« August 2006 | Main | October 2006 »
September 30, 2006
Leftist Loons Assail Michelle Malkin
If you want to go after somebody's political views, fine. If you want to call them a nut, crazy, dangerous, ignorant, a fool or a fanatic, that's fine too.
But racist and sexist attacks should be beyond the pale.
Unfortunately, there are a few leftist retards that haven't gotten the message.
One of them is the editors of Wonkette, Alex Pareene and Ana Marie Cox, and the other is Eric Muller of IsThatLegal?
For their juvenile attacks on Malkin, they were awarded the title Knaves of the Week by the Washington Times.
I'm not going to rehash the entire episode, for that you can go to Michelle's posts on the episode here and here and follow the links.
Anyone who has followed Michelle's blog or seen her newspaper columns knows that she has written about the sexualization of young girls, and how harmful to them and society this is. Eric Muller, who is actually a law professor at the University of North Carolina, responded by linking to a a photo which allegedly showed a young Malkin in a bikini. This, he said, shows that she is a hypicrite. Except that, uh, the photo is an obvious photoshop forgery. Then Wonkette posted a few pieces also claiming that Malkin is a hypocrite.
Besides the insanity of thinking that a simple pose in a bikini invalidates Malkin's thesis (I guess Muller and Wonkette can't be bothered to read what she actually wrote), and besides that the photo is such an obvious fake that only someone afflicted with Malkin Derangement Syndrome would believe it to be real, there's the whole business of the slimey and disgusting way that they tried to use it against her. In this respect, Wonkette was the worst, the writing on that site being very juvenile. Muller is a bit better, but not by much.
Michelle Malkin is a no-holds-barred conservative writer. She pulls no punches and calls them like she sees them. But she's always kept her criticism above board, never sinking to the level of racial or sexual slurs. I'd say I agree with her 90% of the time.
Now, Wonkette is one of those blogs that I've heard of but never visited. I'd gathered that it was a gossip-column sort of thing, and figured it was similar to what you see in major newspapers, a sort of "talk of the town" section. I even seem to recall that Ava Marie Cox was on CNN one time along with Andrew Sullivan to comment on one of President Bush's State of the Union addresses.
But today when I saw Michelle's post I decided to follow the link to Wonkette and see for myself. Was I ever in for a surprise. "Politics for people with dirty minds" is what you get when you search for them on Google. Uh huh. Bottom line is that it's a stupid site and quite beyond me what people see in it. But this isn't the first time that Wonkette has sunk to this level with Malkin. The first time was much worse.
Muller? Well, for a university professor he's a disgrace.
This Episode is the Least of It
As these things go with Michelle Malkin, this episode was pretty mild. Leftists have a fixation on attacking her in the most vile sexual and racist manner.
Don't believe me? She's got it all documented, see here, here, here, here and here. Actually there's more, but you'll get the point.
Not Just Michelle
Michael Steele is running as a Republican for US Senate in the state of Maryland. He is also black. He also has been the victim of racial slurs from liberals.
Last November I reported on Maryland Democrats who thought that there was "nothing wrong" with racial attacks on a black man, as long as he was a Republican.
From the Washington Times story that prompted my post is worth quoting at length
Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.
Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.
But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious."
"There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.
"Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."
Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.
Unreal.
How about that liberal tolerance?
Posted by Tom at 9:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 26, 2006
Support the Troops Weekend - After Action Report
My apologies that it has taken me several days to get this post up, but life has been keeping me very busy.
The bottom line is that we had two successful Support the Troops weekend events. Following are photos and a complete report.
There were two main events: Friday evening September 22 outside of Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC, and Saturday afternoon, September 23, at the Sylvan Theater near the Washington Monument, also in Washington DC.
Support the Troops 2006 was sponsored by FreeRepublic.com, the DC Chapter of FreeRepublic.com, Military Families Voice of Victory, and the Protest Warriors. I'm not sure if I'm officially a member of FreeRepublic but I've got a Freeper screen name and have participated in most of their events over the past year so I suppose that's good enough.
Day 1 - Walter Reed Army Medical Center
This Friday marked our 75th straight Friday outside of Walter Reed. Our objectives are twofold; one, as a show of support for the troops, especially those on the bus which returns from a DC restaurant every Friday evening (more below). Second, to keep the radical leftist group Code Pink away from the entrance. Complete reports on all Walter Reed "freeps" can be found here. My own personal accounts of these and other rallies can be found here and here. I have been participating since August 2005.
We usually have 20-40 people show up for our Friday night freeps, but on this night I estimate we had well over 50. Our number were swelled partially due to the large number of George Washington University Republicans who joined us. They were quite an enthusiastic bunch and brought a lot of energy to our rally.
Here is our MOAB ("Mother Of All Banners") which was directly across from the main entrance to the hospital.
Here are two more of the MOAB with lots of supporters incuding many of the GW Republicans
Here are some pro-troops supporters at the main entrance to the hospital. I took this photo from the corner where the MOAB was displayed.
Down the street about half a block are the radical supporters of Code Pink. As I was taking this photo Pinko leader Gael Murphy drove up and parked right in front of me. She asked what I was doing and I told her what whe perfectly well knew, that I was taking photos of her people. She held out some radical literature which I took. I'm always interested in that stuff so I figured why not? It turned out to be pretty standard stuff and not very interesting.
If you're not familiar with Code Pink, I've got a lot posted about them on this site, just go to the Categories section at right and see either The Left or Rallies and Protests. However, two pieces that explain matters pretty well can be found here (scroll down to where it says "The Case Against Code Pink) and here.
Code Pink used to occupy the corners right outside the entrance to the hospital, but we got the permit when they forgot to renew it last January.
At some point during the evening some lady came by to argue with us. I think that she was from the Pinkos, but am not entirely sure. I'll find our more when the official after-action report comes out on FreeRepublic.com and will link to that. As you might imagine she was quickly surrounded and an "enthusiastic" discussion ensued.
Interestingly, the Pinkos show little interest in debating or arguing with us when we go down there. Several times over the past year wounded soldiers from the hospital have gone down to where the Pinkos are standing to tell them what they think of them (hint; it isn't good). For a group that holds "We Support the Troops But Oppose the War" signs, most of them ignore the troopers.
Two weeks ago Milblogger SMASH went down to the Pinkos and told them off royally. He's got audio and pictures on his website. Don't miss it.
The Troop Bus
Every Friday evening several local charities (organized or partially sponsored by the Italian Embassy) take a busload of wounded troops and their visiting families out to a local restaurant. They return to the main entrance sometime between 9 and 11pm. When they do, the bus slows and the driver turns on the inside lights. We go crazy waving our signs and banners and they wave at us.
In case you think this doesn't mean anything, two weeks ago an Army Captain and a Command Sergeant Major, all of the 101st Airborne Division drove up, parked, got out, and the following conversation ensued
The two men were clearly delighted at seeing this unambiguous show of support not just for the troops, but for their mission. "Wow! We're just back for ten days and we came to visit some of our men in the hospital," one of them related. "Seeing this is just fantastic -- thank you!" he exclaimed, to which we returned a volley of "No, thank you! We thank you!"When we're in Iraq, it's so great to know you're here," he continued.
"How do you know we're here?" I asked.
"The Internet -- we knew there were people like you out here while we were in Iraq," he smiled, "and we appreciate it! How about some photos?" They lined up the group of young people and snapped several shots before jumping back into the vehicle with broad grins and waves, and more shouts of "Thank you for your service!" from FReepers.
In addition, I've talked to dozens of troops at the hospital in the past year I've been doing this and can tell you that they are all very happy that we are outside.
