new and stronger afterward. There will be a pan-Western and perhaps international economic and social collapse in the not-too-distant future. I fear that this is too late to avoid by now. The people who support the ruling paradigm are too powerful and the paradigm contains so many flaws that it cannot be fixed. It needs to crash. We should focus on surviving this crash and on developing a new paradigm to replace the failed one.
- - - - - - - - -
We need to learn from our enemies, both internal and external. The one thing I reluctantly admire about Marxists and Leftists of all stripes is above all their ability to organize and focus on long-term goals. Unfortunately, their goals are usually destructive, but we can and must learn from their organizational skills so that we can beat them at their own game. They must be squashed, otherwise we cannot deal rationally and adequately with our external enemies.

We must get rid of Feminism, which is destructive and merely an extension of Marxism, anyway. We must prepare as best as we can for a collapse of the US dollar and perhaps the Euro. We must document what is being done to us by treasonous elites for future references, for instance by making a video dedicated to anti-white verbal and physical violence around the world. We must take steps to ensure our physical safety and regain pride in our heritage.

We need to get rid of the EU, ridicule the UN and starve it for funds. I’m not sure whether we need NATO, either, although I’m willing to debate that part. The American defense umbrella may no longer be sustainable when the US economy fails. Besides, it is laughable to think that the US military would “protect” native Europeans from Muslims. It is the official policy of both major US parties to support — no accelerate — the continued destruction of Europe, just like it is their policy to continue the destruction of their own country. Just because the EU is awful, which it is, doesn’t necessarily mean that the USA is good. The American political elites are champions of dangerous and dysfunctional ideologies at home and abroad. The current US President Obama has publicly pledged himself to combat opposition to Islam rather than Islam itself, which means that it is official US policy to spread Islamic law. Uncle Sam is Uncle Sharia, as we have recently seen demonstrated. If the Soviet Union was the Evil Empire then the USA is the Diversity Empire, committed to spreading Multiculturalism and genetic Communism around the world, especially to white majority countries.

US General Wesley Clark during the bombing against Serbia in 1999 said more or less explicitly that the war was undertaken to impose “diversity.” I don’t hate Americans is general but their elites are just as hostile as the EU elites, and they have bigger guns. When I see how Nidal Hasan was treated by the US military I don’t think I want these people involved in my affairs. They would probably say that native Euros are Nazis who oppress the poor Muslims. Then they would bomb us and say it is for our own good, just like they did to the Serbs. The United States will not survive this century. It will be split into several countries according to ethnic, racial and perhaps even ideological lines. There is no such thing as a universal nation. People want to live with their own kind. The only ones who are not allowed to do so are whites, and they are starting to get tired of this double standard. People of European origins are among the least ethnocentric people on the planet and are currently being penalized heavily for this. Self-preservation is a natural instinct for all living things down to plants and bacteria. It’s about time that whites reclaim the same right without apology. I am increasingly convinced that the developments we are witnessing are deliberate.

The lies we are being served are virtually identical in every Western country. I’ve had some discussions about this with my friend Ohmyrus who thinks this is about a structural failure in our political system. I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but I also believe there is a planned long-term goal of breaking down all white majority nations to create a new global oligarchy. Anti-white ideologies are now taught in every Western university and were arguably elevated to national ideology in the USA with the election of Obama. I suspect this is because whites have historically had an unusually high emphasis on self-rule, rule by consent and power sharing, not to mention the fact that we ask too many questions. This is annoying to those who desire an authoritarian system with themselves on top. We need to be broken, culturally and demographically. This is why the elites desire mass immigration. The leading “Multicultural theorist” in my country, Professor Thomas Hylland Eriksen of the University of Oslo, said frankly that the most important thing to do now is “deconstructing the majority so thoroughly that it can never be called the majority again.” He is essentially calling for dismantling his own people and he knows that he can do so with total impunity.

Also, I suspect that the main reason why many others hate us is that European civilization has been so incomparably much more influential and accomplished than any other civilization on this planet that our existence makes them feel inferior. The only way they can stop feeling inferior is by eradicating us. A terribly politically incorrect thing to say, but that’s my view.

NOTE: Fjordman previously approached this subject with his "how to face the coming crash in Aug 30, 2009, where he wrote:

if i have the time i should write a brief essay called "how to survive the coming crash." the crash is unavoidable by now. instead of wasting time and energy on trying to figure out how to "fix the system," which isn't doable and ...

There, he gives advice on what we individually can do to survive that crash. You can read it at
http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-to-face-coming-crash-by-fjordman.html

__________________________
Footnotes:

*The present crisis
by Lawrence Auster

[excerpts]

An aggressively anti-American, pro-terrorist Muslim U.S. Army officer committed mass murder on an Army base, and the political and media establishment are saying that the mass murder is bigoted America's fault, because the man's Army colleagues "harassed" him as a Muslim and made him lose his mind. In reality, far from being harassed, he was allowed complete freedom to make his numerous blood-curdling and treasonous statements, since everyone in today's diversity-cowed Army was afraid to make a formal complaint about him.
***
Evil is on the march, the evil of left-liberalism, and we seem to be powerless against it.
But we are not powerless, if we stand with truth and the right. Yes, at the moment the leftist evil is mounting to a peak, enabled and facilitated by the Western populations that have so far accepted its premises and so are unable or unwilling to oppose it. . . .
Read it all at http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014716.html

**Defeatism
Dennis Mangan

[excerpt]

It is indeed my view that the U.S., as a political entity formed by and for white Americans, is just about irretrievable. The country has slipped from our grasp, and the huge demographic changes of the past 45 years - since the passage of the National Suicide Pact and the surge of illegal immigration from Mexico - look permanent. Demography is destiny. Most of these immigrants and their children have a vested interest in government preferences; conservatives have been trying to abolish affirmative action for decades now, unsuccessfully. Unless the populace suddenly embraces the political outlook of Milton Friedman, most of then will continue to clamor for government goodies, for race-based jobs and lawsuits, for family reunification, for amnesty.
More at http://mangans.blogspot.com/2009/11/defeatism.html

***From Meccania to Atlantis - Part 13: Harpo, Gekko, Barko, Sarko

Takuan Seiyo

[excerpt]

A nation that works for a living can weather perhaps even such great storms. But the jobs of the American lower class have been outsourced to imported Mexicans. The jobs of the American middle class have been exported to China and India. The jobs of the American upper-middle class have been taken from the white males who held them by merit, and given to resentful identity groups that hold them by the fiat of the government’s preferred skin colors and favored genitalia. And the jobs of the American upper class have been reprogrammed from leadership and service, to ripping off the less clever via lawyering, banksterism, and padding one’s golden CEO parachute, and then expiation via funding and leading socialist NGOs.
from http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4158

****On the Failure of Law Enforcement
by El Inglés

Introduction

I will argue in this essay that there are a number of mechanisms and tendencies in place in European countries that make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to control or restrain the burgeoning criminality of their Muslim populations under extant political paradigms. Readers of certain of my other essays will be familiar with the type of argument I advance here, though I apply it in this essay to new subject matter.It should be understood that this text is essentially a piece of analysis, an attempt to rigorously frame and discuss one large and important piece of the problem we face thanks to Islam. Though it does not attempt to formulate a response, it is written in the hope that those keen to defend their countries and peoples from the depredations of Muslim colonization will find it useful in clarifying their own thinking.

Continue reading this at http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/11/on-failure-of-law-enforcement.html

AND

Via Moe's Jihad News' America's confusion . . . "here's how you end up with Obama," comes . . .

Whitewashing Reality [Bill Bennett] at NRO

There is a rot that spreads outside of Washington into the larger culture. It begins with a confusion of terms, and by not calling things by their proper names, it begins with a disassembling of the moral categories. We don’t hear about terrorism or radical Islam so we are surprised to find it in our midst, and when we do, we don’t even recognize it. We have Army generals who elevate diversity over life, we have a president who speaks not of radical Islam or terrorism — though life is what we are fighting for and radical Islam and terrorism is what we are fighting against.
— William J. Bennett is host of Morning in America.
Read it all at . . .
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjlhY2E5Y2UxYzUxMjc5YWFjMzVjZjE5MjczYjNmNDY=

Harry Reid's Message to America

2009-11-19T15:12:00.000-08:00

. . . and this is also the message of the Democrat Senators--and of the Pelosi-run Congress

well, let's send the same message back to our senators that are about to do what Harry Reid is showing what is in store for us.

Look for the senators that are running for re-election--and see that they are tossed out on their elitist rumps.

Ditto for the Congress men and women. They give us the finger, they get what they did to us.

. . . and what's the antidote to this screwing of America?

Well, here's a bright suggestion:

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/palin-odes/

Note: Please read Victor Davis Hanson's article with care: it points out the collusion between Wall Street, Bankers, and Government. Wall Street and the Banks apparently practice the Oldest Profession.

Revolutionary Situation in the United States

2009-11-15T20:01:00.000-08:00

by Zack Lieberberg

October 24, 2008

According to V. I. Lenin, immediately before a revolution, a country goes through a revolutionary situation, which is defined as follows: Those on top are unable, and those on the bottom are unwilling, to maintain the current order of things.

Have we reached a revolutionary situation in these United States of America? Let’s take a look at some of our problems.

Take, for example, illegal immigration. According to some estimates, illegal immigrants today constitute 7 to 9 per cent of the population. It is the biggest invasion in history. It’s 10 times more than the entire Chinese military! Both opponents and advocates of illegal immigration know that this is causing our country enormous harm. Can we get rid of them? Of course, we can. We simply need the government to deport every single one of them, every time he or she is detected. Deport them when they come to the Department of Motor Vehicles to obtain a driver license. Deport them when they try to enroll their children in a school. Deport them when they come to an emergency room — after performing the necessary procedure, obviously, for we are not inhumane; but, because we are not suckers either, we should charge their country of origin for the services provided. And if a baby is born on US soil to an illegal immigrant, treat that baby as an illegal immigrant: deport it, along with its illegal immigrant parent. Anything else amounts to an amnesty. And since everything the government does regarding illegal immigration amounts to an amnesty, we can conclude that the government is unable to solve this problem.

Are we willing to cleanse this country of the illegals? Not really. First, we feel bad for them and their, oh, so cute babies. Second, most of them, like your cleaning lady, for example, are decent, hard-working people who charge you less than an American would, because they don’t pay taxes, and neither do you when you hire them. Therefore, this is not going to happen.

Or, take our war on drugs. Why doesn’t it work? Why is it dragging on and on, year after year, decade after decade, draining our resources without achieving anything at all? Because when the cops lead away the kid who’s been pushing drugs on a street corner, the kid who pushes drugs on the corner a block away seizes the opportunity and expands his business. And when the feds intercept a multi-million-dollar shipment of heroin, the dent they cause to the overall traffic of drugs is less than the one that the federal taxes leave on any legitimate business. Obviously, the government is unable to solve the drug problem.

Are we willing to win this war? We are, but only in theory. In theory, we could leave drug dealers alone and take away drug users. Without the drug users, those who would poison us all would go out of business. But are we willing to do it? Are we willing to send our own kids to jail, even for a few weeks, for experimenting with pot or even coke? Of course, not; we are not suicidal. And that’s exactly why the drug war will never solve the problem of drug use in this country. But it will handsomely feed a huge and unnecessary federal bureaucracy created specifically for the purpose of conducting that endless, meaningless war and, therefore, not interested to actually win it.

Can we win the war on terror?

Let me share an anecdote with you before I expand on that exciting question. Recently, I was at JFK airport seeing off a friend who was leaving for Japan. In a long line to the security station, there was a group of Japanese kids, apparently returning home from a trip to New York. If I had to guess their age, I would say 10 or 11. Each kid was wearing a Yankee baseball hat — no doubts a souvenir from the trip. Each kid was holding his or her passport open for the security officer. None of them seemed to speak English. As they one by one reached the officer, he would lift the hat off the head of the kid to compare the cute, smiling face to its likeness in the passport.

There were passengers of several other flights in that line. One of them was for Riyadh. When I saw the dark-skinned man accompanied by four creatures that resembled four bowling pins draped in dark fabric, I thought that was their destination. I was curious how the security officer would handle them. To my great disappointment, no international incident unfolded before my eyes. The officer, who had just diligently scrutinized the passports and faces of Japanese children, simply waved the Arabs through.

So, let me ask you again: Can our government win the war on terror?

Of course, we can. And we can do it without wasting the lives of our soldiers and hundreds of billions of our dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. All we have to do to achieve that victory is kick Islam out of the United States. Once the term Muslim American becomes no more than an oxymoron, we will be able to sell our no longer needed airport security equipment to Eurabia and bail out our ailing banks without using a penny of taxpayers’ money. I know it, you know it, Osama bin Laden knows it, and even George Bush, who seems to know nothing at all, knows it as well; even if this knowledge didn’t stop him from announcing to us on September 12, 2001, that Islam was not an enemy. His government is most definitely unable to win this war.

But are we willing to uproot the Muslim community in the US? Sadly, we are not. Islam is a religion, and, whether you think it is a religion of peace or something entirely different, there is freedom of religion in this country, guaranteed by our Constitution. On the other hand, religion — every religion — is an ideology. An ideology can justify our way of life, as Judaism and Christianity do, be neutral towards it as is Buddhism, or openly and explicitly oppose it, as communism, fascism, and Islam. Why should we allow the enemy ideology to blossom on our soil? Because we are afraid we are not going to be able to draw the line, and once Islam is no longer a danger, the forces unleashed in order to contain it will turn against us: the Jews, the homosexuals, the blacks — everyone who has a historically well founded fear of persecution.

