Mahmoud & Michael X³

Political Cartoonist Michael Ramirez has had a field day with Mahmoud AhMADinejad these last few days, first with the Iranian PUNK President wanting to go to the Twin Towers memorial site, next with his SPEECH harangue at Columbia University and lastly with his INTEMPERATE asinine rant at the United Nations. So, for those of you not familiar with this outstanding cartoonist, I present the three above noted Editorial Cartoons true life portraits of Mahmoud.

First, the real reason he wanted to visit the Twin Tower Site:

Continue reading "

Mahmoud & Michael X³

"

President Dennis J. Kucinich and "The Bomb"

In last nights New Hampshire edition of the Democrat Party Pander-A-Thon Debate, Dennis J. Kookycinich Kucinich stated:

But what I intend to do is to be a president who helps to reshape the world for peace -- to work with all the leaders of the world in getting rid of all nuclear weapons..."

Hop into our little time machine and lets see how that worked out.

Whooooooooooosh, the year, 2009. The first 100 days of the new president... day 43:

Thank you for joining me on this conference call Mr. President and Mr. President

You're Welcome Mr. President, and hello to you Mr. President

Thank you Mr. President, and to you Infidel, Death To America

Continue reading "President Dennis J. Kucinich and "The Bomb""

Outrage!

There is no such thing as a "liberal media;" so say the leftist pundits. After all, the media is owned by corporations which are by definition "conservative" and thus they wouldn't jeopardize their income by being liberal. And if you believe that twaddle, I've got a quit-claim deed to the Brooklyn Bridge I'd be happy to sell to you for the paltry sum of only $99.99. Think of it, having your very own bridge.

But, I digress! The ABC blog "The Blotter" has a report by Brian Ross and Richard Esposito concerning the existence of a "Presidential Finding" that authorizes the CIA to begin a campaign of "covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government."

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a “nonlethal presidential finding” that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions.

So, since this is a "covert" action, lets spread it over the airwaves and the internet, I mean after all, it is the peoples right to know isn't it? Geeze guys, can you be more Anti-American than you already are?

This isn't a matter of beating another news organization to the punch, this is a matter of divulging to Iran, a country guilty of arming the so called insurgents in Iraq, helping them plant and manufacture bombs designed to kill civilians and US military alike. This is the country that committed an armed act of war against the US when it occupied our embassy in the waining days of the Carter administration. This is the country that any truly rational person recognizes as a very real threat to peace with their willy-nilly rush to manufacture nuclear bombs. And you bastards have the gall to "out" the plan?

Too often the left leaning media (and some of their allies in the Democrat party and in the CIA) have accused the right of questioning their patriotism. Well, they have proven themselves unpatriotic. And I would still be making this charge if it were a Democrat in the White House as well. Of course, if there were a Democrat in the White House, I doubt that the left leaning media would have stooped to this level of chicanery.

The media has let their aptly named Bush Derangement Syndrome overrule all common sense, and for what? To discredit a President? To warn Iran? To get a scoop? Bastards!

Another point of view from Jules Crittenden:

I’d be curious to know whether the people blabbing are disapproving or purposefully trying to send a message. Given that the message seems to be “We won’t attack,” I’m not sure how useful it is to put this out. That just tells the Iranians going into next week’s Iraq talks that they don’t need to worry about military consequences.

A tip O' The GM Derby to Larwyn

From Turkey with Love(?)

Christine writing at Vigilant Freedom had an interesting email:

We have suggested to several bloggers that any threats should be made public as soon as possible, in order to expose the danger.Therefore, here is the email I received in entirety (asterisks added for family viewers…)

i m going to f*** your mumy how u dare to attack on islam and muslims.. write your adderess..ungratefull bitches you… there are hundred thousand Nihad Awad.. you r swearin us ..provaketing us…and you want to go to hell..ok we will do it ..no worry..

The sender’s email address is given as “metin kondel [metin_k61@hotmail.com]”. The email address metin_k61@hotmail.com shows up here, with Metin Kondel as a commenter: http://www.memleket.com.tr/index.php?islem=detay&id=9320 And also here, again a comment with the email address: http://ofluhoca.blogcu.com/1976137/

Interesting indeed. Do you suspect that this is a jihadist, a follower of Muhammad, or a delusional, sick jerk with more than a touch of misogyny? Perhaps all three!

H/T to Always On Watch

The Left: We Support the Troops (The Enemy's?)

So, the Left supports the troops but opposes the war? Funny, this video gives me the impression that they oppose both. The tip off was burning a soldier in effigy. Watch it and decide for yourself if they support our armed forces, but be forewarned...the video contains offensive language. Well, what did you expect? After all, they are from the Left.

Radicals burn an effigy of a U.S. soldier and American flag

Pretty offensive, isn't it? Of course, the protestors are pretty stupid, too.