Day 2 - The Support the Troops Rally in Washington DC
The main event for Support the Troops Weekend took place from noon until 3 at Sylvan Theater, an outdoor mini-arena which is in one of the corners of the large field where the Washington Monument stands.
First off was an opening ceremony. We said the Pledge of Allegiance, sang the Star Spangled Banner, and a military chaplain said an invocation. Kristinn Taylor, co-founder and current president of the DC chapter of FreeRepublic.com, moderated the event. Kristinn organizes the Friday night Walter Reed Freeps as well as many other rallies and counter-protests. The flag was made by children at Ft Benning after 9/11
Over the next few hours we heard from several speakers.
* Larry Schweikart – co-author of Patriots History of the United States
* Mychal Massie - Project 21
* Richard August - father of Cpt Matthew J. August, KIA 1/27/04, Iraq
* Capt. Larry Bailey, USN Ret. – Vets for the Truth
* Ray and Becky Davis - Military Families Voice of Victory
* Diana Irey - Washington County Commissioner, Pennsylvania, and running for Congress against Jack Murtha
* Nikki Mendicino - POW/MIA activist
* Kevin Martin - Project 21; veteran, USN
* Eve Tidwell - God Bless Ft. Benning
* Frank Schaeffer – co-author of AWOL, author Faith of Our Sons-a Father's Wartime Diary
* Wes Vernon - Accuracy in Media
* Evan Sayet - Writer/Entertainer
* Leo Flood, father of son who served in Iraq and Afghanistan
* Richard Linn, father of LCpl. Karl R. Linn, KIA 1/26/05, Iraq
* Kristinn Taylor, D.C. Chapter of FreeRepublic.com
In addition, writer and radio talk-show host Mark Levin was good enough to pre-record a 5 or 10 minute message which was played towards the beginning of the program.
Here is Larry Bailey speaking
Another crowd view with some of the flags we had.
No rally would be complete without a few anti-war heckers. We ignored them and they went away. I quoted Ann Coulter to ConcreteBob; "If you're not pissing them off you're not doing your job!" Given that ConcreteBob is the president of the DC chapter of the Protest Warriors, and the person who got the permit away from Code Pink for the entrance to Walter Reed, he was one who I knew would appreciate the quote.
Channel 4 News came by and did a few interviews. I searched their site but haven't been able to find anything about the rally on it. The Washington Times had a reporter there and they did an honest story on the event. Their estimation of 70-100 people was what I counted also. Conservatives just don't draw large crowds for these things. It's just not in our culture.
Diana Irey, the lady running against Jack Murtha, gave a good talk. From what I read the Democrats are putting lots of money into the race to make sure they don't suffer the embarrassment of a Murtha loss, so while I doubt that she'll win at least we're putting up a good candidate.
Closing Ceremonies
Finally - all true pro-troop patriots reading this who can swing by Washington DC for a weekend are welcome to join us Friday nights at Walter Reed! Don't be shy, we get new people every week. We even serve pizza, so what's not to like? But if you don't find yourself in this area, consider holding your own rallies or counter-protests. There are FreeRepublic and Protest Warrior chapters in most major cities, so you can also contact them. There's probably more going on than you realize. Show your support!
Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
September 22, 2006
Support The Troops Weekend
This post will remain at the top until September 23. Scroll down for new articles.
What: Rallies to Support the Troops and their Mission
When: Friday, September 22, and Saturday, September 23
Where: Washington DC area
Details Follow
From the Support the Troops Weekend website
Friday, September 22, Morning - Visit offices of Congressmen and Senators in groups to express support for the troops and their mission in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere fighting the war on terrorists. Time TBA. To sign up for this, click here. Please provide your name and that of your Congressman or Senator so we can schedule the meetings.Friday, September 22, Evening - Gather outside the main gate of Walter Reed Army Medical Center to thank our wounded warriors and their families for their sacrifices and to express support for the mission they have sacrificed so much for. Time: 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Where: 7200 Georgia Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. (intersection of Georgia Avenue and Elder Street, NW.) Street parking is available. Read the history of the Walter Reed rallies here.
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 23. - THE MAIN EVENT! RAIN OR SHINE. Rally on the grounds of the Washington Monument at the Sylvan Theater. When: Noon to 3 p.m. Plan to arrive early (by 11:30 a.m.) as the rally will start promptly at noon. Real early arrivals can visit the World War II Memorial or other nearby attractions before the rally.
My plans are to be at Walter Reed Friday night, and the Washington Monument Saturday.
If you live anywhere the Washington DC area, or just can take some time off work and have never seen DC, please consider attending. I'm sure you've seen all of my posts about the rallies and counter-protests that I've attended. If not, you can view them all here. I'll tell you this; the troops do find out about what we do both outside of Walter Reed and elsewhere and every one I've spoken with says that it is much appreciated.
I'm going to be upfront with you about the Saturday event; conservative rallies typically don't draw large crowds. Don't expect a sea of people. We're not anti-war libs with nothing else to do all day, and more to the point demonstrating is just not part of the conservative culture. Most conservatives just don't feel comfortable standing around or marching with signs and such. This is understandable as it is historically a leftie thing. Other than the annual Right to Life march, conservative rallies are typically small. But so be it. C-Span will probably be there and historically they've been good to us by keeping their cameras focused on the stage.
If you have questions or would like more information please send me an email: redhunter43 - at - yahoo.com
Hope to see you there!
Posted by Tom at 11:31 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
September 17, 2006
I Support the Pope
On retrospect, my last post, "The Immaturity of the Islamists", which was about ongoing Muslim riots over the Pope's speech, I didn't come out and say it outright
I support the Pope, no ifs ands or buts.
Check out what parishoners saw coming out of Westminster Cathedral today. A blogger who calls himself Catholic Londoner took this photo and more (hat tip LGF)
They don't call the placeLondonistan for nothing.
In that last post I said
I have to think that Pope Benedict shouldn't have quoted that sentence about "things only evil and inhuman, such as his(Mohammed's) command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." He could have made his point more delicately.
Now that I think about it more, I realize that while there are definately times when one has to be diplomatic, we simply can't live our lives in constant fear that we might upset "the Muslims" and cause them to riot. Look, if people want to get upset and write letters to the editor, fine. If they want to write denunciations on blogs fine, as long as they do not encourage, incite, or condone violence. If they want to start a boycott, fine. Those are all good democratic traditions.
But Muslims are simply going to have to understand that rioting, violence and threats of violence are simply unacceptable.
As such, we should stand with anyone who is under attack. We stood by the Danish when they were under assault, and now we should stand with the Pope. Whether you are Roman Catholic or not is irrelevant.
Mario Mauro, vice-president of the European Parliament, said in a statement today, "Let us defend the Pope without ifs or buts, let us defend reason," in answer to the reactions from the Muslim world to Pope Benedict XVI's lecture at the University of Regensburg on Tuesday.
"The monstruous attempt on the part of many Islamic leaders, even the so-called moderates, to distort the Pope's reaching out to all religions (through the lecture),in order to hit out at Christians and the West shows us the gravity of the danger we are facing," Mauro continues.He underscores how "the islamo-nazi ideology that permeates the thought of fundamentalists represents the most dramatic distortion of the use of reason."
The statement continues:
"They use God as a pretext to pursue a plan for power, and this is what the Pope has denounced, thereby defending freedom for all, especially for those Muslims who look to religion as an experience of the sense of life, and not as a shortcut to political power."It is remarkable that so many names, too many, among those with political responsibility (in the Western world) are not coming to the defense of the words said by the Vicar of Christ! It is almost as if they are ashamed or are too cowardly to speak up in defense of reason and freedom."
Exactly right.