Nobody knows the answer.

If you thought the crisis we are currently going through was limited to the crumbling financial institutions, you were wrong. The sad state of our economy is only one side of it. This crisis has been in the making for decades; it involves every aspect of our lives.

The international prestige of the United States is at its lowest in, at least, a century.

The American political machine with its ongoing political debate between the two parties about the better future of this country has deteriorated into an unabashed race for power.

Liberals, abusing their ever growing influence, succeed in taking away our liberties — for example, the liberty to openly and publicly celebrate Christmas or to speak the truth when the thought police finds it politically incorrect.

The very same government that sends our soldiers to foreign lands to fight for obscure goals tries them for murder when they perform their duty and defend their lives and the lives of their comrades.

We could overcome this crisis, but we need a leader wise and strong enough to lead us out of it. George Bush does not qualify for the job. And neither does John McCain, who has failed to even acknowledge that the country is in the throes of a total crisis.

What’s going to happen?

A century ago, the obvious inability of the Russian monarchy to provide desperately needed leadership brought forth a young, charismatic leader who promised change, took the country from the tsar’s weak hands, and destroyed it as thoroughly as was possible. His name was Vladimir Lenin. His minions killed more Russian citizens than did the two world wars combined. His successors enslaved Eastern Europe for half a century. His followers turned China, North Korea, and Cuba into giant concentration camps. His legacy lives on in Putin’s Kremlin.

In the 1930’s, when Germany found itself leaderless and falling apart, a young, charismatic leader came forth, promised change, and took the country from the weak hands of an elderly chancellor. His name was Adolf Hitler. Supported by the enthusiasm of his compatriots, he led Germany through a brief renaissance to complete destruction, along with most of Europe, killing about 70 million people in the process. His legacy lives on in various neo-Nazi organizations across the world.

Today, the United States is in a strikingly similar situation. At the time when a strong leader is most desperately needed, the ruling elite finds itself unable to provide one. A young, charismatic leader comes forth and promises change. His name is Barack Hussein Obama. And I believe he is going to deliver on his promise of change, even though the most basic arithmetic tells us that it cannot be fulfilled. Why?

Because Barack Hussein Obama is, essentially, a foreigner. He may (or not) be born in the United States, but the values shared by the American people, the values that made this country great and prosperous, are as foreign to him as his Arabian, Kenyan, Indonesian roots are to us. He has nothing vested in this country. All his life here, he was closely associated with its enemies. He will destroy it with no regrets. The very fact that seven years after the devastating attack visited on the United States by Arabs, the Americans are going to place an Arab into the White house demonstrates the depth of the crisis we are in.

According to the polls, Obama is going to win the election. I would be surprised if he didn’t. In the 20 years since Ronald Reagan’s departure from the White House, the Republican party has done absolutely nothing to earn our votes. Even while a Republican president was in the Oval Office and the Republicans had the majority (earned more by the Clintons’ failures than their own accomplishments) in both the Congress and the Senate, they failed to accomplish anything of value. Yes, I remember the Bush tax cut; but, you know what’s going to happen to it in the very near future.

What can we do? Vote for Ralph Nader? Yeah, that will help. Start burning mosques? The FBI will be upon you faster than you can say the shahada.

What is needed today — and needed desperately — is a new political party that will be not be afraid to appear politically incorrect, that will be pragmatic, that will lead us out of the trap laid for us by our enemies, foreign and, mostly, domestic.

Any party organizers willing to volunteer?

October 24, 2008

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article above is presented as a public service.
It may be reproduced without charge — with attribution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To read my other articles or to make a donation,
please visithttp://www.middleeastfacts.com/yashiko/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be added to or removed from my mailing list,
please contact me at
mailto:atyashiko.sagamori@gmail.com%20(in%20English)
mailto:zack.lieberberg@gmail.com%20(in%20Russian)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2002—2008 Yashiko Sagamori. All rights reserved.

http://www.middleeastfacts.com/yashiko/RevSit_eng.html

The Best Explanation About What's Going On in Afghanistan

2009-11-15T19:00:00.000-08:00

From Moe's Jihad News:

Why we will lose in Afghanistan
[by Moe]

Let me rephrase that: there is nothing to be gained in Afghanistan. We can't lose by letting them stew in their own juices.

What we are hardly ever told about the country is that it has been for 300 years the scene of a bitter civil war, says Christopher Booker . . .

Continue Reading at . . .

http://allahhasnofuture.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-we-will-lose-in-afghanistan.html

There's No Guarantee . . .

2009-11-12T17:42:00.000-08:00

. . . that a Moslem serving in our armed forces will not kill his fellows

There's No Guarantee . . . that "peaceful" (moderate) Moslems will not turn to jihad

There's No Guarantee . . . that our government will prosecute these jihadists as "terrorists" (not as temporarily or permanently insane or as suffering from "pre-or-post-traumatic stress syndrome")

There's No Guarantee . . . that Moslem organizations such as CAIR will not make an outcry against "backlash"

There's No Guarantee . . . that encouraged by government inaction more Moslems will not go on jihad

There's No Guarantee . . . that the police will not bend over backwards to defend Moslems who are attacking non-Moslems

There's No Guarantee . . . that the government will not be more intent on defending Moslems that are fearing imaginary "backlash" than non-Moslems attacked by Moslems

There's No Guarantee . . . that our armed forces, if ordered, will turn against the citizenry

There's No Guarantee . . . that veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan will support the government's position and not the citizens'

There's No Guarantee . . . that emboldened, the jihadists will not demand that we in the US obey Islamic law (sharia) as is being pushed in Canada and the UK

There's No Guarantee . . . that our government will try to put a stop to them

There's No Guarantee . . . that more and more of our institutions and government agencies will not be controlled by Moslems or their fellow-travelling Leftists

There's No Guarantee . . . that emboldened, Moslems will not replace the Constitution piecemeal with Moslem law (sharia)

There's No Guarantee . . . that we will not put a stop to that and to them

ADDENDUM

There's No Guarantee. . .

. . . that just because you occupy the office of the president of the United States (lower case intentional), you are not an utter a$$-clown who refuses to honor the flag and the country for which many--too many--have died so that you (a$$-clown) can stand there giving, as Pam Geller so succinctly called it, a disrespectful, to those who have given life and limb, crotch salute:

via http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2009/11/quip-of-week-by-pamela-geller-obama.html

from http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/11/who-is-this-guy.html

ATLAS SHRUGS: "Salute, pledge, something! Anything! Pretend to be a proud American, creep."
--Pamela Geller

Who is this guy?
--Pam Geller

Face It, America!

2009-11-10T23:07:00.000-08:00

from http://drybonesblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/face-it.html

It is time for America and the Obama administration to open their eyes and face up to the significance of the successful Fort Hood Islamist suicide attack. Here's an interesting analysis of the current situation by Robert Spencer:

"Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army psychiatrist, murdered twelve people and wounded twenty-one inside Fort Hood in Texas yesterday, while, according to eyewitnesses, “shouting something in Arabic while he was shooting.” Investigators are scratching their heads and expressing puzzlement about why he did it.

According to NPR, “the motive behind the shootings was not immediately clear, officials said.”

The Washington Post agreed: “The motive remains unclear, although some sources reported the suspect is opposed to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq and upset about an imminent deployment.”

The Huffington Post spun faster, asserting that “there is no concrete reporting as to whether Nidal Malik Hasan was in fact a Muslim or an Arab.”

Yet there was, and what’s more, Major Hasan’s motive was perfectly clear — but it was one that the forces of political correctness and the Islamic advocacy groups in the United States have been working for years to obscure. So it is that now that another major jihad terror attack has taken place on American soil, authorities and the mainstream media are at a loss to explain why it happened – and the abundant evidence that it was a jihad attack is ignored."-more

Why did the Piece of Human Excrement kill his fellow Soldiers?

2009-11-10T17:18:00.000-08:00

Because he was an Moslem, Stupid! (not YOU, if you're reading this and knew OR GUESSED even before his name was announced (or a soon as it was) that he was on jihad--and committed a terrorist act

“Jihad Denial Syndrome” Exposed

from ACT for America
http://www.actforamerica.org/

The facts are emerging. The warning signs were there. Story after story is breaking new information. Even some in the “establishment media,” such as ABC News, have produced news segments revealing the evidence that Nidal Hasan was a radical Islamist.

The FBI had seen warning signs. So had the CIA and the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Numerous fellow officers had witnessed Hasan make statements, even during presentations he gave, that should have set off alarm bells.

Some of the latest news to come out is that Hasan had been in communication with an al Qaeda imam — and authorities knew it and dismissed Hasan’s contacts with the conclusion that he was doing “research” for a thesis!

The tapestry of jihad being pieced together has prompted Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman to call for hearings to investigate who knew what, when, and why action was not taken.

How is it possible that so many warning signs and red flags were ignored, rationalized, or dismissed?

There are at least two reasons.

The first is that too many in leadership in our country, whether in government, the military, or counterterrorism, do not want to connect the dots between the jihadist ideology, so clearly permeating the holy books of Islam, and the act of jihad.

ACT! has been exposing this failure ever since its founding. Dr. Walid Phares, during his presentation at the American Congress for Truth webcast conference “Radical Islam’s Threat to America” (held this past Saturday), stated astonishingly that eight years after 9/11 there is still widespread denial in our government about who the enemy is and why the enemy acts as he does.

This may help explain why, on the day of the Ft. Hood massacre, the FBI released a statement declaring “this was not a terrorist act.” How could they “rush to judgment” with such a faulty claim so quickly?

Answer: “Jihad Denial Syndrome.”

The second reason is linked to the first, which we discussed in our email alert yesterday — a culture of political correctness.

College campuses, Hollywood and television, and much of the “establishment media” are principal drivers of this culture of political correctness. In this worldview, there is a denial of fact and evidence that literally boggles the mind.

Our jihadist enemies throughout the world don’t hide the jihadist ideology — they celebrate it. It’s there for all the world to see — if it wants to. Too many of our leaders don’t want to.

Another enforcer of this political correctness is organizations like CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. For years CAIR has bullied, browbeat, intimidated and smeared anyone who dares to speak the truth about radical Islam. (See our petition calling for a government investigation of CAIR.)

Last Thursday night, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad denounced the violence — and then emphasized that this had nothing to do with Islam.

So did other representatives of other Islamist organizations.

In other words, they didn’t denounce the Islamist, jihadist ideology that led to the violence. Indeed, they in effect denied such an ideology existed. Awad was crystal clear when he stated, falsely, that no religion or ideology could justify such an atrocity.

And in doing so these Islamist enforcers of political correctness fired a warning shot across the bow of the media, the military and the government. They were making it clear that politically correct “Jihad Denial Syndrome” must be adhered to.

Eleven days ago ACT! for America launched a national national petition calling for a government investigation of CAIR, due to the mounting revelations of CAIR misdeeds and ties to terrorist organizations.

This petition is even more important now, in the aftermath of Ft. Hood. Why? Because America can no longer afford to be held hostage to a politically correct “Jihad Denial Syndrome” by a terrorist-tainted organization like CAIR.

This is why we continue to urge you, if you haven’t already done so, to sign our petition calling for a government investigation of CAIR.

Senator Lieberman is doing the right thing by convening hearings to investigate the Ft. Hood terrorist act.

We can’t change the culture of political correctness overnight, or the “Jihad Denial Syndrome” that political correctness has helped spawn.

But we are not powerless. There are actions we can take.

Join us today in signing the petition calling for a government investigation of CAIR.

One talk show host said this morning that political correctness can be annoying, even silly, but at Ft. Hood it was deadly.

Is he is or is he ain't a Moslem? (Barack Hussein that is)

2009-11-07T23:17:00.000-08:00

At Mosquewatch.blogspot.com there is a definite answer to that puzzling question:

OBAMA STATES HE IS MUSLIM
J. Grant Swank, Jr.

with a reference to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzY&feature=player_embedded

__________________________________________________

Photo thanks to JTF.org

We're Going to Have to Choose . . .

2009-11-07T00:16:00.000-08:00

Today we have two choices in viewing Islam. We can see it as based upon its doctrine and history or we can choose to see it on the basis of multiculturalism-all cultures are equally valid. But Islam denies that all cultures are equally valid. Islam insists that it is superior all other cultures. All cultures are not equally valid and all other cultures must submit. It is the will of Allah, and it is Sunna (the way of Mohammed). What is odd is that tolerant multiculturalists defend the Islamic monoculture so much.

--Bill Warner, Choices. Choices

Choices, Choices

[by Bill Warner]

November 5, 2009

Ever hear this argument:

Ancient religious texts like the Koran contain outdated ethical concepts. The Old Testament has brutal laws and violent passages. As a result Christians and Jews don't follow them. Muslims are the same as Christians and Jews; they pick what works and reject what doesn't work. Why should Islam be considered any worse than other religion or cult?

The short answer is that Islam is not similar to anything else, including religions such as
Christianity. As far as the Koran having any outdated ethical concepts, that is impossible. According to Islamic doctrine, the Koran is perfect, eternal and universal. It does not contain the slightest error since contains the exact words of Allah. Hence, it can never be outdated.