It's ironic that they used a petroleum product to fuel the fire. Where do they think that we get most of our oil based products?

Besides being crude (not as in oil) and anti-U.S., what is it about the Left that they engage in endless chants and use trite slogans? In case you're curious as to where they get their chants (and, who isn't?!), check out these samples:

Continue reading "The Left: We Support the Troops (The Enemy's?)"

Dems and Libs, Iran Offers You New Chance

We've heard so much second guessing from Democrats and liberals about Iraq. Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate with U.N. inspectors for years and was warned of possible action if he didn't comply. He didn't, the U.N. was bribed, and President Bush acted. Well, thanks to Iran, we can give liberals a new playing field and let them tell us how now to handle this new situation from the start--not from hindsight.

Iran bars 38 U.N. nuclear inspectors

Iran has barred entry to 38 inspectors from the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency after hardliners demanded retaliation for U.N. sanctions imposed on Tehran last month, officials said on Monday.

The West accuses Iran of seeking to build atom bombs under the cover of a professed civilian nuclear energy program, while Tehran insists it aims solely to generate electricity.

IAEA inspectors carry out regular checks of Iran's atomic sites to try to verify it is not diverting materials into bomb production in violation of the NPT.

The U.N. sanctions imposed on December 23 ban transfers of sensitive materials and know-how to Iran's nuclear and missile programs over its refusal to stop enriching uranium, a process that can yield fuel for power stations or material for bombs.

Man, that sounds familiar. Okay, liberals and Democrats, how would you handle this familiar problem this time? Maybe twelve years of sanctions? That ought to do it. By that time Iran will have nuclear weapons and will be shaking in their boots. Don't wait to second quess. Share your plans now.

(What do you want to bet that they'll live up to expectations and ignore any meaningful actions against Iran until it's too late?)

How To Lose A Sale, And Piss Off America At The Same Time

Last Friday, Cinnamon Stillwell, a good friend and fellow blogger alerted me to an almost unbelievable "sales" response to one of our troops stationed in Iraq. The troop, one Sgt. Jason Hess serving with the U.S. 1st Cavalry Division in Iraq. Sgt. Hess was inquiring about better mats for his troops to sleep on. Here is his email to Discount Floor Mats of West Allis, Wisconson:

To Whom it may concern:
Do you ship to APO addresses? I'm in the 1st Cavalry Division stationed in Iraq and we are trying to order some mats but we are looking for who ships to APO first.

SGT Hess

Continue reading "How To Lose A Sale, And Piss Off America At The Same Time"

Still Doubt That Saddam Hussein Had WMD's?

No weapons of mass destruction? Bush lied? Read selections from the following article.

Tape bares Saddam's chilling admissions of war crimes
By JOHN F. BURNS, New York Times, Published on: 01/10/07

In audio recordings made years ago and played this week in his absence, Saddam was heard justifying the use of chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980s, predicting they would kill "thousands" and saying he alone among Iraq's leaders had the authority to order chemical attacks.

In the sequence of scratchy recordings — some with the dialogue quite clear, some barely decipherable — Saddam repeatedly showed the ready resort to brutality that made Iraq a nation seized with fear during his 24 years in power.

One recording revealed, more clearly than anything before, Saddam's personal involvement in covering up Iraq's attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, the program that ultimately led to President Bush sending U.S. troops to overthrow him. Talking to the Iraqi general heading Iraq's dealings with U.N. weapons inspectors until weeks before the 2003 invasion, he counseled caution in the figures being divulged on the extent of Iraq's feed stocks for chemical weapons, so as to disguise the use of unaccounted-for chemicals in the attacks on the Kurds.

But it was Saddam's chilling discussion of the power of chemical weapons against civilian populations that brought prosecutors and judges to the verge of tears, and seemed to shock the remaining defendants. One of the recordings featured an unidentified military officer telling Saddam that a plan was under development for having transport aircraft carry containers packed with up to 50 napalm bombs each rolled out of the back of the cargo deck and dropped on Kurdish towns.

(Television footage taken in the aftermath of the Halabjah attack, which more than any other event focused world attention on the atrocities committed under Saddam,) showed the horrors: a father wailing in grief as he found his children lying along a street littered with bodies; dead mothers clutching gas-choked infants to their breasts in swaddling clothes; young sisters embracing each other in death; and trucks piled high with civilian corpses. "I ask the whole world to look at these images, especially those who are crying right now," Faroun said, referring to the outpouring of sympathy for Saddam.

U.S. Justice Department lawyers who have done much of the behind-the-scenes work in sifting tons of documents and other evidence gathered after the invasion of 2003 had never hinted that they held the trump card, judicially and historically, that the audio recordings seem likely to be.