Far from defending him, Muslim leaders across the world are demanding apologies, and various Muslim groups are threatening his very life.
When has anyone from the Muslim world every apologized to the West for anything? When has a Muslim leader every apologized to the West for the (tens of?) thousands of terrorist acts carried out in the name of Islam? When has a Muslim leader every apologized to the West for the vile anti-Semitic and anti-Christian propaganda that is a staple of the Muslim world?
Never, to my knowledge.
Instead, we get this
A 70-year old Italian nun is killed in Somalia as "revenge"
Churches in Gaza and the West Bank are attacked
This is insane. These radicals see apologies as weakness, and issuing one only encourages more Muslim violence. They want abject apologies over every little real or imagined offence, and we must not get into the habit of issuing them. Did we learn nothing from the "cartoon jihad" of earlier this year. Evidently some people did not.
I think that Dr Sanity said it best
It is laughable to witness the angry, violent demonstrations denouncing any suggestion that Islam is an angry, violent religion. It is hilarious to observe the wails of victimhood and oppression as Islam's religious leaders call for killing Jews and Christians; beheading those who insult Islam, even as their own rhetoric isn't so much insulting as it is directly threatening the rest of the world.
Ditto that.
Posted by Tom at 8:13 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
September 16, 2006
The Immaturity of the Islamists
Four days ago Pope Benedict XVI delivered an address to some of the3 scientists at the University of Regensburg, Germany. The Pope, then Joseph Alois Ratzinger was a professor and vice rector at the University from 1969 to 1971. The title of the speech was "Three Stages in the Program of De-Hellenization", and it's main focus was just that. The subject matter is very esoteric and academic, and I do not have the knowledge to understand most of what he is saying. The Pope is quite clearly very learned, as must be anyone who hopes to understand his address without doing additional research.
But there was a part of his address which has stirred up much trouble in the Muslim world. Rather than just quote that part of the third paragrap, which has given so much offence, following are the two preceeding and one following
In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself -- which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason," I found interesting and which can serve as the starting point for my reflections on this issue.In the seventh conversation ("diálesis" -- controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.
Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo") is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."
Much of the Muslim world has reacted like this
Here we go again. This past January and February we had the "Cartoon Jihad", during which several of us here in Washington DC, sponsored by FreeRepublic.com, felt obliged to go down to the Danish Embassy to act as "human shields" against radical Muslims. In July Muslims were outraged! when Israel had the audacity to respond to Hezbollah rocket attacks by striking targets in Lebanon.
Now it's starting up again. From various news reports
NABLUS, West Bank — Palestinians wielding guns and firebombs attacked five churches in the West Bank and Gaza on Saturday, following remarks by Pope Benedict XVI that angered many Muslims.ISTANBUL, Turkey — Pakistan's legislature unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of reviving the mentality of the Crusades
On Friday, Pakistan's parliament adopted a resolution condemning Benedict for making what it called "derogatory" comments about Islam, and seeking an apology.
ISTANBUL -- Across the Islamic world yesterday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that united Shi'ites and Sunnis and threatened to burst into violent protests like those that followed publication of caricatures of the prophet Muhammad.
ANKARA Turkey - "Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence," (Turkish) Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.
BEIRUT, Sept. 15 -- A medieval reference in an academic lecture by Pope Benedict XVI unleashed a wave of denunciations, outrage and frustration across the Muslim world Friday, with officials in Turkey and Pakistan condemning the pontiff, Islamic activist groups organizing protests and a leading religious figure in Lebanon demanding that he personally apologize.
LONDON United Kingdom - From the AL-SHARQ AL-AWSAT newspaper - If the new Pope's manners remain the same, the Catholic church will be subject to upheavals that it has never seen before...
Palestinian Hamas supporters wave party flags as they shout slogans against Pope Benedict XVI during a demonstration in Gaza City, Friday.
The University of Virginia Cavalier Daily Incident by Comparison
Last week The Cavalier Daily, the student news paper at the University of Virginia, published some cartoons that were insulting to Christianity. From a CNSNews story on the incident
The Catholic League contacted editors of The Cavalier Daily about two cartoons published in August. One of the cartoons, printed Aug. 23, depicts Jesus crucified on a graph with the caption "Christ on a Cartesian Coordinate Plane."The other, printed Aug. 24, shows Joseph asking Mary, "How did you get that bumpy rash?" Mary replies, "I swear, it was Immaculately Transmitted."
Another cartoon printed Aug. 24 depicts Jesus driving a woman in a car that presumably crashes. As they wait in line at Heaven's pearly gates, the woman curses at Jesus, who responds, "B****, I ain't never drove!"
Christians responded by sending letters and email to The Cavalier, and in the end the newspaper removed the cartoons. I cannot find them on the Internet and right now do not have time for an exhaustive search. The newspaper has replaced the cartoons with this message from their author
Whether you think the Cavalier should have removed the cartoons and apologized or not is beside the point. There have not been any riots by Christians nor will there be. No one is going to bomb anything at the University of Virginia.
In the West we have learned how to handle these things peacefully. In most of the Islamic world they have not.
Was the Pope Right?
Someone appearing to be a genuine moderate Muslim wrote in to The Corner about the Pope's address and raised an excellent point
The problem with Benedict's speech, and it's illustrated perfectly by the quotation I cited above ("...evil and inhuman..."), is that it gives moderate Muslims no option other than to renounce our faith. When Benedict approvingly cites a source who says that Islam is "evil and inhuman", he's not offering a bold challenge to moderate Muslims, he's alienating them. There is a profound difference between, on the one hand, endorsing what Benedict said, and on the other, calling the enemy "militant Islamists", "Islamofascists", "Islamobolsheviks" (my personal favorite), or whatever. It's the difference, I suppose, between Robert Spencer and National Review, JihadWatch and AEI. Just because the Muslim street is, in all its hypersensitivity, reacting like a woman who's just been told her pants make her look fat doesn't mean that Benedict was correct to say what he said, certainly not from the perspective of history and theology, nor I believe from that of the best way to win the GWOT.
I have to think that Pope Benedict shouldn't have quoted that sentence about "things only evil and inhuman, such as his(Mohammed's) command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." He could have made his point more delicately.
Professor Bainbridge (via Michelle Malkin) sees the Pope's address more as " a shot across the bow of post-Christian Europe", telling them that they have lost their way and as such "the tools demanded to meet the threats of the day"
...to see this speech solely in terms of a clash of civilizations between Christianity and Islam would be error. Instead, the Pope is staking out a set of claims about the relationship of man and God that stand in opposition not only to the Islam of Ibn Hazn, but also that of the Protestant Reformers, the Jesus of History crowd, and (an area of particular concern for this pope) post-Christian Europe. The Pope is also renewing the claims of the Church Universal to have a truth that is transcendent, rather than culturally-bound.
The Bottom Line
But the inclusion of that sentence by the Pope is also not that big of a deal. And unlike Jesus, Mohammed did spread his faith through the sword. This is a central fact that many Muslims like to ignore.
The West, on the other hand, self-flaggelates all the time over it's history. We wash our dirtly laundry ad nauseum, usually for the better. Other cultures have not faced up to their historical misdeeds, and not doing so results in a fantasy view whereby they are perfect and the West evil.
Further, President Bush and other Western leaders need to speak out on this matter, not to defend the Pope, but more to defend free speech from violence and threats of violence. They should denounce the actions of the Turkish and Pakistani parliaments.
What we do not need are idiotic statements like the one we got from the editorial page of the New York Times (via LGF)
There is more than enough religious anger in the world. So it is particularly disturbing that Pope Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims, quoting a 14th-century description of Islam as “evil and inhuman.” ...The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.