Also, the Koran is a derivative book. Every idea in the Koran, with two exceptions, can be traced to earlier works. The two novel ideas in the Koran are that Mohammed is the last prophet of god and that violent force, jihad, can be used to harm those who don't agree with Mohammed. Violence against kafirs is systemic in all of Islam's texts and forms a central theme.

Yes, the Old Testament has violence, but there is no real parallel to the Koran and Islam. Look at the numbers. The violence in the Old Testament is limited to a few verses. The violence in the Koran against the kafir (unbeliever) takes up 61% of the text. Every mention of the kafir is brutal, condemning, pejorative, hateful and threatening. The Hadith, the Traditions of Mohammed, has 20% of its text devoted to jihad. The Sira, Mohammed's life, has 70% of the text about Mohammed as prophet devoted to jihad.

These numbers show that the analogy between the violence in the texts of the Jews and Christians is vastly overdrawn.

The next suggested parallel between Islam and Christians is that both pick and choose from their texts. Every Muslim believes that the Koran is perfect down to the last letter. It does not have a single error. This makes it very difficult to ignore.

But a Muslim does have a way to make choices that a Christian, Jew, Buddhist or Hindu cannot. Islam has dualistic ethics. Muslims are all brothers and to be treated as such. But there is no Golden Rule and a Muslim may choose to treat the kafir badly or well, depending upon the situation and needs. That is the nature of dualistic ethics.

Dualism also allows the choice of the Meccan Koran or the Medinan Koran. When Mohammed was in Mecca, he was weak and attempted to get along with the Meccans. This gives us the verses of tolerance. Later, in Medina Mohammed had power and the Koran became cruel and vicious towards any person who denied Mohammed. So every Muslim has the choice of tolerance and coexistence from the Meccan verses, or any of the physical violence or hatred found in the Medinan Koran.

There is another choice that a person who claims to be a Muslim can make. They may choose to be a kafir by ignoring an Islamic doctrinal point. It is very odd, but people assume that every action by one who calls them a Muslim is pure Islam. But the Koran condemns Muslims who make choices to imitate kafirs. This condemnation extends to those who choose to apply the Golden Rule to kafirs.

So there are three kinds of Muslim, depending on their choices: Meccan Muslim, Medinan Muslim and kafir Muslim.

There is a great danger in trying to understand Islam through Christianity or any other Western idea or concept. The underlying assumption is that Islam is similar or has parallels to kafir culture. This means that Islam does not need to be studied, because it is "like" some kafir concept or institution such as freedom and Christianity. This idea is false and has no supporting facts to prove it. Islam is sui generis, unique, and without parallel.

Islam stands entirely on its own with a separate logic, reasoning and ethical system. Islam must be studied on its own. In the end this means understanding the themes of the Koran and the life of Mohammed found in the Sira and the Hadith.

Why is Islam worse than any other religion or cult? Simple, it is not a religion, but a complete civilization that has a political doctrine of annihilating and subjugating all kafir civilizations. This doctrine had been put into action for the last 1400 years and has caused the deaths of 270 million kafirs.

Islam has annihilated entire civilizations. Take Afghanistan as an example. Before, Islam invaded the civilization of Gandharva, it had been peaceful for four centuries and was wealthy. Buddhism flourished and great art was produced. Then came Islamic jihad and Ghandarva was destroyed down to the last work of art and the last Buddhist. Today we have the armpit of the world-Afghanistan, an Islamic nation based upon Sharia law and Islamic politics. Buddhism and Gandharvan culture have been totally destroyed.

The political theory of Islam and its results correlate 100%. Of course, there are some harmful and creepy cults, but, measured by results, they are not in the same league as political Islam. Islam is the ultimate civilizational predator and should receive most of the attention.

Today we have two choices in viewing Islam. We can see it as based upon its doctrine and history or we can choose to see it on the basis of multiculturalism-all cultures are equally valid. But Islam denies that all cultures are equally valid. Islam insists that it is superior all other cultures. All cultures are not equally valid and all other cultures must submit. It is the will of Allah, and it is Sunna (the way of Mohammed). What is odd is that tolerant multiculturalists defend the Islamic monoculture so much.

This means that we also have two other choices. Will kafirs ignore the threat of total destruction or go on pretending that Islam is similar to other cultures? Will we foolishly apply the Golden Rule to a civilization based on dualism and hope to create an Islam that respects kafirs and treats them well? But Allah hates kafirs and it is Sunna to immigrate, deceive and make the kafirs submit little by little.

Choices: will we choose life or death for kafir civilization?

Bill Warner, CSPI

Permalink

copyright (c) CBSX, LLC

politicalislam.com

Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

INGRATE BORN-HERE "PALESTINIAN" ARAB MOSLEM IS FT. HOOD SHOOTER

2009-11-06T13:25:00.000-08:00

Ingrate--not grateful for the new life offered to his parents in the U.S. from the "Palestinian" cesspools--his medical education paid for by American taxpayers, this "instant jihadist" repaid the U.S. Army and the country where he happened to be born in with mass murder.

Wearing his Moslem-Arab garb, this "officer" in the United States Army doesn't look like any American.

Click on Just before his jihad

"He was a 'good' American," his cousin claims. this "Palestinian" Arab Moslem born here in the US of "Palestinian Arab parents, who were let into the country and still are being brought in. Can we trust them and their offspring to turn into "good" Americans?

Any of them can revert to "instant jihad," where a Moslem turns to the koran to find out how to behave.
　
From ACT FOR AMERICA http://www.actforamerica.org/:

"Fort Hood jihad shooter handed out Korans the morning of his attack"

Will the "Establishment Media" Report the Truth?

The massacre at Ft. Hood yesterday has stunned and grieved America.

Everywhere people are asking questions. How could this happen on a secure military installation? What drove him to do it? Our heavy hearts go out to the families who have suffered this shocking loss.

What is not shocking is the spin the "establishment media" is trying to put on this horrific massacre. For instance, Fox News this morning interviewed a "criminal profiler" who asserted definitively that this attack had nothing to do with religion, that the man was "troubled." (In fairness to Fox News, they are at least raising the questions about jihadism as a motive.)

Others are suggesting he had some kind of post-traumatic stress syndrome — an insult to all our brave soldiers who have actually served in combat (Hasan hasn’t).

CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) immediately jumped into the fray last night, arguing that no religion or ideology could justify this, in spite of the hundreds of passages in Islam’s holy books calling for jihad against non-Muslims. (As our readers know, ACT! for America recently launched a petition calling for a government investigation of CAIR.)

What is largely being ignored is that Hasan was a devout Muslim. An internet post in his name earlier this year compared suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save their comrades. A former colleague, Col. Terry Lee, recalls Hasan arguing "Muslims have the right to rise up against the U.S. military." Hasan passed out Korans the morning of the attack and "donated his furniture to anyone who would take it" (see story below). This certainly appears to be the actions of someone preparing for martyrdom.

The story below also notes that he once listed his nationality as "Palestinian" rather than America. Perhaps Hasan had emotional problems. But there appears to be an abundance of evidence that he was ideologically predisposed to do what he did yesterday. Survivors of the attack said Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar*" before opening fire. The tragedy at Ft. Hood yesterday deeply grieves us and we mourn with those who are mourning. But the tragedy will only be deepened if a politically correct narrative is once again foisted on the American people.

After the succession of Islamist terror plots were recently foiled, many in the media and law enforcement said they could not find any "connection" between the plots — overlooking the obvious jihadist connection. When a Detroit imam was shot to death last week, law enforcement and many in the media went to great lengths to downplay any connection to militant Islam. And now we see the same pattern taking shape today, in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy.
　
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/fort-hood-shooter-regularly-described-war-on-terror-as-war-on-islam.html

Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch:

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army psychiatrist, murdered twelve people and wounded twenty-one inside Fort Hood in Texas yesterday, while, according to eyewitnesses, "shouting something in Arabic while he was shooting."

***

Neighbors described Hasan as a quiet man who began wearing "Arabic clothing" in recent weeks. Edward Windsor, a neighbor, never suspected Hasan was in the Army. Hasan's rank surprised Windsor who would never have imagined an officer with a rank of major would have lived in an apartment that rents for $350 and houses soldiers ranked as private first class....

***

Nidal Malik Hasan was born in Virginia but didn't think of himself as an American: on a form he filled out at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Maryland, he gave his nationality not as "American" but as "Palestinian." A mosque official found that curious, saying: "I don't know why he listed Palestinian. He was not born in Palestine."

***

He is a graduate of Virginia Tech and has a doctorate in psychiatry from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. While there, NPR reports, Hasan was "put on probation early in his postgraduate work" and was "disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues."

***

So he identified himself as Palestinian and was a devout Muslim - so what? These things, of course, have no significance if one assumes that Islam is a Religion of Peace and that when a devout Muslim reads the Koran's many injunctions to wage war against unbelievers, he knows that they have no force or applicability for today's world. Unfortunately, all too many Muslims around the world demonstrate in both their words and their deeds that they take such injunctions quite seriously. And Nidal Hasan gave some indications that he may have been among them.

--Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/spencer-jihad-at-fort-hood.html#more

More Jihad Watch on the Ft. Hood shooter:

Fort Hood shooter regularly described war on terror as "war on Islam"
Muslim vets group: No reports of harassment of Muslim soldiers. None.
Playing the victim card: Florida mosque requests extra police protection, even though it wasn't threatened
Al-Qaeda last week called for attacks on "any crusaders whenever you find one of them, like at the airports of the crusader Western countries that participate in the wars against Islam, or their living compounds, trains etc."
　
______________________
* When you hear someone shout "allahu akbar!" shoot the bastard!
click on it

Hugh Fitzgerald: Comment on "Fort Hood jihad shooter was disciplined for Islamic proselytizing" at Jihad Watch

2009-11-06T09:06:00.000-08:00

The Pentagon, the American military, the Army, those who run Fort Hood, are guilty, in their refusal to recognize the effect of Islam on the minds of men, in their wilfull ignorance of what is contained in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, in their continual pretend-belief that only the obvious "extremists" are a danger to non-Muslims, are guilty of criminal negligence. And the government of this country, and the governments of other non-Muslim countries who refuse to take Islam seriously, refuse to halt all Muslim immigration and work to diminish the number of Muslims present in our imperilled non-Muslim societies and states, are guilty of the same criminal negligence. Everyone in authority -- brief authority --in the Western world who presumes to protect and defend "the people," has a duty to learn about Islam. Not from John Esposito. Not from the sly propagandists, Muslim and non-Muslim collaborators alike, that is the True Believers and the hirelings, or the ideological sympathizers with Islam as "anti-Western." But, in the main, from two sources: the great Western authorities on Islam, such as Snouck Hurgronje, Joseph Schacht, Franz Rosenthal, Henri Lammens, Samuel Zwemer, St. Clair Tisdall, and a hundred others, and from the articulate apostates from Islam, such people as Ibn Warraq, Nonie Darwish, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Magdi Allam. Their testimonies have been published they are eager to help explain the Muslim mind, the mind of those brought up in societies suffused with Islam. But those who rule over us think they have no duty to learn from these sources. They prefer to listen to the smiling, affable, so-trustworthy Muslims on their staffs, or in the pay of the government. They are easily fooled. They are too lazy to do the necessary work that only they -- not their staffs, who prepare those simplify bullet-riddled Exective Summaries. Nothing but immediate, and detailed knowledge, of the texts and the tenets and the attitudes and the atmospherics of Islam, will do.
Hugh November 5, 2009 8:01 PM

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/fort-hood-jihad-shooter-was-disciplined-for-islamic-proselytizing.html#comments

Can We Depend on Afghan Forces to Resist the Taliban and al Qaeda and Keep Them Out of Afghanistan?

2009-11-06T03:54:00.000-08:00

The manhunt for the Afghan policeman who killed five British soldiers in Helmand earlier this week shows just how easy it is for the Taliban to infiltrate the country’s security forces. Even the most rigorous scanning procedures cannot prevent insurgents signing up and using their privilieged positions to attack Nato forces.

We have been here before, of course, in Iraq, where various insurgent groups found their way into the armed forces and the police. In the end it was the Iraqis themselves, not the coalition, that were able to distinguish between those who were loyal to the government, and those were not.

The obvious solution to rooting out the terrorists in Afghanistan would be to follow a similar path. The only problem is that there is no Afghan government to talk of, so the task of undertaking a proper screening process is left to foreign soldiers, who do not have the same grasp of the intricate web of tribal loyalties quite so well as the indigenous Afghans do.

[NOTE: the loyalty of the Afghan is not to the Karzai government but to his tribe. lw]

from Con Coughlin, Telegraph.co.uk, executive foreign editor's
The Afghan police are an easy target for the Taliban

More . . .

ONE COMMENT (from a whole slew. Read them at the end of Mr. Coughlin's article)

Terribleturk,

Even the forceful Taliban could not impose government on the Afghans – check out this article by Michael Rubin (impeccable neocon credentials), based on a visit to the country in 2000: http://www.michaelrubin.org/897/afghanistan-as-bad-as-its-reputation

The Afghan government takes about 1-2% of its tax revenue from direct personal taxation. On that basis I am saying that the average Afghan citizen is quite likely to think that a national government is not something that he has a democratic stake in. Similarly the government and its forces may feel that they owe little to the citizenry.