I give credit to the administration for keeping details of the evidence about Iraq's WMDs secret to obtain a conviction rather than giving it up simply to silence Democratic and foreign critics.

Is everyone satisfied, now, that Hussein had and used weapons of mass destruction, or do you have to experience them yourself to be convinced? How long would you have allowed these mass murders to continue if you were President? So much for "Bush Lied." At what point would more weapons be manufactured and provided to terrorists for use against us? Did we have to know any more to be worried about our security and about justice and to act, while the U.N. stalled as its officials were profiting from Hussein's payoffs?

Are there any admissions of being wrong on this issue and apologies forthcoming or just more blind patisan denials?

Finally, where do we go from here? Pull out and abandon the Iraqi people again to terrorists and tyrants or stay until we win the battle?

"What If's" on WWII and Iraq

In a recent comment, G.M. mentioned a post by Assistant Village Idiot, a regular and appreciated commenter on this site. (AVI doesn't mention the name of the village where he is the assistant, but let's hope that it's not the same village that Hillary Clinton wants to raise our kids.) But, to the point, AVI's post was "Change One Thing in WWII to improve the outcome." It makes for interesting thought and allows us to ask a lot of "what if's".

Now, a lot of people are asking "what if's" about the war in Iraq, and we have recently seen the results of the Iraq Study Group, which told us what it believes that we should be doing in that area of the world. The connection with AVI's post is that we may be asking a lot of "what if's" about Iraq in the future, just as we have with WWII, depending upon whether or not we accept the recommendations of this committee--and, many of those questions and answers could be similar.

Newt Gingrich, my former congressman, is a former history professor, and he has created interesting assessments in two articles of the group's recommendations and ties them into the response to World War II to deal with Hitler. After you read AVI's post, go to Newt's and see if we have learned anything from history.

The Baker-Hamilton Report: A Prescription for Surrender
by Newt Gingrinch 12/11/2006

The release of the report confirms a Washington establishment desire to avoid conflict and confrontation by "doing a deal." In the 1930s, that model was called appeasement, not realism, and it led to a disaster. Today, we need a Churchill not a Chamberlain policy for the Middle East.

Next....

Overview of the Iraq Study Group Report
by Newt Gingrinch 12/11/2006

Two weeks ago I outlined in the Winning the Future newsletter Eleven Key Tests for the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report. I asked whether the report would make a real contribution in helping us win the war against the Fanatic wing of Islam, or whether it was simply going to be one more establishment effort to hide defeat so the American political system can resume its comfortable insider games without having to solve real problems in the larger world.

Here are the 11 key tests from two weeks ago and a brief assessment for how the ISG’s published report stacks up: (go to article)

Of course, this discusses future courses, which should be our focus. If you want to do "Monday morning quarterbacking" on Iraq, you can find plenty of that on the left-wing blogs, if you can stand them.

So, based upon where we are and what we have learned from history, what should be our future policies and actions in the mideast? I don't want a lot of "what if's" years from now. I want us to win this war and to do it right. How can we best do that? Who will be right?

The Photo That Won A Pulitzer - Iranian Executions, 1979

Many of you will remember this photograph, it won a Pulitzer and has, since published in '79 been anonymous. Now we know and the story is fascinating. Read the whole thing, then come back and comment. When you go to the article, be sure and see the whole slide show.

Islamo-fascism. A word frought with meaning to both the left and the right. Some may prefer the term jihadist, others islamist. But, in reality, regardless of what it is called, it is the same darkness of the heart. To some these are terms used only by an "islamo-phobe" by others, an apt description of the pseudo-political/quasi-religious expression of a group of people that have decided that their way to salvation is jihad and martyrdom. Would that it were not so, but it is, like it or not, and it describes "A Certain Darkness of the Heart."

Remember November 4th, 1979? That was the day an act of war was perpetrated on the United States in the form of the Islamic Republic of Iran's invasion of, and occupation of the United States Embassy. Unfortunately for the United States and the 52 hostages held for the majority of the 444 days of captivity (the original number of hostages was 66 but 14 were released over a period of time for a variety of reasons) this act of war was not met by any action by the then President of the United States, Jimmy Carter. Carter had allowed the Former Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi who had stepped down in January of 1979 and the so called Islamic Republic, fronted by the "students" felt that America was "corrupting" their republic. The Iranians, of course, had no intention of interveining in the occupation of the embassy, though it should be obvious that the release of the hostages was later engineered by the Iranian governmnet because of their fear of what might happen when Ronald Reagan replaced Casper Milquetoast Jimmy Carter. Reagan had not focused much blaming Carter, but he did promise to rebuild the military and once again take America forward. The absolute landslide (almost 51% of the popular vote and almost 91% of the electoral vote) indeed must have given the Iranian's pause. Their "Islamic" republic faced with massive military retaliation from the United States as opposed to the withering leadership of Carter learned not to challenge the US like that again. But that didn't stop them for long, by 1983, using their proxy Hezbollah they once again attacked the Great Satan, this time not with students, but with bombs.