This sort of nonsense from the Times only encourages the Islamists to riot and carry on like this. We can't become "insult free" here in the West. The real world doesn't work that way. We can't go on with these riots every time some Muslims feel they have been offended, which seems to occur and more and more frequent intervals. The best way to stamp this down is not to pander to it, but to tell those engaged in such "outrage" to grow up and handle their offendedness in a more appropriate manner.
As Michelle Malkin points out, "there is always an insult to be manufactured"
When will any Muslim cleric apologize to Christians or Jews over the ant-Christian and anti-Semitism that is a regular feature of the Middle East?
I am sick of "Muslim rage" over this or that. No doubt there are Muslims who are disgusted by their brethren who act in this manner. I suspect the main reason we don't hear from them like we should is that they are afraid of violence directed at them.
Posted by Tom at 11:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 14, 2006
Betrayed by NATO
I found this post by Stanley Kurtz at NRO's The Corner particularly interesting
The magnitude of NATO’s failure in Afghanistan is emerging. In retrospect, it’s clear that yesterday’s posts about Norway were preliminary indications of the unraveling scandal. Yes, this failure of the NATO alliance is nothing short of scandalous. American and British troops are stretched to the limit, while the Taliban surges. Behind the scenes, it turns out that our supposed allies in NATO have been shirking their troop obligations in Afghanistan for well over a year. The developing problems in Afghanistan have much to do with this failure. The Telegraph rightly asks, “Has NATO Betrayed Britain on Afghanistan?” In the Independent: “Blair: We need help to stop Afghan failure.” In “Nato nations refuse to commit more troops,” the Telegraph details the minuscule numbers involved.This is not a matter of military incapacity. It is a deliberate refusal of our so-called allies to fight. Supposedly, Europe was with us on Afghanistan. Who but the most radical leftists and pacifists opposed that action? Yet our NATO allies are plainly unwilling to involve themselves in a fight that they themselves said was justified and necessary. If Afghanistan collapses, it will prove that Europe has entirely lost the will to fight.
Sadly, this is more along the lines of Spain’s capitulation to terrorist blackmail. The same Spanish government that pulled out of Iraq is now among those now refusing to fight in Afghanistan. Fear of internal terrorism by Muslim immigrants likely has much to do with the reluctance of the other Europeans to fight. More broadly, this shows that the West as a whole lacks the troops needed for the war on terror. The failure of will and capacity here is obvious to our enemies, who can only be spectacularly encouraged.Again, this is Afghanistan, where we’ve been happily multilateral, not Iraq. If NATO cannot fight here, what good is it? Given a chance to help us, in circumstances where we are in agreement, our European allies have simply failed. Can the Europeans seriously hope to bargain Iran into giving up its nuclear weapons when it can’t collectively scrounge up 2,500 troops, all of whom were supposed to have been committed more than a year ago? Bin Laden is laughing. Ahmadinajad is doubled over. And NATO is just plain over.
Here is John Kerry’s response: an utterly unconvincing attempt to blame the United States for the problem (says Kerry, we should goad the Europeans by sending more troops ourselves). And here’s Captain Ed on the issue.
Now that's funny, I thought that we were all supposed to be unified on Afghanistan. I was told that it was only Iraq that set us apart. To be sure, most European armies are pretty small, and they don't have much in the way of logistical support capabilities. But we're not asking for vast numbers here. This isn't Desert Storm, we don't need armored divisions. The truth, I think, is rather simple; most Europeans think that they can avoid terrorist attacks by Muslim fascists if they don't get too involved. In other words, it's a policy of appeasement.
To be fair, Britain and Italy have been pulling their weight, both countries already having troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan (Italy having pledged them to Lebanon as well). The rest of Europe should be ashamed of themselves.
Posted by Tom at 9:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 12, 2006
More 9-11
Following are some of the more insightful comments about the fifth anniversary of September 11, 2001.
Since the horror of 9/11, we've learned a great deal about the enemy. We have learned that they are evil and kill without mercy -- but not without purpose. We have learned that they form a global network of extremists who are driven by a perverted vision of Islam -- a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. And we have learned that their goal is to build a radical Islamic empire where women are prisoners in their homes, men are beaten for missing prayer meetings, and terrorists have a safe haven to plan and launch attacks on America and other civilized nations. The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation.
...For America, 9/11 was more than a tragedy -- it changed the way we look at the world. On September the 11th, we resolved that we would go on the offense against our enemies, and we would not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor or support them. So we helped drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. We put al Qaeda on the run, and killed or captured most of those who planned the 9/11 attacks, including the man believed to be the mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
I'm often asked why we're in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat -- and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take. The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. And now the challenge is to help the Iraqi people build a democracy that fulfills the dreams of the nearly 12 million Iraqis who came out to vote in free elections last December.Al Qaeda and other extremists from across the world have come to Iraq to stop the rise of a free society in the heart of the Middle East. They have joined the remnants of Saddam's regime and other armed groups to foment sectarian violence and drive us out. Our enemies in Iraq are tough and they are committed -- but so are Iraqi and coalition forces. We're adapting to stay ahead of the enemy, and we are carrying out a clear plan to ensure that a democratic Iraq succeeds.
In the end, very little changed. The so-called “9/11 Democrats” are almost as invisible a presence as the “moderate Muslim,” and, insofar as one can tell, are most likely outnumbered by members of the Scowcroftian unrealpolitik Right still wedded to stability uber alles. In theory, if you’d wanted to construct an enemy least likely to appeal to the progressive Left, wife-beating gay-bashing theocrats would surely be it. But Islamism turned out to be the ne plus ultra of multiculti diversity-celebration — for what more demonstrates the boundlessness of one’s “tolerance” than by tolerating the intolerant. The Europeans’ fetishization of the Palestinians — whereby the more depraved the suicide bombers are the more brutalized they must have been by the Israelis — has, in effect, been globalized.
What 9/11 proves is the resentment that a sizable proportion of the Muslim world feels against the West. No doubt this resentment is a complex compound of hate and love, envy and rejection, shame and pride, and outsiders can probably never quite get the measure of it. Nevertheless the resentment drives Muslims in quite significant numbers to kill Westerners even if that means laying down their own lives.
...
Throughout the 20th century, Arab and Muslim countries could have utilized science to build nation-states with education and health systems that would have made them the equals of the West, and also made resentment redundant. Instead, the search for the missing power and glory brought wars and civil wars, generating failure, and with it much more of that overpowering sense of resentment. There is nothing any non-Muslim can do about it. Liberation of the spirit, rationality, has to come from within.
I debate with the "antiwar" types almost every day, either in print or on the air or on the podium, and I can tell you that they have been "war-weary" ever since the sun first set on the wreckage of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and on the noble debris of United Airlines 93. These clever critics are waiting, some of them gleefully, for the moment that is not far off: the moment when the number of American casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq will match or exceed the number of civilians of all nationalities who were slaughtered five years ago today. But to the bored, cynical neutrals, it also comes naturally to say that it is "the war" that has taken, and is taking, the lives of tens of thousands of other civilians. In other words, homicidal nihilism is produced only by the resistance to it! If these hacks were honest, and conceded the simple truth that it is the forces of the Taliban and of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia that are conducting a Saturnalia of murder and destruction, they would have to hide their faces and admit that they were not "antiwar" at all.