Kipling said that the writ of government in Afghanistan stretched as far from the capital city as a bullet might travel, or something like that. Always a good read, Kipling. I think it was in the ‘Amir’s Homily’.

AND

From Afghanistan: As Bad as Its Reputation? by Michael Rubin (published in September 2000):

***

In particular, Arab mercenaries are important to the war effort. I did not go to the front line, but I was on the lookout for non-Afghan mercenaries and foreign soldiers among the Taliban. Guarding the foreign ministry, I found, were Taliban soldiers who were clearly foreign. They did not speak Dari nor, according to Afghan friends, Pashto, but rather Urdu, the language of Pakistan. Unlike Afghan Taliban who were perfectly polite and hospitable, these were condescending and rude, spat out orders at passers-by while making a point of waiving their weapons around. (Afghan frustration with foreign mercenaries resident in the country was clear.) I also made a point of talking to money-changers. In Jalalabad especially, they dealt in Arab currency, and Arabs in kafiya were wandering around the Jalalabad market, many more than could possibly be employed by a nongovernmental organization.

Clearly, the Taliban not only receive funds from Islamic radicals overseas but also use foreign volunteers to press their cause. When a friend sought a visa in Pakistan a week before I did, he met five Sudanese heading into the country; they did not appear to be educated enough to be working for the U.N. or any of the other NGOs. Storekeepers in Kabul told me about the foreigners—mostly Punjabi Pakistanis—coming to fill out Taliban ranks. Julie Sirrs, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official, visited Mas‘ud's territory in March and interviewed foreign prisoners-of-war (POWs) held by the north, mostly Pakistanis, but also some Yemenis and Chinese Uighurs. Afghans would point out Pakistani Talibs along the road. Most said there were fewer around than during the previous year, although they added that their numbers were on the increase again. Rumors circulated in March that 5,000 Pakistani religious students and volunteers had just crossed the border to supplement Taliban ranks along the front line. Most likely, the rumors were exaggerated but had a basis in reality. These mercenaries may not be an effective fighting force compared with Western troops, but they are gaining practical experience and skills that they can perhaps sell after their time on the Afghan front is over. As Lebanon found with Palestinian fighters in the 1970s and 1980s, flirting with foreigners for short-term military gains can haunt domestic stability and international relations for years afterward.

Terrorist training camps are a more serious issue than mercenaries. It is difficult for the Western media to address this issue since journalists by law are not free to travel unescorted and few Afghans willingly answer questions honestly within earshot of a government translator. However, my unescorted snapshot of the country convinced me the issue is real. In Kabul, I asked shopkeepers about foreigners they encountered. One bookseller said he regularly saw French, Swedes, Arabs, Pakistanis, and Filipinos. When I asked him what the French were doing in Afghanistan, he said they were doctors. When I asked him what the Filipinos were doing, he said they were in the country for a jihad.

A few kilometers outside Kabul is Rish Khor, reportedly a base for the Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM), a militant Pakistani group dedicated to wresting Kashmir away from Indian control. In December, members of the group allegedly hijacked an Indian airways flight to Kandahar, killing a hostage, winning the release of their leader from an Indian jail, and escaping.4 Kabul residents in the neighborhood of the camp could attest to strict checkpoints and continued activity at the camp, in sharp contrast to Taliban denials. The camp reportedly shut its doors in June, but it is anyone's guess for how long; or the Taliban may simply have moved its occupants to locations where they will draw less attention.

Many Afghans also talked about Usama Bin Ladin's homes in Jalalabad, though on my last day in Kabul, one friend insisted his father had just returned from Kandahar and was "100 percent sure" that Bin Ladin had been there the previous week. In reality, Bin Ladin probably does not stay in the same house twice, but the fact that so many Afghans believed they knew where he was and always placed him near the populous eastern cities indicates that Bin Ladin is not nearly so isolated as the Taliban claim. Ironically, while the Taliban regime refuses to extradite him to face charges in the West, Taliban Information Minister Mawlawi Qudratullah Jamal declared, when demanding Iran return escaped anti-Taliban figure Isma`il Khan, "When somebody commits a crime and escapes to somewhere else, he should not be given shelter."

Afghanistan: As Bad as Its Reputation?
by Michael Rubin
Middle East Quarterly
http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/asia/afghanistan.html.
September 2000

Middle East Quarterly

Watch Out for Those Islamics in our Military!

2009-11-05T14:39:00.000-08:00

Watch and listen to your News channels, stations

12 killed 31 wounded at Fort Hood, Texas

Shooter:
U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan

or Malik Nidal Hasan

psychiatrist (M.D)

Wounded but still alive

Is it prudent to have and to keep Moslems and converts to Islam in our armed forces?

Of course it is not. They may revert to the keep the basic tenets of Islam as contained in the koran etc. at any moment.

FBI rushed to come out with the comment that it was not a "Terrorist Act."

What does that tell us about our FBI ("ours" not Obama's - no matter what he thinks about it)?

If when a convert to Islam commits "instant jihad" is it a "Terrorist Act" or not?

What do you think?

Afghanistan, Marines, and Is There a Solution?

2009-11-03T02:24:00.000-08:00

Only today, I heard a Marine (Afganistan bound) explain that the mission for Marines has changed--and not in a desirable manner.

Marines are troops that can be inserted with primary purpose of detroying the enemy.

General Stanley McChrystal intends for troops under his command to kill the Taliban in Afghanistan--but without causing any civilian casualties.

The mission will be to gain the trust of the population, act also as a kind of Peace Corps, building infrastructure, schools, digging wells, etc. to gain the support of the Afghanistan civilians.

This is counter to why young men and women enlist in the United States Marine Corps.

The Corps is a fighting force, proud of its achieving victory--often at great cost of lives.

The mission in Afghanistan is that, yes, yes, in part BUT . . . and here is where it sticks in a young Marine's craw. The but, the change in the Rules of engagement (ROEs).

The Captain's Journal has it down to a T:

There is no such thing as air or artillery support any more. The ROE [Rules of Engagement] General McChrystal has set in place is killing Marines. Sure, there was the ROE in Iraq, but Marines were genuinely encouraged to think for themselves, assess the situation, and ascertain the best course of action independently. This is not being done in Afghanistan, where rules are micromanaging the tactical situation. Many Marines with combat experience in Iraq are leaving the Corps for various reasons, but at least one reason for the exit can be traced to a lack of willingness to deploy to Afghanistan under the current circumstances. Deploying Marines to Afghanistan are mostly inexperienced.

Now. To regular readers of The Captain’s Journal who follow our rules of engagement coverage and analysis, this isn’t news. What is news is that the experiences are gradually being transmitted from front line back to the states, and it is causing a deleterious affect on morale. In four years I cannot remember a more morbid time, even in the worst days of the campaign for Anbar.

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/11/02/enlisted-marines-on-the-rules-of-engagement/

Readers of this Islamic Danger blog may be aware of the suggested solution to the Afghanistan problem would also include Pakistan.

Again, resorting to The Captain's Journal, we are referred to Matthew Hoh’s arguments against involvement in Afghanistan. The point of that argument being that instead of Afghanistan, we should be solving the problem in Pakistan.

The Captain's Journal counters this with

"If our engagement of Pakistan is to mean anything, we must understand that they are taking their cue from us, and that our campaign is pressing the radicals from the Afghanistan side while their campaign is pressing them from the Pakistani side.

"Advocating disengagement from Afghanistan is tantamount to suggesting that one front against the enemy would be better than two, and that one nation involved in the struggle would be better than two (assuming that Pakistan would keep up the fight in our total absence, an assumption for which I see no basis). It’s tantamount to suggesting that it’s better to give the Taliban and al Qaeda safe haven in Afghanistan as Pakistan presses them from their side, or that it’s better to give them safe haven in Pakistan while we press them from our side. Both suggestions are preposterous."

Should our efforts focus on Afghanistan or Pakistan?
BY Herschel Smith
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/11/03/should-our-efforts-focus-on-afghanistan-or-pakistan/

this leaves us right backwhere we started. Build up Afghanistan into another Islamic nation a la Iraq, or . . . WHAT?

Counterterrorism operations, where the Taliban are engaged and destroyed wherever they appear, but continue to swim in the population as Mao had it, does not offer a path to victory either.

Senator John Kerry on Afghanistan, an article in the Small Wars Journal, is as confusing and devoid of a clearcut policy as everything else.

I do not have a solution, but there are others who believe they do. One intriguing proposal is that made by Major Jim Gant, a U.S. Army Special Operations officer with experience on the ground in Iraq as well as Afghanistan.

I found the referral to that paper at LifeoftheMind
Comment on The Belmont Club "Pick a number"
　
"Has anybody read this? Is this more than Strategic Hamlets redux?One Tribe at A Time by Major Jim Gant. H/T Theo Spark"
http://mrnewyorkcity.blogspot.com/2009/10/comment-on-belmont-club-pick-number.html

Here are some excerpts from Major Gant's paper:
　
One Tribe at a Time

by Major Jim Gant
United States Army Special Forces
http://blog.stevenpressfield.com/wp-content/themes/stevenpressfield/one_tribe_at_a_time.pdf

We must work first and forever with the tribes,
for they are the most important military, political
and cultural unit in that country. The tribes are selfcontained
fighting units who will fight to the death
for their tribal family’s honor and respect. Their intelligence
and battlefield assessments are infallible. Their
loyalty to family and friends is beyond question.
***
A strategy of tribal engagement
will require a complete paradigm
shift at the highest levels of
our military organization.
***
The opium problem. The tie between opium and
the funding of the Taliban is a fact. However, at the
tactical level, it would be a mistake for US forces to get
involved in this issue. To do so would make enemies
out of a population that is simply struggling to feed
its families, clans and tribes. The COIN (counterinsurgency)
forces should not be made responsible for
the opium issue. That would be counter-productive
for the troops on the ground.
So . . . what is the answer? My hope is that you will
find it as you read through this paper.
***
The central cultural fact about
Afghanistan is that it is constituted
of tribes. Not individuals,
not Western-style citizens—but
tribes and tribesmen.
It is my deep belief—and the thesis
of this paper—that the answer
to the problems that face the Afghan
people, as well as other future
threats to US security in the region,
will be found in understanding
and then helping the tribal system
of Afghanistan to flourish.
***
The US has been in Afghanistan for
eight years. We have fought hard and accomplished
some good. Tactically, we have not
lost a battle. Despite the lethal sophistication of the
Improvised Explosive Device (IED) threat, we defeat
the Taliban in every engagement. But are we closer
to our goals than we were eight years ago? Are the
Afghan people closer to a stable way of life? Are we
closer to our national strategic objectives there?
Based on my time in Afghanistan—and my study
of the region, tribes, counter-insurgency (COIN) and
unconventional warfare (UW)—positive momentum
in Afghanistan depends on the US force’s support for
the tribal systems already in place. Take it a step further
and "advise, assist, train and lead" tribal security
forces (Arbakais) much like we have been doing with
the Afghanistan National Army (ANA) and Afghanistan
National Police (ANP).

I will get into the specifics later in this paper, but
what I believe must happen is a tribal movement supported
by the US which allows the tribal leaders and
the tribes they represent to have access to the local,
district, provincial, and national leadership. This process
has to be a "bottom-up" approach.
READ the whole paper, if you want the details:
http://blog.stevenpressfield.com/wp-content/themes/stevenpressfield/one_tribe_at_a_time.pdf

Now, we must remember that the initial successes against the Taliban in Afghanistan was by air power and U.S. Special Forces--and troops of the "Northern Alliance."

Quoting Wikipedia:

The US and UK led the aerial bombing, in support of ground forces supplied primarily by the Afghan Northern Alliance. In 2002, American, British and Canadian infantry were committed, along with special forces from several allied nations, including Australia. Later, NATO troops were added.

The initial attack removed the Taliban from power, but Taliban forces have since regained some strength.[24] The war has been less successful in achieving the goal of restricting al-Qaeda's movement than anticipated.[25] Since 2006, Afghanistan has seen threats to its stability from increased Taliban-led insurgent activity, record-high levels of illegal drug production,[26][27] and a fragile government with limited control outside of Kabul.[28]
[color emphasis mine. lw]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan

Message to Obama: We Noticed!

2009-11-01T00:35:00.000-07:00

Subject: WE NOTICED

AND SO LIFE GOES!!!???

This was written by Sherry Hackett, Buddy Hackett's widow........

"WE NOTICED"

President Obama:

Today I read of your administrations' plan to re-define September 11 as a National Service Day. Sir, it's time we had a talk.........

During your campaign, Americans watched as you made mockery of our tradition of standing and crossing your heart when the Pledge of Allegiance was spoken. You, out of four people on the stage, were the only one not honoring our tradition.

YES, "We noticed."

During one of your many speeches, Americans heard you say that you intended to visit all 57 states.
We all know that Islam, not America has 57 states.

YES, "We noticed."

When President Bush leaned over at Ground Zero and gently placed a flower on the memorial, while you nonchalantly tossed your flower onto the pile without leaning over.

YES, "We noticed."

Every time you apologized to other countries for America 's position on an issue we have wondered why you don't share our pride in this great country. When you have heard foreign leaders berate our country and our beliefs, you have not defended us. In fact, you insulted the British Crown beyond belief.

YES, "We noticed."