I recall the bombing of the Marine Barracks in 1983 and a fierce anger that welled up inside at a group of people that were willing to kill to make a pseudo-political point. President Reagan, rightly or wrongly, had sent the United States Marines into Lebanon to help quell the violence and hopefully bring about a solid peace. The French had also sent troops in with the same intent.

Sadly, one side of that conflict decided that a political statement had to be made and it was best made by committing an act of wanton murder. Car bombs in the Marine Barracks and in the French Foreign Legion Barracks killed 300 people as they slept in their beds or made quiet converstation, while they wrote letters home or played cards to while away the time. Reagan's response, to our later detriment was to pull out the troops and thereby set the stage for the radicalization. This singular act of the islamo-fascists was not about bringing peace to the area or retaliating against evil invaders; it was about fostering further hatred and bloodshed. The factions that perpetrated this act did not want peace, did not want a cessation of the bloodshed, did not want anything that might reconcile the differences between the factions engaged in essentially civil war for that would not suit their aim.

It is a truism in behavior modification that behaviors you want repeated you reward, and behaviors you want extinguished you either punish, cease rewarding and allow them to fall by the wayside. This has been proven time and time again in human behavior and the islamo-fascists have been amply rewarded time and again by the non-reaction, or worse, the placid acceptance of terrorism as a fact of life in this modern, psychotic reality we call the present. And yet, our leaders (and those of the western world) have not learned that truism. From Carter, to Reagan, to Bush 41 to Clinton to Bush 43, all have fallen short of the need to smack down this latest incarnation of the vile fascist ideology. True, all but Carter has lobbed more than a few bombs. Reagan punished Kadaffi with a few attacks, Bush 41 pushed back Saddam from Kuwait with mostly the approval of the world, Clinton lobbed a few missles and bombing runs, but in large, they all have not focused on the danger presented by the islamo-fascist. Indeed, neither has most of the world and the cancer has grown apace.

In current political thinking, the war in Iraq is not seen as a war against the islamo-fascist by most, it is seen rather, by many, as a flawed expidition based on inadequate at best, or faked intelligence at worst. Yet, the idea was sound, take out Saddam, a drive a wedge between two state sponsers of terrorism. Both Iran and Syria are part and parcel of the growing mindset of islamo-fascism present in the world today, and indeed, other middle east states join in this enterprise on the stealthy side. Some more so like Saudi Arabia who exports a Wahabbist extreemism to some less so like Pakistan whose intelligence apparat openly sides with Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

9/11 focused us on the need to destroy Al Qaeda in it's hatred of the US and the western world. Let no one doubt that Bin Laden and his fellow travelors want to do that indeed. From the train bombings in Madrid to the bus bombings in London, to the attempted attacks in Germany, to the nighclub bombs in Bali, and the "car burning" orgies of Paris, and the attempt to take down a dozen airliners plotted in England, there is a war going on, a war that is concieved in the mindset of the islamo-fascists and carried out across the globe.

We, in the west have political leaders who call Islam the "Religion of Peace" and perhaps it is. There is certainly evidence in the Koran to support that declairation. There is also evidence in the old testament of the Bible to state that there is much in the Judeo-Christian that is warlike and blood-thirsty. Yet, there are differences too. Much of the Koran is filled with extortations to force the non-muslim into either dihimmitude or death. You won't find that in the New Testament. You will see Muslim street demonstrations calling for the death of the so called "Great Satan" or Israel and the Jews, or even England, but you won't find huge crowds of Christians or Jews calling for the death/destruction of say Saudi Arabia or Syria or Iran, though, given the actions of those three countries that may come in the future, in fact, demonstrations against Syria and to a lesser extent Iran are now ongoing in Lebanon following the implication of at least Syria in multiple political assasinations, but that is for a latter post. You seldom (never?) see Christians rioting in the streets because Christ was the subject of a cartoon. A cartoon for Pete's Sake. And the Muslim Rioters? Why they held up signs saying "Death" and "Behead" to those who depict Mohammad in a cartoon. Not to say anything about shooting a nun in the back because the Pope quoted an Emperor speaking hundreds and hundreds of years ago.

Part of the current political divide in this country over the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism, between those who support the "pull out" crowd or at least support something similar and those who support the effort in Iraq and continuing the war on terrorism is the degree to which the individual, clique, political party or tribe see the threat of islamofascism.