On September 12, 2001, the day after the attacks, there were seven countries designated as state sponsors of terror by the State Department: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, and North Korea. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan was not recognized by the United States government, and thus Afghanistan was not formally listed by the State Department. This makes for a total of eight countries that sponsored terrorism.Five years later, three of these governments that sponsored terrorism are now off the board. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq were taken down in military campaigns. In December, 2003, Libya proceeded to abandon its support for terrorism and its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. This represents 37.5 percent of the governments sponsoring terrorism as of September 11, 2001. The biggest loss al-Qaeda suffered were the training camps in Afghanistan. This reduced their ability to get well-trained terrorists to replace those lost in murder-suicide attacks or those who were captured or killed. In Afghanistan and Iraq, five elections have been held, despite al Qaeda's best efforts to disrupt them. Now, al Qaeda faces two emerging democracies in the Middle East that are growing stronger.
THE biggest story since 9/11 is that there hasn't been an other 9/11. According to our hysterical media culture, everything's always going wrong. The truth is that we've gotten the big things right
...Islamist fanatics have not been able to stage a single additional attack on our homeland. For all its growing pains, our homeland-security effort worked. In this long war with religion-poisoned madmen, the most important proof of success is what doesn't happen - and we haven't been struck again. Wail as loudly as they can, the president's critics can't change that self-evident truth.
...Al Qaeda is badly crippled. While the terror organization and its affiliates remain a deadly threat, al Qaeda is no longer the powerful, unchallenged outfit it was in the years of Clinton-era cowardice. Instead of holding court, Osama bin Laden's a fugitive. Almost all of his deputies are dead or imprisoned. The rest are hunted men.
...Iraq has become al Qaeda's Vietnam. No end of lies have been broadcast about our liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan "creating more terrorists." The terrorists were already there, recruited during the decades we looked away. Our arrival on their turf just brought them out of the woodwork.
As for Iraq, Osama & Co. realized full well how high we'd raised the stakes. They had to fight to prevent the emergence of a Middle Eastern democracy. As a result, they've thrown in their reserves - who've been slaughtered by our soldiers and Marines.
Posted by Tom at 8:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Ralph Peters is Right
Mostly right, anyway.
In a post the other day I wrote that I thought he was right when he wrote in a column that Islam-haters were another "enemy within" that true conservatives should not tolerate.
I've several right-wing (I won't call them conservative) sites in which the authors and commenters are convinced that Islam is a religion of hate, violence, it is evil, unreformable, the whole bit. Anyone who dares to disagree is a dhimmi. Once I see where the comments are going I usually don't chime in, as there's no point.
Anyone who's read more than this post knows that I believe that Islam as it is currently practiced by all too many Muslims has a problem with violence. Far too many Muslims are completely hypocritical on the issue of military force, unable or unwilling to understand the difference between direct attacks on civilians and attacks on military targets where civilians are killed as an unfortunate byproduct (hmm, many Western liberals are confused there too). They excuse terrorism with weasel words. Abuse of women and total lack of civil rights are the hallmarks of most Islamic societies. I could go on but you get the point.
But I, like Peters, am making very careful and precise arguments. What we are arguing against is the view that Islam is innately evil, not that it doesn't have problems, which it most certainly does.
Peters doesn't name names, but I will.
I do not regard Little Green Footballs as "anti-Islam", for example, but as anti-radical Islam. Ditto Michelle Malkin and the staff of National Review. I listen to a lot of conservative talk-radio, and the only one I'd consider to be an Islam-hater is Michael Savage(which is why I won't listen to him (btw, it while listening to the Laura Ingraham show that I first heard about Peter's editorial. She had him on as a guest to discuss it). There's also people like Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson, but I think they're off the reservation anyway.
It's Mainly Bloggers
Peters doesn't name anyone in his column, and from what I can tell he's mainly going after small-time bloggers and people who send him email. It's easy to sit behind your computer and use an anonymous and untraceable handle while you write the most extreme stuff and denounce your opponents. I've fallen for that trap myself a few times. But before you write something, the question you ought to ask yourself is this: Would I say this in front of a CNN news crew if I knew my name and face would be blasted across the globe? If not, don't say it.
The Reaction from the Right
I haven't followed much of it, and don't have time to search around. Michelle Malkin got all bent out of shape, as did Mark Levin. What's interesting is that neither seem to have actually read his column, or if they did, just assumed he was talking about them. Levin links to a few absolutely unhinged articles to "prove" his point.
Peters took part in a 9/11 symposium with Lt Gen Tom McInerney (Ret), Jed Babbin, and Andy McCarthy, hosted by FrontPage Magazine. The debate got a bit over heated, and both sides seemed to be more talking past each other, and in more than one part Peters went too far. Otherwise it's worth the read.
They say that family fights are the worst, and this is no exception.
And In Case You Think Peters is a Dhimmi
Consider that in July he wrote an editorial titled "Kill, Don't Capture"
Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others, but by ourselves.
He discusses the " oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions" and how they do not apply to terrorists. His conclusion is that
Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous transnational outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal. It exalts monsters. And it provides the anti-American pack with living vermin to anoint as victims, if not heroes.Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With our help.
Ouch. Even I have a bit of a problem going that far.
One Reason for the Reaction
It's no excuse, but so many liberals are so blinded by political correctness that they refuse to see that there are any problems at all within Islam. Either that, or they start trying to draw comparisons between radical Islam and "radical Christianity", as if the latter has spouted any terrorist groups of substance.
Or maybe it's just because we have to listen to idiots like Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), that we tend to get carried away on the right. Now remove all throwing objects from your reach before you read this:
In remarks before the Arab American Institute today, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold called on the President to stop using the phrase "Islamic fascists," an offensive and misleading term. The administration has used this phrase increasingly when talking about al Qaeda, its affiliates and its sympathizers. Feingold says the use of the term "Islamic fascists" actually hurts our efforts in fighting terrorism globally because it alienates peaceful Muslims around the world whose support we need in fighting terrorism."I call on the President to stop using the phrase "Islamic fascists", a label that doesn't make any sense, and certainly doesn't help our effort to build a coalition of societies to fight terrorism," Feingold said. "The President has often correctly referred to Islam as a religion of peace, but this reckless language, much like his prior reference to the fight against al Qaeda as a 'crusade,' completely cuts the other way. Fascist ideology doesn't have anything to do with the way global terrorist networks think or operate, and it doesn't have anything to do with the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world who practice the peaceful teachings of Islam."
Now there's a real dhimmi for you.
Posted by Tom at 7:57 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
September 11, 2006
September 11, 2001 - Tara Yvette Hobbs
As part of the 2,996 Project, this blog is honoring Tara Yvette Hobbs, who was killed in the World Trade Center Tower 2 by the terrorists who attacked our nation on September 11 2001. She was 31 years old.
She was an employee in the insurance division on Aon Corp, and was on the 98th floor when the airplane struck. Two tributes are posted on the memorial website CNN set up for her
I thank the Lord for you, Tara. You were here for a flicker, but left behind a legacy of love and friendship in all our hearts. We all love you and keep you near us. Reggie Lalanne, partnerYou were such a bright star in my life. I am so blessed to have had you for two years in my life. RIP baby.
Lushon Greene, friend
There is also a rememberence of her on the Legacy website.
Tara Y. Hobbs was crowned the "e-mail queen" by her friends. "She kept in touch with everybody -- everybody from middle school, high school, college, work, social life -- through e-mail," said her sister Sherian Hobbs. "She was always planning get-togethers."And some of her best friends were her brothers and sisters. As the youngest of five children growing up on Long Island, Tara Hobbs was very close to Sherian, the oldest. "When Tara was 8 and I was 16, I took her with me on my dates," Sherian said. "The three of us ate ice creams and walked around in the neighborhood. She smiled a lot, never got into the way, and we didn't mind having her."