When your pastor of 20 years, "God-damned America " and said that 9/11 was " America 's chickens coming home to roost" and you denied having heard recriminations of that nature, we wondered how that could be. You later disassociated yourself from that church and Pastor Wright because it was politically expedient to do so.

YES, "We noticed."

When you announced that you would transform America , we wondered why. With all her faults, America is the greatest country on earth. Sir, KEEP THIS IN MIND, "if not for America and the people who built her, you wouldn't be sitting in the White House now." Prior to your election to the highest office in this Country, you were a senator from Illinois and from what we can glean from the records available, not a very remarkable one.

YES, "We noticed."

All through your campaign and even now, you have surrounded yourself with individuals who are basically unqualified for the positions for which you appointed them. Worse than that, the majority of them are people who, like you, bear no special allegiance, respect, or affection for this country and her traditions.

YES, "We noticed."

You are 9 months into your term and eve ry morning millions of Americans wake up to a new horror heaped on us by you. You seek to saddle working Americans with a health care/insurance reform package that, along with cap and trade, will bankrupt this nation.

YES, "We noticed."

We seek, by protesting, to let our representatives know that we are not in favor of these crippling expenditures and we are labeled "un-American","racist", "mob". We wonder how we are supposed to let you know how frustrated we are. You have attempted to make our protests seem isolated and insignificant. Until your appointment, Americans had the right to speak out.

YES, "We noticed."

On September 11, 2001 there were no Republicans or Democrats, only Americans. And we all grieved together and helped each other in whatever way we could. The attack on 9/11 was carried out because we are Americans.

And YES, "We noticed."

There were many of us who prayed that as a black president you could help unite this nation. In six months you have done more to destroy this nation than the attack on 9/11.

You have failed us.

YES, "We noticed."

September 11 is a day of remembrance for all Americans. You propose to make 9/11 a "National Service Day". While we know that you don't share our reverence for 9/11, we pray that history will report your proposal as what it is...a disgrace.

YES, "We noticed."

You have made a mockery of our Constitution and the office that you hold. You have embarrassed and slighted us in foreign visits and policy.

YES, "We noticed.."

We have noticed all these things. We will deal with you. When Americans come together again, it will be to remove you from office.

Take notice.

If you agree with this please pass it on.

Obama White House Can't Remember Who Blew Up the Marine Barracks in Beirut

2009-10-25T00:20:00.000-07:00

Of course, Obama White House Does Not Want to Accuse Any Moslems of this Murder

White House on Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing--Can't Remember Who Murdered 241 Americans

Friday, October 23, 2009

[Please subscribe. There's too much news from the Middle East to miss a single article; and too little good analysis in the media to miss a single analysis.]

By Barry Rubin

The White House has just released a very routine but still quite disturbing declaration by President Barack Obama. And it goes like this:

"On the anniversary of the attack on the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, we remember today the 241 American Marines, soldiers, and sailors who lost their lives 26 years ago as the result of a horrific terrorist attack that destroyed the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. The military personnel serving in Beirut were there to bring peace and stability to Lebanon after years of internal strife and conflict. The murder of our soldiers, sailors, and Marines on this day on 1983 remains a senseless tragedy....In remembering this terrible day of loss, we are at the same time hopeful that a new government in Lebanon will soon be formed. We look forward to working with a Lebanese government that works actively to promote stability in the region and prosperity for its people."

The problem is not so much the wording of the declaration but the context in which it's issued. After all, the president of the United States has access to U.S. intelligence. And U.S. intelligence knows:

--That the bombing was carried out by cadre of Hizballah under the guidance of Syria and Iran.

--Today, attacks are being carried out against U.S. military personnel in Iraq under the guidance of Syria and Iran, and

--Iran is trying to stage such attacks in Afghanistan.

--In addition, Iran's current minister of defense was the head of covert operations at the time that these were killing U.S. citizens.

--Hizballah was involved in other attacks on U.S. citizens and servicemen in Lebanon.

--It is also the anniversary of the killing of three U.S. security agents by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip who the Palestinian Authority never punished and Hamas is now protecting. There is no apparent effort by the U.S. government to bring these killers to justice or to press the Palestinian Authority and Hamas to cooperate in doing so or to punish them for not doing so.

All of these forces, however, are left anonymous. No one is named for involvement in that "horrific terrorist attack." And, of course the attack was not "senseless" but part of an Iranian-Syrian-Hizballah campaign to take over Lebanon and drive U.S. influence out of the region. In fact, it was counted as a great victory for these forces since it showed America's vulnerability to being hit by terrorism--an inspiration for September 11?--and did succeed in paralyzing the U.S. effort in Lebanon. Ultimately, this lead to the withdrawal of the peace-keeping forces altogether, paving the way for Syria's turning Lebanon into a satellite state for two decades at a great financial and strategic profit. .

None of these attacks were perpetrated by al-Qaida, the only group that remains a target of this administration's version of a war on terrorism, a phrase which is no longer used.

It is bad enough the administration doesn't say any of this. Is it aware of these factors at all?

Indeed, the president's advisor on terrorism is on record as saying that Hizballah is no longer a terrorist group, which opens the door for U.S. contacts in future.

This raises the question of the declaration's final sentence. Let's repeat it:

"We look forward to working with a Lebanese government that works actively to promote stability in the region and prosperity for its people."

While negotiations are complex and ongoing, the government being discussed for Lebanon would include a large contingent of Hizballah cabinet ministers and would give Hizballah veto power over government decisions.

Now it could be argued that this would not constitute, in U.S. eyes, a goverment promoting stability and prosperity. But who knows? Without even naming Hizballah as an adversary, however, the implication is that the United States does not oppose a government including Hizballah, which is one more step to having such a government.

Consider just one such additional case. Colonel William Richard Higgins, kidnapped by Hizballah men while serving with UN peacekeeping forces in southern Lebanon in 1988, horribly tortured, turned over to the Iranians and murdered. Does the White House remember him?

So 241 U.S. servicemen died 26 years ago. Who killed them? Will the murders be punished in any way or will the groups and states that stood behind the attack be rewarded? On this, the declaration is silent.

PS: After I wrote this, Colonel Timothy J. Geraghty, one of the commanders of the Marine force in Beirut, wrote an op-ed in the New York Post pointing out that the current and previous Iranian defense minister were involved in the attack: Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar (defense minister, 2005-2009) was head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps force in Lebanon and in charge of carrying out the attack while his successor, General Ahmad Vahidi, was involved in planning the attack.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

New Book: Barry Rubin, Guide to Islamist Movements...

Fitzgerald: The "New" Policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan

2009-10-22T00:54:00.000-07:00

NOTE: This article and Bill Warner's will give you a full understanding of why building up Islamic nations will NOT stop the jihad.

Reprinted from How to Stop the Islamic Jihad
Originally published at Jihad Watch

The "New" Policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan

by Hugh Fitzgerald

The policy announced for Afghanistan and Pakistan depresses. It’s all about training the locals. It’s all about helping them. It’s all about giving them aid, and still more aid, from the depleted, practically cupboard-is-bare coffers of the Americans, and other Infidel taxpayers. Far from reflecting "new thinking," it is the mixture as before. It is the mixture, that is, that ignores the nature of Islam, the texts of Islam, the tenets and attitudes and atmospherics that naturally flow from those texts. Instead, those making policy (see, for example, my article "A Tribute to Bruce Riedel") are still believers that "prosperity" among Muslims will do wonders. But did the “prosperity” brought by oil wealth make Saudi Arabia, make Iran, make any Muslim country, less of a threat than it was before it possessed that oil wealth? Or doesn’t economic prosperity simply allow for the leisure time to devote to spreading the doctrine of, and perhaps directly participating in, Jihad?

Those who fashioned this policy, or who are continuing, rather, the Bush policy of bringing this “prosperity” and “unity” to fictions called “the Iraqi people” and “the Afghani people” and “the Pakistani people,” when each of these countries is riven by ethnic and sectarian divisions, refuse to realize that the task of making Muslim states "prosperous" through the lavishing of Western aid (and that includes military aid and training) will not bring prosperity. It will not remove the ethnic and sectarian divisions. Above all, it will do nothing to decrease hostility toward Infidels, for that is in the Qur’an, the Hadith and the Sira, and no amount of aid can erase what remains, immutable, in the Qur’an, the “most authentic” of the Hadith, the Sira.

Furthermore, it is Islam itself that stands in the way of long-term prosperity for all Muslim states and societies. Look around the world. Where, among Muslims, is there prosperity? In the Muslim oil states, the prosperity, or rather fantastic unearned wealth, is the result of an accident of geology. What amazes is not the wealth, but rather that despite the fantastic unmerited wealth, which since 1973 alone has amounted to more than twelve trillion dollars, not one of these states has built a modern economy, and not one of them shows any signs of being capable of doing so. And in the non-oil Muslim states, such as Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, large sums have been and are being spent by Infidels, in torrents of Jizyah-aid (that is, aid that is given, and never reduced, by fearful Infidel donors, to Muslim recipients who exhibit no gratitude, and pocket the aid as their due from Infidels), without any sign of the kind of economic activity that, for example, the countries of East Asia have engaged in to pull themselves, without any such aid, out of poverty.

Then there is the disguised Jizyah, within Muslim countries, whereby wealth is extracted from the non-Muslim, industrious and entrepreneurial part of the population, as with the Bumiputra system in Malaysia that transfers wealth from the Hindus and Chinese to the Muslim Malays, while the real "sons of the soil" -- the christianized or pagan tribes, the true indigenes -- are ruthlessly driven off their ancestral lands by the Muslim Malays, and when they try to resist, are simply killed. In Turkey, the creation of a modern economy has been the result of the reforms put in by Ataturk, involving the systematic sidelining of Islam. And though today, in Turkey, one finds even some successful Muslim entrepreneurs, the general attitude, and the diminished role of Islam, has created the possibility for economic development even by Muslims as well as, more naturally, by the secular, more advanced, Turks.

Islam makes prosperity less likely -- compare Singapore with Malaysia, or India with Pakistan -- because of the general inshallah-fatalism, which discourages the kind of work that creates modern economies, but also because the more general discouragement of free inquiry, of any kind of questioning (for Allah Ta’Allah, Allah Knows Best), and the collectivism of Islam, all act as a brake on entrepreneurial activity, on new ways of manufacturing, or new ways of distributing goods or offering services. There are, in India, some entrepreneurs who call themselves Muslims. But they benefit from living in a country that is 90% non-Muslim, and where, furthermore, they are freer to take their Islam a little less seriously. But the odd Muslim billionaire is an exception, not the rule -- except where the billions come from oil.

Furthermore, the new American policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan naively assumes, as did the previous, Bush-administration policy, that peoples in Muslim countries share the same view of what constitutes political legitimacy. They do not. Legitimacy for Believers in Islam is to be located not in the will expressed by the people, however imperfectly, but rather in the will expressed by Allah -- perfectly -- in the Qur'an, as glossed (for Sunni Muslims) by the Sunnah. The dreamy belief that "ordinary moms and dads" would like "freedom" in the Western sense, as Bush so famously said about Iraq, continues in the "new" (but very old) policy just announced for Pakistan and Afghanistan.

For Muslims, the chief loyalty must be to Islam. No one has yet been able to show any texts, other than the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, upon which the so-called "extremists" rely, while it is easy to show that it is only by ignoring the texts that "moderate" Muslims can make their shaky case. Islam is more important than, superior to, the claims of the nation-state. Loyalty must be not only to Islam, but to other Muslims, when those Muslims are threatened by non-Muslims or when they are in conflict with them. Members of the Umma are taught that whenever other members of the Umma are in conflict with Infidels, the side of the Believers must be taken.

But at the same time, if the Muslim nation-state remains for its own Muslims an unnatural, novel, and still doubtful idea among Muslims (and the Infidel nation-state is owed no loyalty at all, for such loyalty would not, islamically, make sense), the real loyalty, aside from the loyalty to Islam and the Umma, is at the smaller level, the local level, the level of family, of clan, and of tribe. For the loyalty to clan, and murderousness toward members of other clans, see Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel (the Dogon, the Isaq, the Osman Mahamud of Somalia). For loyalty to tribe, see Anbar Province, or see the war, settled only by war, between the Al-Saud and the Al-Shammar), or see the wars of the Uzbeks and the Tadzhiks and the Pashtuns in Afghanistan, or see the Baluchis fighting in Pakistan, or see, see, see (fill in your own examples here). In other words, loyalty for Muslims is either to a concept greater than the nation-state (Islam and the Umma), or smaller than the nation-state (family, clan, tribe).

There is nothing in the announced policy that shows that those behind these policies have understood that the threat of Islam is worldwide, and that it is not based on novel texts, but on the immutable texts -- Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira -- of Islam. The concept of Jihad fell into desuetude over the last few centuries because, within the backwater of Islam, there was little ability to conduct Jihad. The last direct Muslim assault in Europe was by the Ottomans at Vienna in 1683. From then on, the decline of Ottoman power led to a series of defeats. In the Mediterranean, Muslim corsairs (often carefully listing their intended Christian targets or at least their intended hunting-grounds for such Christian shipping) preyed on the ships, and enslaved the seamen, of Christian powers, until the American Republic showed that military force could work. But that lesson wore off, and the French took control of Algeria in 1830 in order to put paid, once and for all, to such
attacks). The heyday of Muslim would-be "reformers" was in the early decades of the 20th century, when Muslim power seemed, and was, at its lowest point. The most intelligent Muslims began to see that Islam itself might have to be "reformed" to rescue Muslims.