In organizational psychology courses and management courses political tactics within an organization are often discussed. There are a number of such tactics and Andrew DuBrin has written extensively on their use and their benefits as well as their drawbacks. The internal conflict between Democrats and Republicans, or, if you will, between left of center and right of center often revolves around taking the opposite side of the argument, regardless of the rightness of any given argument. Thus, if the right calls for stern measures against islamo-fascists the left takes either an appeasement approach or the vaunted (but oh-so-difficult) cut and run approach. The political tactic often used in this conundrum is "embrace or demolish." In other words, do it my way or I'll cut you to pieces; if you do not see it my way, see my vision, I will make your life miserable. The Democrats famously used this as "The Politics of Personal Destruction" implying that the Republicans were the one's using this tactic, when in fact, it was entirely mostly the Democrats who used said politics. This is not to say that the Republican's didn't do their share. So we get such stellar terms as Rethuglicans, Dimocrats, etc. I've even used some of these terms myself, and meant them too. But no one has called me anything if not partisan and I make no claim to be otherwise. Anothe tactic is called "manipulate classified information." The Democrats accuse Bush 43 of doing just that when he gave reasons for going into Iraq, the Democrats believed it too, until they saw that they could make political hay out of saying "Bush Lied."

But this is not about the left or the right, except in-so-far as it applies to what to do about the islamo-fascists.

U.S. interests have been attacked again and again by the islamo-fascists. 1993 the first bombing of the World trade center, killing 6, wounding more than 1000. 1996 bombing of the U.S. military housing complex in Dhahran,Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen and wounding hundreds of people. 1998, bombing of two US Embassy's (again, and act of war according to international law) in both Keyna and Tanzania killing 264 people and wounding thousands. 2000 an attack against a US warship the USS Cole killing 17 and wounding 39. 2001, flying two airplanes full of passengers into the World Trade center, the Pentagon and one plane in which the passengers fought back but the plane crashed into a field killing all onboard. And still the mayhem goes on in Iraq where Muslim kills Muslim in sectarian violence and Al Qaeda and their ilk and supporters in Syria and Iran egg the whole process on.

It should be a truism that if someone says that they want to kill you, you should believe them and take appropriate action. To date, many of us on the left and the right take Al Qaeda and the other islamo-fascists at their word, but disagree on what to do.

We have seen what doing nothing will do and we have seen it since the waining days of the Carter Administration. You cannot talk to these people for they think talking is just another way of whiling away the time until they can cut your head off. You cannot reason with these people for they are bereft of reason. Here recently, we had 6 Imams or Islamic Scholars loudly praying, acting "suspicious" and otherwise deliberately causing a ruckus. They excused this by saying that we, of the west, should have knowledge and understanding of Islam. They on the other hand, have no need to understand the very understandable fears of 6 Islamic men, acting strangely in a plane and reacting the way in which the passengers did. It boggles the mind.

And yet the need to do something should be paramount to all in the west, regarless of whether they consider themselves left or right, but that does not seem to be the case. For if we do not, we acques to this darkness of the heart, and we will drink bitter tea for a long time to come before the west finally rises up and smacks down the new fascism running rampant in the world. The Pope has been threatened in his upcoming trip to Turkey, Iran threatens to annihilate Israel. Gazans rain rockets on Israel for getting out of Gaza. CAIR defends the indefensible and the world stands by, watches, and shrugs its collective shoulders.

Perhaps Dr. Sanity said it best regarding the 6 Imams issue, but with applicability to my whole theme:

And, even more than all that, I am thoroughly disgusted with all western leaders who continually seek to appease what cannot be appeased; who in their cowardly fashion spout multicultural and politically correct nonsense as they sell-out Western values and freedoms; who want to endlessly "dialogue" with barbarians; who want to protect the rights of those who want to kill us; and denounce anyone who has the courage to stand up to the monsters of Islam. I am filled with inarticulate anger at the western media who, rather than fulfilling its historic mission to tell truth to power, now uses its enormous power to silence the truth.

The darkness of the heart continues to grow, and we have no will to sap its strength or its rate of growth.

Technorati tags: Islam, terrorism, religion, islamo fascism, Politics

Filed under: War on Terror, Middle East Politics and Terror, and Militaria.

Will U.N. and Democrats Ignore WMDs in Iran?

What should be done about weapons of mass destruction in Iran? Members of the U.N. and the Democrats repeatedly attacked President Bush for his somehow believing that poison gas bombs, chemical weapons, and a nuclear program of Hussein in Iraq didn't count as WMDs, that Husseins' uncooperation did not matter, and that no action against Hussein was justified. What does count as WMDs and what could cause enough concern in Iran to justify action there?

Next are a progression of articles about Iran's nuclear program, ending with serious information reported today. (In them, emphasis is added.) If Bush isn't capable of handling Iran's WMDs, as the Democrats claimed about his handling of Iraq's, what will the Democrats do about Iran's nuclear program? Will they act in time? This could be more suspenseful than using your secret decoder pin for Orphan Annie's secret messages. Stay tuned, but don't have high expectations.