When Tara became an adult, she and her sister still belonged to a threesome, but the third person was new: Tara's boyfriend, Paul Lalanne, with whom she lived in Brooklyn. The three planned to open an office for Primerica, an insurance company under Citigroup. The week before the disaster, Tara, 31, who worked in the insurance branch of Aon, received her license to sell health and life insurance. She and Paul were planning to marry next year.
Rest in Peace, Tara
Posted by Tom at 6:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
September 9, 2006
Islam-Haters: Another Enemy Within
Ralph Peters has said in an editorial titled Islam-Haters: An Enemy Within something that I've been thinking for some time, that there are too many bloggers on the right who are going too far in their condemnation of Islam.
The most repugnant trend in the American shouting match that passes for a debate on the struggle with Islamist terrorism isn't the irresponsible nonsense on the left - destructive though that is. The really ugly "domestic insurgency" is among right-wing extremists bent on discrediting honorable conservatism.How? By insisting that Islam can never reform, that the violent conquest and subjugation of unbelievers is the faith's primary agenda - and, when you read between the lines, that all Muslims are evil and subhuman.
I've received no end of e-mails and letters seeking to "enlighten" me about the insidious nature of Islam. Convinced that I'm naive because I defend American Muslims and refuse to "see" that Islam is 100 percent evil, the writers warn that I'm a foolish "dhimmi," blind to the conspiratorial nature of Islam.
Peters goes on, and you'll want to read the whole thing, but I think you get the point.
I've read this sort of thing too in posts and comments on right-wing blogs; "Islam is evil", "we are (or should be) in a war against Islam", or some such similar things.
I agree with Peters that this sort of thing is wrong, and here's why.
Let me say right now that I am not talking about things like stopping or reducing Muslim immigration. I think that the Europeans should slow down or stop immigration into their countries by Muslims, and need to work hard to assimilate those that have. Nor, heaven knows, am I saying that the way Islam is practiced by many is not evil. Further, I am disgusted at how moderate Muslims (and yes they exist) have not done more to confront and counter the radicals. Many Mosques in Western countries are infiltrated by radicals and the Muslim community is not doing nearly enough to root them out.
But none of this the same as saying that Islam is evil. I am a Christian, and as such believe that Islam is a false religion. But it is not evil.
And for the record, Peters is "no Pollyanna." He's a retired United States Army Lieutenant Colonel who is about as gung-ho on the war as you can get.
I'm all for killing terrorists, rather than taking them prisoner. I know we're in a fight for our civilization. But the fight is with the fanatics - a minority of a minority - not with those who simply worship differently than those of us who grew up with the Little Brown Church in the Vale.
The basic distinction here is between the theory of a religion and the way it is actually practiced. I'm no theologian, but I have read and studied most of the Bible, and I'll tell you that some of the books read like World War II on the Eastern Front. If you don't believe me, go through books like Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicals, or even Esther. The Hebrews, God's chosen people, kill and conquer to obtain and keep the promised land, and their actions are all sanctioned by God.
Yes I know, the New Testament and all that. But the Bible has to be taken as a whole, and you can't dismiss the books I cited.
And let's face it, the way Christianity has been practiced hasn't always been so nice. Before the Treaty of Westphalia, religious wars were the norm in Europe, and it was all Christian vs Christian. We weren't terribly nice when we conquered or reconquered lands from the Muslims, either.
But we reformed, proving that it can be done. Yes I know there are differences, and heaven knows I'm no multiculturalist. As I said, I believe that Christianity is the one true religion. But this isn't about theology, it's about culture and war. And I'm going to agree with Peters that you're a bigot if you believe that "Islam is evil".
Besides, how do you fight a war against an entire religion? Do we kill all one billion plus Muslims? Or just beat them into submission? Interestingly, most of those I've read who say that "Islam is evil" also support our war in Iraq, one whose purpose is not to conquer Muslims but help build a modern Muslim society. How they square that circle is beyond me.
The bottom line is this; we're not in a war against Islam, we're in a war against Islamic fascism/fanaticism/jihad, call it what you will. The way Islam is practiced now in many ways is wrong and needs to be changed. We face a threat from unassimilated fanatical Muslims in Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States. And it will be extremely difficult to reform the way Islam is practiced, and it will be decades if not centuries before the job is complete, and when it is they won't be quite like us.
But let's not fall into the same trap that the left falls into, with an unwritten rule of "no enemies on the left". We should have the courage to denounce those of us who go too far. And if you're saying that "Islam is evil", then you've gone too far and are not part of the problem.
Posted by Tom at 12:13 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
September 4, 2006
What To Do About Iran
In a post last week I told you what I think will happen with regard to Iran and it's nuclear weapons program if present trends continue. None of my three possible scenarios were good ones.
Now I'm going to tell you what I think we ought to do about Iran. Note that it does not involve immediate air strikes.
The Current Situation
The Administration seems intent on using the offices of the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) as a basis for the legitimacy of negotiations and for consequences that may follow. The advantage is a perceived moral and legal authority. If "everyone" is for (or against) something, it must be right. Because for so long wed and others have accepted the legality of UN and IAEA decisions, they have a certain authority. Lastly, there is the hope that if negotiations go nowhere and we must impose sanctions, we can make them binding on all nations through the appropriate UN resolution.
The disadvantage is that is ties us to their decisions. If negotiations fail, and the Security Council does not approve meaningful sanctions, it would be difficult for us to unilaterally impose a blockade. And if it looks as if Iran is on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons, and the UN refuses to give us authority to use air strikes, we look as if we have defied the very body that we demanded Iran obey.
Recent news headlines such as "Iranian President Says Pursuit of Nuclear Technology is Irreversible" and "Iran Questions Veto Right at U.N. Security Council" are hardly encouraging. In past months Iran has tested an "underwater missile" and a submarine-launched anti-ship missile as shows of strentgh. What is most disturbing about these tests is not so much that they were conducted, as the political statements by Iranian leaders that accompanied them. They spoke of "superweapons" in a way that reminds one of Adolf Hitler's belief that his V-1 and V-2 "superweapons" would save him from defeat.
I do no think that these strong statements by Iran are simply a negotiating position. American and European liberals hyperventalate at the thought of using air strikes or any sort of military force. Russia and China have "ruled out" sanctions. Given that negotiations without either sanctions or the threat of military force are useless, our current approach is unlikely to succeed.
What To Do
Here, point-by-point, is what I think we ought to do about Iran
Regime Change must be our number one priority It is impossible to know exactly what we are currently doing in this regard, but one suspects we are not putting nearly enough effort into this effort.
Regime change is easy to say, hard to do, and as we've seen in Iraq, it is very difficult to control what happens after the existing regime is gone. The big questions are these: Are the Iranians developing nuclear weapons, and is this acceptable. The answer to the first is clearly yes, and the second to me, no. I outlined what I thought would likely happen if Iran gets nuclear weapons here, and none of my scenarios were pleasant. Therefore, it is worth the risk.
Some steps we ought to be taking to change the government in Iran are:
Exposure - That the government of Iran oppresses it's people is not news to informed people. However, unless you seek out this information you will not know the details. Most people don't read blogs and human rights reports. They read their newspaper and watch the news on TV. It is critical that our government put forth maximum effort to publicize human rights abuses in Iran. Cabinet-level officials and the president himself must include Iranian human rights abuses in their speeches. Government reports detailing abuses should be distributed at all press conferences. And so on down the line.
We did this with the Soviet Union and apartheit South Africa, and it worked. It is a measure of how much progress was made in the 19tha nd 20th centuries that most dictatorships today seek to hide their abuses. Even the Nazis, it will be recalled, felt obliged to hide their "final solution".