Another kind of Muslim reformer was Kemal Pasha, that is Ataturk, who attributed the collapse of the Ottoman Empire to Islam itself. In order to avoid complete catastrophe for the Turks, in order to allow them to take part in the modern world, Ataturk -- himself a Turkish war hero at Gallipoli, and a man ruthless enough to destroy mosques and imprison or kill clerics who opposed him -- set out to systematically divorce the practice of Islam from the cultural and linguistic imperialism of the Arabs. He commissioned a Qur'an in Turkish, with accompanying tafsir or commentary in Turkish). He gave the vote to women. He passed the Hat Act, banning the fez and encouraging the wearing of Western-style caps that made prayer a little more difficult. He outlawed the wearing of the hijab by women in state universities, and created, in the army, an outpost of secularism, where any man seen reading the Qur'an too devoutly could be, and was, cashiered. He created a system of law that no longer took the Shari'a as its model, and in theory at least -- and increasingly even in practice, though the attitudes of Islam long survive even among supposedly "secular" Turks -- non-Muslims were given legal equality.

The Return of Jihad, as a practice, with goals that now seem to many Muslims within reach, has not been the result of a new doctrine or new texts. It has been, rather, the result of changes in the perceived power of Muslims. Incapable of becoming rich through industry and enterprise (because Islam discourages innovation, bida, including new ways of approaching economic problems, or societal needs that might be met by economic progress, as well as, because of inshallah-fatalism, acting as a brake on economic activity), Muslims have nonetheless been the recipients of the greatest transfer of wealth in human history. The Muslim oil states, and their grasping rulers, have received since 1973 alone more than twelve trillion dollars. They have not shared their wealth with the truly poor, but instead have allowed those poor (the greatest victims of the rise in oil prices), in Africa and elsewhere, to sink. They have not even shared their wealth with fellow Muslim states, except when they feel directly threatened (thus, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the U.A.E. did give sixty billion to Iraq, in order to support its war against even more dangerous, Shi'a Iran). They were perfectly content to allow the Infidels of Europe and America to shell out tens or even, over time, hundreds of billions, to support an impoverished Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and of course everyone's favorite object of Infidel charity, the soi-disant "Palestinian people." That people was invented precisely to repackage in acceptable camouflaged national-liberation two-tiny-peoples form, the Arab and Muslim Jihad-without-end against truly tiny, and imperiled, Israel.

In Washington, it seems that among those still at the top, the understanding of Islam, even the grasping of the need to responsibly study what Islam inculcates, is still horribly, expensively, absent. No one has yet seen fit to define what "victory" in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, would or should mean. What it should mean is this: an end result, in which the Camp of Islam is weaker than it was before. That is not the same thing as merely defeating, through killing the leaders or members of, Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is merely the name given to one group, the one that was most successful in its efforts at using terrorism as its main weapon against Infidels. But if every single member of Al Qaeda were to disappear, that would not change the nature of Islam. Nor would it change the doctrine, and central duty, of Jihad, defined most correctly as "the struggle to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam all over the world." Terrorism is merely one instrument of Jihad, and in the most important theatre of war, Western Europe, not the most effective instrument. In Western Europe, the Jihad is mainly conducted through the deployment of the Money Weapon, carefully-targeted and well-financed campaigns of Da'wa among the Infidels (especially those who are economically or psychically marginal), and demographic conquest -- the sheer numbers of Muslims, who have managed even now to outbreed, on the Infidel taxpayers' dole, the locals, and as a consequence, have been pressing their demands and pressuring politicians every which way. And no matter how often they may be rebuffed, they keep coming back, and will continue to do so until such time as they are made to recognize that the legal and political institutions and social understandings of Infidel societies are not open to being changed in order to satisfy the arrogant upholders of the divine right of the Shari'a, that in every important respect flatly contradicts, in letter and spirit, the advanced Western democracies.

The inattention to Western Europe is the most disturbing feature of American policy toward Islam. Whether Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, sink into the natural misrule and misery and anarchy that Muslim states, without a local despot, or despotic ruling family, often endure, hardly matters for the future of the West. With the Muslim despot, or the despotic family, the misrule and injustice remain, but not the anarchy and the free-for-all. What matters most is whether Europe, where the West originates, and where its cultural monuments are mostly to be found, will endure, without the threat from within of an Islamic population, allowed to grow ever larger, mainly on the Infidel taxpayers’ dole, and allowed to receive financial backing from the sinister Saudis and other rich Muslims from outside of Europe. Americans may think they can do without Europe, that the islamization of Europe does not matter much to them, but they are wrong. The United States cannot survive, without moral and cultural collapse, the continued islamization of the nation-states of Western Europe. The loss of access to universities, museums, to the places where Western civilization was made and that made Western civilization, would be devastating. The loss of Europe’s modern armories to the control of Muslims would be dangerous. The likelihood, in any case, of civil strife within Europe, when the indigenes finally ignore their too-passive or too-appeasing governments and begin to take back their own countries from the hostile invaders, will be unavoidable. And the United States will have to take sides – the right side. There is no hint that anyone in Washington is thinking ahead beyond the next few years, nor any hint that the future islamization of Western Europe is being discussed, even behind closed doors.

Only those able to recognize the Islamic threat are likely to take those minimal measures that are perfectly justified to deal with an unprecedented threat from within that is only now, and only in places, being fully grasped and correctly analyzed. The exaggerated attention given first to Iraq, and now apparently to be transferred to Afghanistan and Pakistan, means that the confusion and delay in recognizing the relative insignificance of these places, and the importance of Western Europe and the Jihad being conducted there, will continue. That is unacceptable.

It is fascinating to consider what those in the State Department whose responsibility it is to monitor the situation in Europe are reporting to others. Do they see what advanced Europeans see? Do they recognize the threat? Are they, within the State Department, attempting to raise the alarm about the islamization of Western Europe? Do they talk about the instruments of Jihad in Western Europe, such as the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest? Do they speak their mind, or are they afraid of offending, or coming into conflict with, the desks of those who cover the Muslim countries, and so often are staffed by apologists (both non-Muslim and Muslim) for Islam? If they are doing their duty, there should be a war on, right now, within the State Department and in the Pentagon. It should be between those who have grasped the ideology of Islam and those who have not. There should be at least some there who have studied the history of Islamic conquest over the past 1350 years, and have understood what conditions in the modern world have put into practice what for a while, in the circumstances of obvious Muslim weakness, had remained merely doctrine, the immutable doctrine of Jihad.

There are many in the West whose educations in history and literature have been insufficient to provide them either with the ballast of fact (which the study of history provides) or its necessary complement, the air-balloon of the imagination (which the study of literature can provide, or at least a bookish nature), and yet who have risen high, and are now making policy. They do not know, and therefore do not appreciate, and are insufficiently grateful for, the development of advanced Western democracies, with their solicitude for the rights of the individual. They do not know the conditions that make freedom of artistic expression possible, or free and skeptical inquiry. Nor do they understand how deeply antithetical these are to Islam, and to Muslims who take their Islam seriously. Unschooled in history or political thought, often having acquired not an education, but a mere degree, which need not signify an education, they are not able to rise to the historic occasion. (There are those who think that those now dealing with the economic degringolade suffer from the same insufficiencies.) Knowledge of the history of the Western world, and of American history, would encourage self-confidence about the West, while those who know nothing or little are most easily pushed around by the assorted chomskys and churchills of our world, and by the sly apologists for Islam who are not only adept at hiding what Islam teaches, past masters of taqiyya, but also dab hands at the rhetorical everyone-does-it-we-are-all-equally-guilty of Tu-Quoque. The less those who make policy know about the history of the development of the Western world, the more likely it is that they will be unable to grasp the size, and full horror, of the threat that Islam poses to Europe, to its art, its science, its freedoms.

The right study of history provides that indispensable ballast of knowledge that helps ensure Western self-confidence, and the certain result is an intelligent alarm about the present imperilments. The right study of literature -- the not-unduly-professional study, by teachers with sufficient allure -- strengthens the muscles of the imagination (what could happen? What would an Islamized Europe look like?), and encourages a vigilance with words that enables one better to detect blague in the pronouncements of others, and to express one’s own thoughts with clarity, in a way more likely to convince. It used to be a given that the old ruling elites looked to Europe. They had studied, and could read, French. They travelled to Europe, and spent summers there. They may not have been members of the English-Speaking Union, but they understood the civilizational connection, one that had nothing to do with trade or other economic activity. Theodore Roosevelt (impressing Lord Grey of Falloden with his knowledge of English birds) and FDR and others learned European history in high school. They studied subjects likely to reinforce their interest in and knowledge of Europe. This included immigrants who learned not multiculturalism, whatever that may mean, but about the History of the West. One did not have to attend Groton, as did FDR, or have rooms on the Gold Coast at

Harvard, or read French easily, as so many Boston Brahmins did. Anyone who studied history would see the link, the necessary link, between Europe and America. The political elite in this country no longer consists of those who feel that connection to Europe. A few years ago I suggested at this site that possibly American academics, enjoying summer houses in Brittany or Provence, in Tuscany or Umbria, and forced to talk to their neighbors, and forced to learn about the tumbril-rumblings of Islam growing louder, might return from their Old-World villegiatures to start spreading the alarm about things they learned of in Europe. Even those summer houses might help to do the trick.

The military alliance that matters most to the United States remains that of NATO. The civilizational connection that matters most is that with Europe. Our history is connected most to the peoples and states of Europe. Now imagine if the Americans who make policy continue to ignore the Muslim threat in Western Europe. Imagine if they ignore the effects of the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da’wa, demographic conquest. Imagine if peoples and politicians in Western Europe wake up, and feel that things must be done to halt and reverse growing Muslim power, and the Muslim presence, in Western Europe. The people will wake up in this way out of a recognized instinct for self-preservation that will overcome the false Idols –“multicultural diversity” – of the Age. Will the Americans be ready to help them, to encourage them? Or imagine that Europeans do not wake up in sufficient numbers. And imagine an islamized Europe, one where a self-confident, aggressive Muslim population, even before it becomes an absolute majority, can work its will (look at the demands made by Muslims now, when they are less than 5% of the population everywhere but France). Imagine that this minority puts political pressure, through the acquired vote, to force the governments and peoples of Europe to remove every remaining obstacle to the spread and dominance of Islam, to distance itself from the United States, to end any military alliance with the United States, and to work to force what by that time will be Fortress America to follow the example of Western Europe and to meet Muslim demands, for changes in laws and customs that conflict with the spirit and letter of the Shari’a.

Those who think that “prosperity” and “reconstruction” or “construction” in Afghanistan or Pakistan can mean much of anything in modifying the hostility that Islam inculcates are wrong. Those who think, after the horrific example of Iraq, that squandering more men, money, materiel, and morale, now in such places as Pakistan and Afghanistan, will somehow help to diminish the threat that Islam poses, and not, pace policymakers, Al Qaeda or other “extremists” pose, is just the ticket, will eventually be disabused. The facts will force it. But why must there be such fantastic waste? All it takes is a little more fearlessness in analyzing and grasping the nature of Islam. Then, having grasped it, policymakers must figure out how to use features of Islam itself, and the pre-existing fissures among Islamic peoples (sectarian, ethnic, and economic), to divide, demoralize, and weaken the Camp of Islam (a camp that exists only in relation to Infidels, but is fissiparous once the Infidels are not immediately present), in order to buy time while the Western world and the rest of the Infidel world comes to its senses.

Posted by Hugh on March 30, 2009 7:50 AM

Bill Warner's "The Higher You Go, the Less They Know," can be found at http://islamicdangerfu.blogspot.com/2009/10/in-war-against-jihad-higher-you-go-less.html

Pakistan's Double Game

2009-10-18T03:23:00.000-07:00

By Bruce P. Cameron
October 18, 2009
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/101709b.html
via Shadow Warrior http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2009/10/pakistans-double-game.html

The core challenge to President Barack Obama’s Afghan War may not be the Taliban, nor even al-Qaeda, but rather Pakistan’s shadowy intelligence service, the ISI, with its dual loyalties when it comes to fighting Islamic extremists.

Indeed, the success of Obama’s Af-Pak policy may depend on whether Pakistan’s ISI – officially named the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate – can be neutralized or dismantled.

If the ISI remains intact, Obama may never know exactly what side of the street the Pakistani government is really working, given ISI’s historic role in organizing many of the miltant Islamic forces that are now challenging U.S. interests in the region.

During the long-simmering dispute with India over Kashmir, ISI-backed Pakistani Taliban were deployed to bloody up Pakistan's bitter rival, Hindu-ruled India. In the mid-1990s, the ISI-organized Afghan Taliban were used to establish an Afghan regime closely tied to Pakistan.

Those groups of ISI-trained militants are now at the center of the Af-Pak conflicts, with the Afghan Taliban fighting U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan and the Pakistani Taliban seeking to dislodge the Pakistani government, which the ISI ostensibly serves.

These dual loyalties also are not confined to the ISI. In Pakistan, which defines itself as an Islamic republic, a substantial minority if not a majority of military officers believe they should not fight fellow Muslims but should save most of their resources for the main battle against India and to a lesser extent the United States.

Many of these officers will play a double game, appearing to side with the Americans to get needed resources, but it is just that, a game.