Continue reading "Will U.N. and Democrats Ignore WMDs in Iran?"

"New" Democrats Seek War Advice from Old

McGovern to Meet With Congress on War

George McGovern, the former senator and Democratic presidential candidate, said Thursday that he will meet with more than 60 members of Congress next week to recommend a strategy to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by June.

June? Why should it take them so long? Oh, and let's tell the terrorists our withdrawal timetable so that they know how long to hold out.

It's not taking long for the Democrat's true colors to start showing. They're just as bad as the old ones. Why didn't someone warn us?

New Version of Hangman

It reminds me of those games at arcades with the big claws to pick up prizes. However, the Left is going to claim that this game doesn't meet "international standards" for fun. Blame Bush.

via b3ta (caution-language)
thru J-Walk (caution-hates Bush)

Liberal Response to Hussein's Death Sentence

Even I was a little flabbergasted at liberal reactions to Saddam Hussein's death sentence for crimes against humanity. I guess I expected some silence from them, as this news might help the Republican election effort. Rather, liberals and left-wing radicals condemned the death sentence against this murdering dictator. It raises the questions as to whose side they favor and what are their values.

Continue reading "Liberal Response to Hussein's Death Sentence"

Helping the West to Understand Arabs

Stephen Browne, a teacher and a writer and politically a Libertarian, authors a site titled "Rants and Raves". He worked for one year in Saudi Arabia, which changed his preconceptions of Arabs and led him to new observations about them. He provided these in his post appropriately titled "Observations on Arabs."

His views can be debated, but they offer a point to begin considering how we should interact with people from the Mideast and to help us minimize mistakes in our dealings with them. Stephen Browne's points are enumerated below, but his site provides expanded explanations after each one, which is worth reading. He begins with this qualifier:

So, with the caveat that one of the first things I learned was that the term “Arab” covers a lot of territory, here are some observations and some tentative conclusions about Arabs, more specifically about Arabs from the oil states about why we have misunderstood each other to the point that we are fighting a war with some of them and are (ticking) off the rest of them. I suspect that many of these also apply to Iranian Islamists, but I have never been there and note that Iranians are not Arabs and have a different cultural history.

Observations on Arabs.

01. They don't think the same way we do.
02. When you meet them in just the right circumstances, they are a very likable people.
03. Their values are fundamentally different from ours, their self-esteem is derived from a different source.
04. Not only can they not build the infrastructure of a modern society, they can't maintain it either.
05. They do not think of obligations as running both ways.
06. In warfare, we think they are sneaky cowards, they think we are hypocrites.
07. In rhetoric, they don't mean to be taken seriously and they don't understand when we do.
08. They don't place the same value on an abstract conception of Truth as we do, they routinely believe things of breathtaking absurdity.
09. They do not have the same notion of cause and effect as we do.
10. We take for granted that we are a dominant civilization still on the way up. They are acutely aware that they are a civilization on the skids.
11. We think that everybody has a right to their own point of view, they think that that idea is not only self-evidently absurd, but evil.
12. Our civilization is destroying theirs. We cannot share a world in peace. They understand this; we have yet to learn it.

Interesting. Does understanding offer hope? Well, here's something else that he wrote in his introduction, which is consistent with point twelve:

I came back with the gloomy opinion that over the long run we are going to have to hammer these people hard to get them to quit messing with Western Civilization.

Well, that sobers one up pretty quickly. Unfortunately, I had come to a similar, but unresearched, impression myself. I hope we're wrong.

Maybe, to help the Arabs, we can put together a list of "Observations About Westerners"...unless, that's one of the things that we're supposed to avoid. My first point would be "Westerners don't like people from the Mideast messing with them." I'm not sure that they would care or see a threat.

Is Browne's list on target? Is there any hope for understanding and peace between the Western world and the Mideast?
.

Found at J-Walk Blog

Diversity and Political Correctness Run Amok!

Dangerously Subversive Dad has a post noting the ultimate in Diversity and Political Correctness.

It seems that a policeman in England, who happens to be a muslim, has been excused from having to guard the Israeli Embassy on "moral grounds,"

PC Alexander Omar Basha told chiefs he was unable to carry out duties at the London embassy — a top terror target — due to moral grounds after Israeli bombings in Lebanon.

DSD is obviously upset about this, but also upset by a Tory, specifically one Richard Barnes:

Richard Barnes, a Tory member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, accused senior officers of lacking tact. He said: ‘I think it was crass management in the first place. They should have recognised there could have been a problem and not suggested this officer be posted at this embassy."

"The Met keep banging on about diversity, but this case shows they have learned very little at all."

Officer Barnes, this is not about "diversity" this is about "Political Correctness" and it is monumentally stupid. As DSD notes:

The Tory Party has purely and simply endorsed racism here. The idea that any public servant is free to make moral judgments and then decide to exclude their service from those they deem unfit, immoral or evil for that service is a truly disgusting and pernicious one."