Public Disorder - Encouraging, forment, and fund public protests and demonstrations against the government. This should go father than just people running around carrying signs. We should infiltrate a labor union and encourage strikes and work stoppages.
Encourage Democratic Elements - Fund and train those anti-regime parties and organizations who themselves are reasonabley pro-democracy and pro-secular. We must avoid working with communist, criminal, terrorist, or extremist religious groups.
During the 1980s Western governemts and organizations such as labor unions funded and supplied the Polish Solidarity movement. If we are not doing this in Iran now, we should be
Recruitment of Assets - Use covert operations to identify and recruit anti-regime government people, including those in the military. If it looks like we can stage a coup, it will be necessary to have people already in positions of power.
Start an Insurgency - This could be done along the "contra" model; recruit, fund, and train anti-regime guerilla forces. This worked against the Sandanistas in the 1980s, and it might work again against Iran. We would be essentially starting an insurgency against Iran. It is risky, as we might find ourselves supporting unsavory characters if we are not careful. But it would have the additional belefit of diverting Iranian attention from Iraq and "giving them a taste of their own medicine". It runs the risk of backfiring, but I think that taking down parts of Teheran's power grid, for example, would cause the Iranian government to have to divert a serious amount of resources.
Flood Them With Propaganda - Again, one suspects that the US government is not doing hearly enough in this regard. We are currently broadcasting Voice of America radio and TV into Iran, which is fine as far as it goes. But we must use our imagination, for example by conducting campaigns whereby we temporarily flood their airwaves with radio broadcasts on all channels. During the run-up to the war in Iraq we got the cell phone numbers of Iraqi government and military officials, and made numerout phone calls to them. If nothing else, this woulde serve to demoralize them as it would show that we "have their number."
Military Pressure - There is much we can do militarily short of all-out air strikes. Coupled with the above measures, we might even seek to repeat Operation Praying Mantis, where in 1988 we got into a shooting match with the Iranian Navy, sinking a frigate, a smaller ship, and six speedboats, as well as damaging several more against no losses for us. Praying Mantis was retaliation for Iranian mining operations in the Gulf which damaged a US warship.
As the Iranians may not make the mistake of laying mines along likely paths of US warships again, such a direct opportunity may not arise. However, if we adopt the actions I specify above, they will retaliate somewhere somehow. As I mention below, they might even try and sabatoge tankers in the gulf. When they do, this will be our pretext for destroying some of their naval assets.
The Iranian Response
They're not going to sit there and take this. They will strike back. As Clausewitz said, "the enemy is an animate object that reacts". We can expect direct terrorist attacks to attempts to subvert our financial markets. They will step up support of the insurgent terrorists in Iran. They might even try and sabatoge tanker shipments in the gulf through mining operations much like they did during the Iran-Iraq war. And they will try to carry out terrorist operations in the United States itself, if not directly then through proxies such as Hezbollah.
The Final Option
Massive, sustained air strikes are our final resort. If we must use them, we should realize that it will not be a quick one or two day operation. Iran has hidden it's assets well, and air strikes will require several weeks, and will undoubtably involve naval fighting as well. Tanker traffic will be shut down for a month or more, and oil prices will skyrocket.
But it all comes down to these questions:
1) Is Iran trying to obtain nuclear weapons?
2) Is it acceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons?
1) yes 2) no The reason is simple; at the worst they will actually use them against us or Israel, and at best will create an intolerable situation in the region. The authors of this Army War College Paper point out that Iran can do many nasty things once armed with nuclear weapons.
We must not let this happen. And to achieve that goal, we must not wait until the last minute. We need to put strong measures in place now.
Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
September 2, 2006
The Hate America Code Pink Crowd Strikes Again
Code Pink is at it again, trying to undermining our efforts to bring democracy and hope to Iraq. However bad the current situation there is, we don't need their kind of help.
Ben Johnson of FrontPage Magazine has written a very well researched and thorough expose of their recent trip to Jordan to meet with some members of the Iraqi parliament (hat tip Andi's World)
Code Pink Women for Peace, if you don't know, is a radical pro-Fidel Castro group that sees the insurgent terrorists as a legitimate force, and has condoned the killing of US troops in Iraq. I've faced off against them dozens of times this past year outside of Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC. Read all about it here. In particular, I and some other patriots had a confronation with Medea Benjamin and Gael Murphy this past July. You can read all about it here. Scroll about halfway down to read my "Case Against Code Pink". You'll find out how they support the insurgent terrorists in Iraq and think the killing of American troops justified.
Twelve people went on the trip, including Media Benjamin, fellow Pinkos Gael Murphy and Jodie Evans, as well as Tom Hayden, and the ever-present Cindy Sheehan.
Code Pink leader Media Benjamin let the trip, which left August 2. Their goal was, in her words, "“for the U.S. peace movement to meet directly with Iraqi parliamentarians working on a peace plan. We hope to return to the U.S. to build support for their plan.”
Uh huh. Let's be clear; Benjamin wants to go a lot farther than simply bring peace to Iraq. She wants to completely eliminate US influence in the world. Ben Johnson elaborates
In this, Medea is following the blueprint she laid out in her April 2003 Nation magazine essay “Toward a Global Movement,” in which she counseled left-wing “grassroots teams” to “link up with appropriate local and regional groups” in terrorist states to “channel the bursting anti-American sentiment overseas.” Then, “Working with local communities where U.S. troops are based, let's start a Bring All the Troops Home campaign to stop the expansion of U.S. bases and start dismantling some of the hundreds of existing bases overseas.” Al-Sadr’s enablers constituted one such “appropriate” group; terrorism’s elected cheerleaders comprised another. (As they were in the area during the Hezbollah-Israel War, they visited Syria and stopped by Lebanese refugee camps, as well.)
Who did they meet with?
This leftist motley crew met with Sheikh Ahmad al-Kubaysi, a Baghdad-based cleric who “almost certainly is affiliated” with the Naziesque Muslim Brotherhood. He once declared:These young men who came here from other Muslim countries to defend Iraq are very brave. They left their homes and comfortable lives to protect fellow Muslims. That is the most important form of Jihad. These Mujahideen are guaranteed Paradise.In addition to echoing Cindy Sheehan’s views on this topic, the Sheikh had another commonality with his guests: his Association for Muslim Studies in Iraq also collected food and supplies for Fallujah’s terrorists. No slacker, Kubaysi is said to have given al-Sadr $50 million. Al-Sadr, in turn, offered to work with him. The AMS leadership explicitly condones armed “resistance” against U.S. forces as an Allah-given Iraqi right and has sanctioned the murder of civilian hostages as collaborators.
The leftists’s prime sponsor, however, was the Iraq National Dialogue Front, a coalition led by Saleh al-Mutlaq, the Sunni who led the charge against the Iraqi constitution when it guaranteed the Shi’ites an autonomous region.
...Like al-Kubaysi, the INDF leader condones armed “resistance,” has offered to join the “insurgency,” and regularly calls upon the United States to disarm itself in the face of terrorism.
So what did this lovely bunch decide?
For starters, a timetable for withdrawal of American troops. From the Code Pink's own report on the meeting
The common thread among this diverse group of Iraqis and Americans was a desire to set a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops, ensure no permanent bases in Iraq, and secure a U.S. commitment to pay for rebuilding Iraq. Other issues that emerged in two-days of intensive talks include the need to dismantle militias, provide amnesty for prisoners and the various armed groups, compensate victims of the violence, revise the Constitution and preserve the unity of Iraq, and reverse US-imposed de-Baathification and economic policies. We left this historic meeting with a commitment to make sure that the voices of these Iraqi parliamentarians are heard here in the US, and we will bring a group of them to the U.S. in the Fall.