Strong sympathy for the militants pervades 20 percent of the officer corps that is of Pashtun ancestry and thus has tribal loyalties to the Pashtun-dominated Taliban.

The ISI’s role in organizing and nurturing the Afghan Taliban forces also has created strong personal as well as institutional bonds. The ISI’s own rise from a minor part of the Pakistani intelligence community to its most influential element tracked with its work organizing those paramilitary militant forces.

The Covert War

In the 1980s, Pakistani dictator Zia ul-Haq assigned the ISI to handle the billions of dollars in aid pouring in from the United States and Saudi Arabia to help the Afghan mujahedeen fight a Soviet army that was propping up an Afghan communist regime.

ISI officers were steeped in Zia’s mindset which promoted Islamic fundamentalism as a way to advance the cause of securing Kashmir for Pakistan and dominating Afghanistan. President Zia pushed this militant Islamic vision from 1977 until his death in 1988.

As the war with the Soviets raged in Afghanistan, the ISI also helped set up madrassas for young male Afghan refugees inside Pakistan, teaching them a fundamentalist form of Islam.

After the Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989 and the communist government fell in 1992, chaos reigned in Afghanistan as warlords fought for control. To establish order – and ensure a pro-Pakistani regime in Afghanistan – the ISI fashioned the refugee students into a well-disciplined military force called the Taliban.

In 1996, the Taliban wrested control of Afghanistan, driving out a rival force, the Northern Alliance, which Pakistan suspected of having ties to India. That defeated group, led by Tajik mujahedeen commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, took refuge in the far north.

With the Taliban’s victory, the ISI was no longer just an adviser to the Afghan militants; it was a full partner in the new government.

The ISI also organized a network of Pakistani Pashtuns to assist the comings and goings of al-Qaeda, a band of Arab extremists who first arrived in Pakistan to assist the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan and later turned their anti-Western fury on the United States.

That Pakistani network merged with the Pakistani militants who had been part of the Kashmir struggle, creating a powerful Pakistani Taliban movement that is now spreading rapidly across the country.

Post 9/11

The double game played by the Pakistani military and intelligence services came into focus in 2001 when Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf found himself in a tight spot after al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.

President George W. Bush gave Musharraf an ultimatum: join the international community and fight al-Qaeda or face the whirlwind. Musharraf agreed to assist in the “war on terror,” as did the ISI – at least publicly.

Behind the scenes, however, the ISI immediately created and funded an organization -- mainly staffed by retired ISI officers -- to assist and fund the Afghan Taliban in their resistance to the Americans. [See Ahmed Rashid’s Descent into Chaos, p. 222.]

Some ISI agents even balked at leaving Afghanistan when ordered to do so, choosing instead to stay behind and help the Taliban during the U.S. invasion in October 2001.

Most of these ISI operatives were caught along with other foreign fighters (including many Arabs) when the Northern Alliance surrounded Kunduz.

Musharraf intervened with Bush to gain permission for an airlift that transported the Pakistanis and some foreign fighters to safety.

This event, which Pakistanis call the “Great Escape,” convinced many in the Pakistani army that they could continue to play their double game with the United States, confident that some officials in the Bush administration remained sympathetic.

(The airlift likely saved the lives of those fortunate enough to get out, since the Northern Alliance suffocated many of their captives by locking them in trailers.) [See Rashid’s Descent into Chaos, p. 91.]

The Pakistani army also contributed to what might have been President Bush’s worst military blunder when he counted on the Pakistanis to block escape routes from Tora Bora as U.S. warplanes pounded al-Qaeda’s base camps.

When Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants fled to Pakistan, they evaded the Pakistani army which proved ineffective in preventing key al-Qaeda personnel from reaching safe havens in Pakistan.

Dubious Loyalties

Though Pakistan maintained a surface cooperation with the United States – helping to capture a number of second-level al-Qaeda operatives holed up in Pakistan – suspicions remained about the true sentiments of the Pakistani government and especially the ISI.

Six years after 9/11, NATO officers serving in Afghanistan blamed U.S. failure to get tough with Pakistan as a key impediment to defeating the Afghan Taliban, which operated from bases along the Pakistani border.

When the Pakistani army did mount an offensive in the border region two years ago, it suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Pakistani Taliban. Western analysts suspected that the army officers didn’t have their heart in fighting their former allies.

Even today as the Pakistani army finally has stepped up its attacks on the Pakistani Taliban – after the group launched a campaign of terrorist attacks designed to destabilize the Pakistani government – Pakistani officials still are unwilling to engage the Afghan Taliban.

In July, Pakistani officials complained to the Obama administration that a U.S. Marine offensive against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan was driving more militants into the Pakistani province of Baluchistan.

“Pakistan does not have enough troops to deploy to Baluchistan to take on Taliban without denuding its border with its archenemy, India,” the Pakistanis told the Americans, according to New York Times reporters Eric Schmitt and Jane Perlez.

“The Pakistani account made clear that even as the United States recommits troops and other resources to take on a growing Taliban threat, Pakistani officials still consider India their top priority and the Taliban militants a problem that can be negotiated.

“In the long term, the Taliban in Afghanistan may even remain potential allies for Pakistan, as they were in the past, once the United States leaves. …

“The United States maintains that the Afghan Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammed Omar, leads an inner circle of commanders who guide the war in southern Afghanistan from their base in Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan.

“American officials say this Taliban council, known as the Quetta shura, is sheltered by Pakistani authorities, who may yet want to employ the Taliban as future allies in Afghanistan.” [NYT, July 22, 2009]

Stark Choice

With the Pakistani military still playing its old double game – and still obsessed about India – the Obama administration faces a stark choice: either shower Pakistan with aid money in hopes that the situation will improve, or pursue a policy of isolating Pakistan and giving only limited amounts of humanitarian and development aid.

The first course is the current policy as reflected in the $7.5 billion civilian aid package signed by Obama on Thursday. Despite the American largesse, the aid bill raised hackles in Pakistan because it included conditions like greater civilian control over the military and a demand that Pakistan stop supporting militant groups.

Pakistani officials criticized the conditions as a violation of their nation’s sovereignty, prompting a White House statement that sought to smooth the ruffled feathers.

The second approach, isolating nuclear-armed Pakistan, could have two likely results:

The Pakistani people, in a voluntary act of the exercise of people’s power, might overthrow the ISI and related army generals and form a new government of national reconciliation with prospects for democracy and a healthier civil society.

Or more likely, there would be a coup against the democratically elected president, Asif Ali Zardari, who would be replaced by a pro-Taliban military officer. Given Pakistan’s possession of a small nuclear arsenal, that prospect terrifies many U.S. officials.

However, despite the risks, I regard an isolation strategy as superior to current policy because it would clarify the truth about the Pakistani military – that it continues to coddle violent extremists as part of its strategy to undermine India.

In time, I believe the Pakistani people would act like the people of Iraq and find a way out of the current chaos.

In Iraq, it was the Sunni tribal leaders’ rejection of al-Qaeda extremism and the unilateral cease-fire by Muqtada al-Sadr’s Shiite militia forces – not the actions of Gen. David Petraeus – that contributed the most to the relative peace in Iraq today.

Similarly, Pakistani-based terror attacks like the one on Mumbai, India, and against the Sri Lankan cricket team in Pakistan – as well as the spread of harsh Taliban control over parts of western Pakistan – could cause the Pakistani people to rise up against the extremists and their ISI allies.

In my view, the United States will never have a fruitful partnership with the Pakistani government until the ISI is gone, their personnel dispersed and their buildings razed.

The Afghan Theater

Afghanistan represents a different, though related, problem, with the pressing issue there the level of U.S. troops – now at about 65,000 – with Gen. Stanley McChrystal recommending about 40,000 more.

But the more fundamental problem is the lack of qualified Afghan officials and a functioning Afghan government. By and large, Afghanistan has been without a professional cadre of bureaucrats since the communist government collapsed in 1992. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Why Afghanistan Really Fell Apart.”]

While President Hamid Karzai’s administration is frequently denounced for corruption, it also deserves condemnation for ignoring the tedious work of building a skilled government bureaucracy.

And it makes little sense for a beefed-up U.S. military to occupy unsecured areas and provide government services when Afghanistan lacks the civil affairs personnel to take over those jobs.

This summer, after 4,500 U.S. Marines routed Taliban forces from parts of Helmand Province, U.S. officials were struck by the shortage of trained Afghan troops to augment the force and the unwillingness of Afghan officials to provide government services in a relatively remote and dangerous area.

Rather than a second wave of Afghan bureaucrats providing civilian services, the Marines were followed by a small international “stabilization team.”

U.S. and British officials said “several factors, including a lack of qualified and educated workers in the remote province, a shortage of housing and office facilities for professionals from larger cities like Kandahar or Kabul, and a series of tensions and rivalries among various Afghan agencies, were impeding the kind of follow-up needed to convince residents that the Afghan government is credible, committed and a better alternative than the Taliban,” reported the Washington Post’s Pamela Constable.

"What we need is to put visible Afghan government in these areas," said John Weston, a U.S. civilian aide in Helmand who also had worked in Iraq. He added that without a solid Afghan presence, "we will have a lot of well-meaning Americans doing good things, but it will be a trap." [Washington Post, July 18, 2009]

So, in Afghanistan, the key issue is not specific U.S. troop levels, but the desperate need to build up the Afghan army and to create a bureaucracy of competent civil servants.

Military Role

Meanwhile, the greatest U.S. military imperative will be to do no harm.

While pulling out U.S. troops entirely could be devastating to democratic elements in Afghanistan and Pakistan, there is little good that would likely come from new military offensives, outside of limited counter-terrorist strikes and defensive operations.

Rather than trying to extend U.S. and NATO military control everywhere, a wiser course might be to concentrate on areas of Afghanistan that are relatively friendly. The ethnic map lends itself to such a retrenchment, which would involve shifting away from the Pashtun heartland in the east and south.

The U.S., NATO and Afghan government forces could base themselves around Kabul and in northern areas dominated by the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Turkmen. Coalition forces also should be able to establish themselves in the Dari-speaking Shia Muslim (Hazara) areas to the west of Kabul.

In these secure areas, the coalition could accelerate reconstruction, including development of a decentralized bureaucracy to provide an array of government services.

Schools can be built outside Kabul for students who have shown promise. Health agencies could lower infant mortality, ameliorate chronic diseases such as malaria, measles, polio and tuberculosis, and stem outbreaks of hemorrhagic fever and cholera.

The goal would not be to create a paradise, but even modest progress would be welcomed by Afghans who have experienced only poverty and misery during three decades of violent interventions by both international and regional powers – including the Soviet Union, United States and Pakistan.

These U.S./NATO reconstruction efforts would advance slowly, only moving into districts that the U.S. military is confident it can hold and where development can be painstakingly promoted.

The Afghan Taliban are well financed with a hand in the drug trade valued at $3 billion to $4 billion and with untold millions of dollars flowing from sympathizers in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates.

However, the United States and its allies are in a position to compete by providing valuable goods and services.

Despite McChrystal’s alarming report about a possible “mission failure” if more U.S. troops are not deployed, it should be remembered that even after the Soviets withdrew in 1989, the Afghan communist army managed to beat back rebel offensives.

At that time, the mujahedeen were receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid, including sophisticated U.S. military equipment. But the communist regime didn’t collapse until 1992, after the new Russian government of Boris Yeltsin cut off support.

The tribal nature of Afghanistan, accentuated by the rugged terrain, makes military conquests difficult whether by a high-tech super-power or a lightly armed guerrilla force.

So, even if the United States must settle for a temporary stand-off with the Taliban – while an Afghan government infrastructure is assembled and negotiations with more moderate Taliban are tried – the likelihood is not for a sudden collapse.

By tamping down the violence and showing some patience with reconstruction, President Obama might find that time is on his side and that calls for an urgent military buildup are misguided.

Too often, the American reaction to a problem has been to use force. Sometimes, the United States has been lucky in the outcomes even when a military intervention was a bad idea. Other times, vast quantities of blood have been spilled for no good reason.

This time, a U.S. escalation would surely kill many of the enemy – along with civilians and American soldiers – but such a slaughter would not likely achieve victory and would surely alienate many more Afghans.

The bottom line is that there appears little the United States can achieve militarily in this volatile region at least in the near term. So, the best strategy may be to refrain from the temptation to escalate – and instead count on the Afghan and Pakistani people to point the way toward a solution.

Bruce P. Cameron has served as a Washington lobbyist for various governments over the past several decades, including Nicaragua, Mozambique, Portugal and East Timor. He is the author of My Life in the Time of the Contras.

The decline of Obomination?

2009-10-15T00:06:00.000-07:00

Obama's Well Organized Community Is Falling Apart: Obama has now become a noose around the neck of every American Democrat!

By JB Williams

It's now official: The average American is not as stupid as Washington DC Democrats and their international leftist friends thought.

Their mystery messiah has already gone from hero to zero after only seven months in power, and Obama has now become a noose around the neck of every American Democrat, and every international fascist who "hoped" Obama could usher in Marxist "change."