"I got mugged last week, and my mum last year. So I'm not serving you in this Post Office cos you're black and so were the muggers."

"So what if someone ripped off your veil and spat in your eye? I may be a copper but I dont like Muslims, I was on a tube train on 7/7."

"No, I'm not letting you through the ticket barrier - you're obviously a Sikh judging by that turban, and Sikhs killed the Prime Minister back in India, the bastards. As a good Hindu I reserve the right not to let you on the train."

"No way son, I know this is a youth club for everyone but well, you have to understand that as a Jew I feel you bear some responsibility for what is happening to the Palestinians. So you're not getting in."

DSD is right on the money, but the original jerk in this little drama, Alexander Omar Basha is not only wrong, he is so far off the mark as to be ludicrous. Which of course, brings me to a "moral" argument from the other side of the coin:

Palestine, Refugees and Honesty

In a series of threads on this Blog and on Marc Cooper's blog I've engaged an ideological opponent who writes under the name of Ahmed. Ahmed resents the support that I have given Israel in the war against Hezbollah and has accused me of a variety of things, not the least of which is xenophobia (a morbid or irrational fear of strangers) and of being less than honest:

Woodruff i was asking Gm Roper about a specific but very important claim he made which ive argued is not only totally false but also quite revealing in its dishonesty and historical ignorance

The issue being discussed was the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians at the re-establishment of the State of Israel and the Arab treatment of Jews at the same time. I maintained at the time that while some 600,000 + Palestinians left Israel some 1,000,000 plus Jews were expelled from Arab lands.

Ahmed took umbrage at my characterization of the differences and claimed that I was being dishonest and historically ignorant. Woody, my blogging partner rose to my defense with the following:

When G.M. gets back in circulation, he can take this up further with you. But, rest assured, he discusses issues honestly and intelligently. If you dispute his facts, then clear those up. If you dispute his honesty, then that "fact" of yours is wrong. [emphasis added]

Ahmed, will, I'm sure, be understanding if I disagree with his assessment. But he has a point of sorts, there is a lot of misunderstanding about what happened at the founding of Israel, what happened to both Jewish and Arab refugees and what the history says, especially since I'm being accused of being historically ignorant. Well, Ahmed, here are a few facts. You will, no doubt, dispute the source of these, but there are numerous citations to back up the quotes as you will see, some Israeli sources, some Arab sources and some United Nations sources, but all with substantial agreement that a substantial number of Arabs left the burgeoning state of Israel for a couple of reasons, but were not forced out at the point of a gun or by the evil Israeli IDF thugs in jackboots. So, lets begin the recitation shall we.

Continue reading "Palestine, Refugees and Honesty"

Russia to UN: Sanctions Don't Work

Russia got it wrong but, on the other hand, Russia got it right: Russia & Iranian Sanctions

WRONG: Russia on Friday rejected any talk for now of sanctions against Iran, and France warned against conflict with Tehran, raising doubt whether it will face swift penalties for not halting nuclear work by an August 31 deadline.

RIGHT: "I know of no instances in world practice and previous experience in which sanctions have achieved their aim and proved effective," Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told reporters during a trip to Russia's far east.

So, I guess that Russia finally admits, in effect, that sanctions against Iraq were meaningless, too. Just think, it has taken them fifteen years to come to the same conclusion as that of President Bush before he sent our forces in to depose Saddam Hussein with no help from them or the U.N.

But, you will see more stalling in the United Nations and more threats of toothless sanctions while Iran continues to build its nuclear weapons capability. Is the U.N. useless or what?

Media Distortion - It Gets Worse and Worse

Reporting distortions by the media is like keeping up with Bill Clinton's women. The media has so many transgressions that it becomes tedious keeping up with them, and the large numbers might have the effect of numbing people to this problem. Nevertheless and without great fanfare, here's the latest, courtesy of the Left's Least Loved, Michelle Malkin:

It's not just Reuters

The NYTimes issues a correction to its pieta online photo caption: "...The man pictured, who had been seen in previous images appearing to assist with the rescue effort, was injured during that rescue effort, not during the initial attack, and was not killed."

Just a slight difference. To continue, here's more....

"Fauxtography" alert: NYTimes and USNews;
plus Time and Reuters' Issam Kobeisi

Take a close look at the cover of US News magazine. The image and the story context imply that (an armed Lebanese man) is at the scene of an Israeli airstrike or explosion caused by IDF artillery. The same guy appears in a photo taken by none other than ex-Reuters camera man Adnan Hajj. He's pointing a gun at the site of the explosion. Only guess what? The site is...as Allah points out, a garbage dump.

Well, it stinks.