Note the bit about "reverse US-imposed de-Baathification". The Ba'ath Party in Iraq was Saddam's political party. It is somewhat similar to Hitler's Nazi Party of Mussolini's Fascist one. And they want to bring them back?
Another person who went on the trip was Jeeni Criscenzo, a DailyKos blogger and Democrat candidate for the 49th District in California. In an August 6 post on the DailyKos she wrote
It is important to distinguish between the militia, or death squads and the resistance, particularly when considering the amnesty aspects of the Reconciliation Plan crafted in Cairo last month. Over 95% of the Iraqi people oppose the presence of the U.S. troops in their country and consider the people the U.S. call "insurgents" to be patriotic freedom fighters -- no different that how we look at the people who fought in our Revolutionary War. Heroic titles go to the victors and if justice is to ever come to the people of Iraq, the people we call insurgents will have to be recognized as the ones who are actually defending their homeland. Emphasis added)
This woman is insane. She thinks that the insurgent terrorists - Al Qaeda in Iraq - are "patriotic freedom fighters". I question her patriotism. No, I'll say it outright; Jeeni Criscenzo and the rest of those people who went on this trio are not American patriots. They are traitors, to the United States, and to Iraq, for that matter.
There, now I've said it.
If Criscenzo is not bad enough for you, try Code Pink co-founder Jodi Evans. She thinks Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a great place
Let’s go back to the Iraq before we invaded, there was a good education and health care system, food for everyone. That system didn’t belong to Saddam it belonged to the Iraqi, it belonged to years of creating what a civilization needed. If your parents didn’t send you to school they could be put in jail.
Another insane woman.
Lasty there's Cindy Sheehan. She wrote about her experiences in an article posted on Code Pink's website. Besides the usual nuttyness, before leaving at the airport she met an "Iraqi gentleman" who told her just what she wanted to hear
He sadly informed me that the Americans are not stopping the sectarian violence, only encouraging it in his country, and he holds little hope for any future for the land that he was born in and loves.Oh yeah that makes sense. We're encouraging the sectarian violence so the American people will get fed up with the venture and elect Democrats this November who will demand a troop withdrawal. Another insane woman.
All in all, another day's work betraying their country by some prime members of the Hate America crowd.
All links above taken from Ben Johnson's excellent FrontPage Magazine article.
Posted by Tom at 7:51 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
September 1, 2006
Here's What's Going to Happen with Iran
If present trends continue...
After some dithering, some sanctions are imposed. They consist of an embargo on #2 lead pencils. We really push Russia and China, and agree to add protractors and rulers to the list.
The Iranian rulers announce that the sanctions will have no effect on their nuclear program. Western leaders respond by saying that if Iran does not behave they will issue an even sterner warning.
In 2008 a Democrat is be elected to the White House. Tony Blair loses a confidence vote in the House of Commons and is replaced by a Labor Party leader who was known for his anti-George W Bush rhetoric.
The new American president announces a "grand bargain", which will be presented to Iran. She says that terms of the bargain are simple; if Iran agrees to give up their nuclear weapons program, we will shower them with all sorts of economic benefits, as well as diplomatic recognition.
The Iranian rulers pretend to be interested and will agree to talks. They also announce that regardless of what happens they will continue their nuclear program. Nevertheless, the American president agrees to talks, which drag on for months or years with no visible progress.
All the time the United States insists on getting UN Security Council approval for each step. While this strategy seems to give us the "worldwide unity" we seek, it also has the additional effect of making us beholden to the council, and gives it a certain legitimacy.
Eventually, even the Democrat US president tires of Iranian stalling, and asks the Security Council to rachet up the sanctions. Almost all countries on the council refuse to consider anything beyond adding ball point pens to the list of prohibited items.
Sometime towards the end of the decade, it becomes clear to American intelligence that Iran is close to building a nuclear bomb. The president makes some of the information public and asks for congressional approval. Congressional Democrats, in the majority of both houses, refuse. They publicly doubt the intelligence, with "remember Iraq" as their battle cry. Besides, they say, we need approval from the UN Security Council.
The American president considers consults with the permanent members of the Security Council. Every one says that they will veto an American proposal to use force against the Iranians.
Israeli intelligence sees the same thing that American intelligence does. The Israelis go to the Americans and say that they will strike if America does not. The American president not only refuses to strike Iran, but says tells Israel that if they do they will face serious consequences, up to and including a total cutoff of American aid.
At this point, three possible scenarios emerge
1) The Best Case
The American president assures Israel and the world that we have received "assurances" that Iran will not use it's nuclear weapons offensively. Faced with a cutoff of aid, Israel backs down and decides not to act.
Iran conducts a nuclear test. The Muslim world goes wild with approval.
However, Iran does not use it's weapons. Perhaps Ahmadinejad is no longer in power, the mullahs restrain him, or the prospect of a nuclear retaliatory strike by Israel gives them pause. Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia announce that to assure their security, they have started their own nuclear bomb programs. Other countries in the region hurry to ally themselves with someone who has or will soon have nuclear weapons and shows the desire to protect them. None approach the United States.
2) The Middle Case
Iran obtains nuclear weapons, and gives one to a terrorist organization. Because Israeli security is now unbelieveably tight, the terrorists are only able to sneak it up to the border. They detonate it there, which kills several tens of thousands of Arabs and Israelis (a ground blast being much less effective than an air burst). Muslims the world round go wild with joy, and excuse the death of so many fellow Muslims by saying that they are martyrs who are now assured a place in paradise.
World leaders, including the American president, urge Israel to "show restraint".
Because "only" one bomb is used, and they are facing so much pressure from the "world community" to "show restraint", Israel's response is limited to a retaliatory nuclear strike of a single nuclear weapon against iran, coupled with conventional attacks by its F-15s and F-16s. The Middle East goes nuts and everyone except for a few American conservatives (and 2 Belgiuns) blame Israel for it's "disproportionate response".
3) The Worst Case
As with the middle case scenario, this may develop in one of two ways. However, in the end the result will be the same.
The first way this begins is with a conventional Israeli strike, designed to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Because Israel does not have the detailed intelligence that American assets can provide (the American president having refused to share), and because they do not have the quantity or quality of weapons that the Americans have, they are unable to signifiantly delay the Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons. After one or two strikes international pressure is such that Israel backs down.
The second possibility is that Israel does not strike at all, and in a moment of weakness accepts assurances from the American president that she has received assurances from Iran that despite what they say publically every other day they will not actually use them. Assurances are everywhere.
Either way, Iran obtains nuclear weapons and begins to build up an arsenal. Because they have secretely obtained technical information from North Korea and Pakistan(the latter through scientists working independently from the government), they are able to mount a few on top of missiles.
Out of the blue Iran strikes Israel with over a dozen Shahab-4 missiles armed with nuclear weapons. Israel, on the alert, launches its Arrow II anti-missile missiles. Most incoming Shahabs are destroyed, but a few get through. Because Iran has targeted Israeli cities, losses are high, with three million Israelis become casualties almost instantly. Israel retaliates with nuclear armed Jericho 2 missiles, F-15s, as well as Popeye Turbo missiles fired from Dolphin-class submarines prepositioned in the Persian Gulf. Israel concentrates it's attacks on military targets, since it fears more attacks from Iran. Being a small country, Israel cannot absorb many blows, and 40% of it's population is already either dead or seriously injured. The Middle East goes nuts and everyone around the world except for a few American conservatives (and 2 Belgians) blame Israel.
In retirement at his ranch in Texas, George W Bush mutters that he wishes he'd struck Iran when he had the chance. A few American conservatives (and 2 Belgians) agree.
Posted by Tom at 8:00 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