Nobody can organize a community like a good old fashioned communist thug can. It worked long enough to put a mystery man in the Oval Office, thanks to international socialists working through CPUSA - SPUSA and DSAUSA, funded by literally hundreds of leftist front-groups operating as special interest 527 organizations. Here's a short list of the BIGGEST leftist front groups:

AFL-CIO League of Conservation Voters
America Coming Together
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
EMILY's List
Employees International Union
Joint Victory Campaign 2004
Media Fund Service
MoveOn.org
New Democrat Network
Sierra Club

Who spends an obscene $1 billion dollars to win a lousy $400,000 per year job, and why? The people behind Obama expect a return on their investment. And they are NOT the kind of folks you want to disappoint: These folks make Capone look like a choir boy.

Before the ink was dry on Obama's fake Certification of Live Birth (not to be confused with an actual birth certificate), Obamanation was off to confiscate control of banking, insurance, energy and auto manufacturing.
Before they knew what was happening, the American people woke up, the proud new owners of Government Motors and $13 Trillion in debt.

But it wasn't until Obamanation tried to confiscate control of 1/7th of the US economy by nationalizing the private American health care industry that the people took to the streets in protest.

On the heels of dozens of angry Town Hall meetings turned public tar-and-feathering parties for countless career DC bureaucrats, Obama and his Democrat partners in crime found themselves in a historic freefall from popularity among average American taxpayers. Eight months into office, Obama has bounced Jimmy Carter from his famous position as America's worst president.

The people behind the puppet in our Oval Office did what leftists always do. They over-estimated themselves, under-estimated the American people, and over-played their hand. They actually thought that
Americans would sit quiet as unbridled leftists trampled all over 300 million Americans.

That was the good news. As Obama becomes an anvil chained around the neck of DC and international leftists, he becomes a liability to their agenda. These folks have an interesting way of dealing with political
liabilities.

Losing control of their agenda and, in a power-slide towards the bottomless pit of political has-beens, Democrats are desperate to keep their international friends at bay. But at the same time, being career
politicians always focused on self-preservation; they must find a way to get re-elected by people ready to lynch them in a Public Square.

Obama has foolishly allowed himself to be pushed into a no-win position, in his unlikely quest to "make history" by becoming the first "black" mystery messiah allowed to sit at the big desk with his finger on the
red button. In short, he's in way over his head, just as many worried would be the case with a freshman politician complete with blank resume.

Nancy //"crazy as an out-house rat"// Pelosi is no help, and Harry Reid is headed for the political boneyard no matter what.

Teddy Kennedy was in no position to lead the young lad out of the woods, and wannabes like Chucky Schumer and Bawny Fwank will soon be looking for an escape hatch of their own.

Time to Bring in the Heavy Artillery and Circle the Wagons.

Since Obama just won't become the "transparent president" he tricked so many voters into voting for, the issue of his constitutional conflict won't go away. $1.35 million in legal defense fees later, the demand to
see proof that he passes Article II requirements is getting louder.

Despite around the clock media efforts to paint every constitutionally conscious American a "right-wing racist Timothy McVeigh," the people seem only further agitated by the leftist suggestion that NO American
citizen has "proper standing" to question their employees (elected representatives) on even the most fundamental questions.

Obama's problem with Americans isn't the mulatto color of his skin. It's the bright RED color of his belief system and agenda. He is undoubtedly making mentors like Saul Alinsky, Frank Marshal Davis and Bill Ayers quite proud. But he is clearly losing the support of many Americans in that effort.

Before the dissent gets any wider spread, they have to do something. Out of nowhere comes Obama's "experts" on national security, the Southern Poverty Law Center. At the time of SPLC's founding, Julian Bond, who currently chairs the NAACP, was named the fledgling group's first President.

On the basis of these folks, Obama's Department of Homeland Security issued a "Right-wing Extremist" threat analysis, labeling every American with a gun or bible, or willing to publicly oppose Obama, a "potential
domestic terrorist."

Yesterday, British newspaper, The Independent, published a story titled, "The right-wing crackpots taking over the mainstream," in which British leftist writer Rupert Cornwell proceeds to assault all American citizens
who are currently speaking out against Obama's "global" agenda, and warns of coming civil unrest, and of course, his authority on the matter is the Southern Poverty Law Center.

From the report, one SPLC official says, "every element is in place for a 'perfect storm' of home-grown extremism. For the first time, the detested federal government is run by a black man." There ya have it!
That was easy! It's all about the "black man!"

"A struggling economy fuels discontent, with illegal immigrants accused of stealing American jobs." Or is it that unemployment has doubled to the highest level since the great depression, under the "black man's" brief administration?

"The military, long a breeding ground of the far right, is sending home veterans in vast numbers." Yes, those crazed military veterans: And don't forget: "Finally there is the internet, which simultaneously
propagates and intensifies the feelings of true believers and the conspiracy theories they devour." The so-called "birthers" have made headlines all over the world?

Clearly, Cornwell received his talking points memo from David Axelrod, who obviously got his from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The Observer got the memo too, and they wasted no time attacking every American at odds with Obama's agenda. It's American Patriots against the world, or at least the leftists of the world. Cornwell concludes,
"So might not elements even further to the right enter the fray - 'sovereign citizens' who believe they are above the law, or the new 'Oath Keepers' movement, of soldiers and police officers past and present, who believe their duty is to the constitution, not to elected politicians? Perhaps the healthcare rallies and the SPLC report were no coincidence, after all."

Well, let me just say that I think Obama's life could, in fact, be in danger, but not from Tea Party protesters, Town Hall protesters or so-called "birthers." All of these folks are well aware of the reality that assassinating the first "black" president would be counter-productive to their agenda.

The Obama press has been burning the midnight oil trying to make certain that Hillary Clinton's "right-wing conspiracy" ghosts were set up to take the fall for any unfortunate event that might befall an increasingly unpopular president. No "right-winger" is likely to even break wind in Obama's direction.

His leftist international friends are quite another story however: These are BIG buck, BIG socialism folks who play by no particular set of rules, like George Soros. As Obama becomes more of a liability than an
asset to their cause, it is his own people who are most likely to make a martyr out of the mystery messiah ...

In the British Observer, writer Paul Harris is even more extreme in his column: Fears for Barack Obama's safety as health care debate fuels extremism; and once again, we see the report from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The stage is being set: If anything happens to Obama, the entire world has been put on notice that Americans opposed to socialism from a "black" nobody president who won't even release his birth records, are
responsible.

This leaves the door wide open for Obama's own friends to commit the crime with impunity, as they have already placed the American patriots' finger-prints on the imaginary murder weapon. It would be the perfect
crime blamed on the perfect right-wing storm. It's brilliant!

The leftist press around the world has already accused and convicted "right-wingers" of the murder. Talk about your grand conspiracy: Nobody does it better than the international leftist cabal.

But who is this Southern Poverty Law Center responsible for all of the recent "hate speech" aimed at constitutionally concerned American citizens opposed to bankruptcy-by-communism in America?

In 2007, SPLC identified 888 separate "active hate groups" in the United States. Despite the events of 9/11 and an ongoing threat of additional terror strikes here and abroad, not one of the 888 "active hate groups"
identified was Islamic. Detroit, Michigan, had more violent killings than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, but none of the groups responsible for those killings made the list of 888.

Only white, capitalist, constitutionalist, Christian, pro-freedom, in other words, "right-wing extremists" made the list. Black on white crime is not "hate." Black on black crime is not "hate." Muslim on Christian crime is not "hate." According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, only white, Christian, capitalists opposed to Marxism and attending Town Hall meetings are guilty of "hate." That's what their report says, and everyone from Obama's DHS and FBI to England's press has bought that report hook, line and sinker.

I too fear for Obama's life: But not from any of the people attending Tea Parties or Town Hall meetings in an effort to talk with their elected representatives. I fear that Obama's life is increasingly in danger from the very people who put him in power - The people he is currently failing, as the American people stand up to stop his secular socialist global agenda.

I am 100% opposed to the Obama administration and today's Democrat agenda. But I am here to tell you that the worst thing that could happen in America today is for Obama to be assassinated. Every Obama
opponent knows this. He would be safest if he were guarded around the clock by American conservatives opposed to his entire agenda.

Only his leftist partners around the world would benefit from his assassination. Their agenda would move forward unchallenged if anything were to happen to Obama or his family. As his agenda meets with serious resistance at home, his puppet masters abroad will lose faith and eventually, their patience.

Only a freshman senator would have fallen for the trap Obama finds himself in today. He can't win: If he's very lucky, he can only live to tell about it one day.

Obama has spent an entire lifetime surrounded by some of the world's worst thugs. If he is unable to move their agenda forward, his life will be at risk from within his own ranks. However, the nation and the world will pay a heavy price, as both are being conditioned to blame it on average Americans who simply oppose all forms of intrusive tyrannical government.

As Obama's agenda is shut down by average Americans, his friends will turn on him... Liberals are already warning him not to back off on nationalized health care. But the people are not going to allow it to go forward.

Even though I oppose everything Obama is and everything he stands for, I pray for his safety. You can bet your last dollar: his well organized community is falling apart as his agenda begins to crumble. They will
be very motivated to ignite a second civil war as they watch their agenda die a brutal political death.

Nothing would ignite a second civil war faster than the assassination of Barack Hussein Obama. I can only pray that the Secret Service does not take their cues from the Southern Poverty Law Center. If they are no
better at understanding political security than British op-ed pages, Obama's life is indeed in danger. Not from so-called "right-wing extremists" angry over Obama's blatant disregard for the Constitution today. But from within his ranks, as those who placed him in power, become saddled with his failures.

This is a powerful article appearing in the Canada Free Press. A lot of analysis here and some scary dialog. JB Williams is a business man and a no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries
around the world.

From Prof. Paul Eidelberg
http://www.foundation1.org/

A Marine's View of Afghanistan - Once More with Feeling!

2009-10-13T22:53:00.000-07:00

This United States Marine is a veteran, no longer on active duty. A Marine, however, is always a Marine. There are no ex-Marines.

Although this Marine's Comment to a post at The Captain's Journal has already been reprinted at "Afghanistan: The Gordian Knot of Asia -- how do you unravel it?" it is the most cogent as concerns the situation in Afghanistan and what is at stake in American lives, and is therefore reprinted here once more--with feeling.

Comment at "Insufficient Numbers of Marines" by Herschel Smith:

Comment

On September 27, 2009 at 11:00 pm, DesertPete45 said:

So if I understand this cerebral text, which I am getting damn sick of, it is that it doesn’t matter how many Marines we have! Am I understanding this text correctly??? If so I partially agree: if our Marines, of whom my son is one in Helmand (in a Marine rifle platoon), are not allowed to kill the damn enemy because of McChrystal’s wimpy position because he is scared to death of AbomiNation and having to retire and not make as much $$$ as he is active then that is correct. We could have ten trillion Marines and the Taliban would continue to sip tea, plant IEDs at night and chill in the ville during the day with the homeboys. What the hell has happened to our military and where the HELL are the men (senior officers) in our military who would resign/retire before committing their charges to such idiocy?? And yes I do mean retire! When the HELL will our military leaders cowboy up and act like real men instead of neutered lackys??? NEVER!!!! I fear America’s glory days are gone forever and I cry over that. Dammit, my dad was wounded on Saipan, I fought in Vietnam and now my son is in A-stan and can’t defend himself!!! Our only hope is the 2010 elections, if we fail if is over and we better get ready for heavy handed govt control by the damn FOOLS inside the beltway and the wimps in this country who want the govt. to provide everything for them (impossible). Damn, can’t believe I am witnessing the dismantling of the United States of America by a neomarxist!!! Where are the MEN, where are the PATRIOTS, where are those of PRINCIPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If we unfetter our Marines and provide them with air and artillery we can win! Several weeks ago 4 Marines were killed because they were denied air and artillery by the damn egghead commanders who are scared shitless by Obama because a civilian might be killed!! What the hell, now we have 4 more dead Marines!!!!! Does no one give a damn??? Where the HELL are the men??? Are they pleased that they were simpatico with the EU, AbomiNation and probably the world court notwithstanding we lost 4 Marines!!! Well hell they weren’t the sons’ of any of those fools!!! Where the hell is the outrage???? Where the hell is the passion?? Where the hell is the anger???? We can have our cerebral discusions after we win in a quiet bar with many beers but that is not for now. Dammit, where is the fire in the belly of those who think we are hanging our guys (and gals) out to dry and they are nothing but cannon fodder for the PC crowd. Obama is uncomfortable with the use of the word victory and not sure that is necessarily the goal in A-stan, Gates doesn’t want a large military footprint, CMC is worried about our carbon footprint and Levin wants us to convince the enemy to switch sides!!!! OMG am I dreaming?? Pinch me please!!! Are these people fools or not and McChrystal says we can’t win the war with 200+ civilians killed in the last year!! What??? What about our guys?? We can’t win the war with 80% of Helmand as Taliban and Taliban sympathizers if we are not allowed to kill them!!! Karzai is a corrupt hill bandit and he has the temerity to hold us responsible for civilian deaths!! That dirty rat!! If he was a man, which he is not, he would hold the Talaban responsible but he doesn’t have the guts. He would be dead meat in 24 hours if we left. Let’s stop the academic bullshit, there is enough of that by McChrystal, CMC, Jones, Gates, Mullen and or course, OBAMA!!! Did I miss anyone???

Respectfully submitted,

Desert Pete
USMC 1964-1968

[COMMENT at
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/09/27/insufficient-numbers-of-marines/ ]

Also, for further comprehensive analysis of the Afghanistan situation and war outlook, see "Afghanistan: The Gordian Knot of Asia -- how do you unravel it?"