This is too much, so I simply refer you on. Malkin's site has other examples, but you may want to check a particular reference from her, Free Republic's "Fauxtography" list, which keeps up with the on-going story of reporting fraud to customers by the major media. If you're going to read all of them, get comfortable first. This could take some time.

Where's Ralph Nader and Michael Moore when you want someone to blow the whistle on corporate wrong-doings?

Caught Again...and Again: Media Fakes Another Picture

Yet, one more faked photo from Lebanon courtesy of Reuters....
found here and here at "The Jawa Report."

This one involves the alteration of a picture of an Israeli F-16 dropping a defensive flare to decoy surface to air missiles; but, the picture was altered by adding multiple copies of that flare for dramatic effect, and then the picture's caption said that these were actually missiles being fired from the jet against a city in southern Lebanon.

This fake reporting makes things worse. It inflames passions and wrongly increases public opinion and world pressure against the United States and Great Britain to modify and moderate mideast policies to suit the phony reports rather than the real situation. The press, in effect, rallies the public for its agenda rather than that of our nations--and, they're not the same.

This irresponsibility of major media should be a concern of the left rather than whether or not it gives fodder to conservatives. From Dan Rather's MemoGate to now, it has gotten to the point where I have to check the bloggers who catch the lies before I can believe the articles from the major media.

The world needs honesty in reporting, and we're not getting it.

Found at Woody's Blog (No, not mine. His.),
referencing The Jawa Report

Caught Again! Media PhotoShops War in Lebanon

The left has enjoyed days of rejecting and attacking conservative bloggers who claimed that photographs and film clips from Lebanon were phony. GM Roper's (the GENIUS behind this blog) blog-father Marc Cooper stepped in with: The five days of shameless, nauseating speculation by the right side of the 'sphere that the massacre in Qana was somehow staged now comes to a crashing halt. Cooper's minions joined him and attacked G.M. Roper, too.

Well, now it's time to look at the shameless manipulation of the truth by the media and how it "now comes to a crashing halt"...and, as caught by bloggers in the U.S. at that! How embarrassing!

Reuters admits altering Beirut photo

Reuters withdraws photograph of Beirut after Air Force attack after US blogs, photographers point out 'blatant evidence of manipulation.'

Earlier, Charles Johnson, of the Little Green Footballs blog, which has exposed a previous attempt at fraud by a major American news corporation, wrote: "This Reuters photograph shows blatant evidence of manipulation. Notice the repeating patterns in the smoke; this is almost certainly caused by using the Photoshop “clone� tool to add more smoke to the image."

The Sports Shooter web forum, used by professional photographers, also examined the photo, with many users concluding that the image has been doctored.

Adnan Hajj, the photographer who sent the altered image, was also the Reuters photographer behind many of the images from Qana – which have also been the subject of suspicions for being staged. (Emphasis mine)

Oops. That last sentence must hurt the self-righteous left which attacked the right for pointing out inconsistencies. Our leftist buddy, Randy Paul, titled lgf as the Little Green Fascists on Marc Cooper's post. Well, it looks like the "fascists" got it right on this one. Here's more if you enjoy this: PJM's ReuterGate!

Oh, don't think that hatred and disdain of conservatives that you observe is isolated.

Reuters employee issues 'Zionist pig' death threat

The message, sent from a Reuters internet account, read: "I look forward to the day when you pigs get your throats cut." It was sent to Charles Johnson, owner of the Little Green Footballs (LGF) weblog, a popular site which often backs Israel and highlights jihadist terrorist activities.

But, the left wants to attack bloggers who catch their lies. They want to concentrate on a drunk Mel Gibson, an actor, instead of a journalist who manipulates the news for a major outlet. Does anyone wonder why I distrust the major media and why it has become less and less relevant as a source of information?

I'm beginning to believe that Reuters represents many of the individual and collective views and expressions on the left. Those on the left hate light being shined into their dark corners of deceipt. Otherwise, where is the outrage?

Mideast Headline With No Surprise - #1

Sometimes you see headlines and stories that make you say, "Duhhhh." Here's one. Any surprise here?

Mideast war rages on despite UN peace resolution

Israeli troops fought gun battles with Hizbollah in south Lebanon and warplanes hit roads and bridges across the country on Sunday, hours after the U.N. Security Council received a draft resolution to end the war.

Maybe the U.N. should pass ten or fifteen more resolutions. Why, that paper war might have worked in Iraq if given another twenty years and can work in Lebanon once everyone on one side is dead.

The U.N. created Israel in 1948 and there has not been a permanent peace there since. Why do nations pretend that the U.N. can do anything for peace anywhere?

Mideast Headline With No Surprise - #2

The second "headline with no surprise" comes courtesy of former President Jimmy Carter. Surely, at this point, no one is surprised when Carter criticizes President Bush (and America) and tries to make people think that he really has all the answers. Let's see. Carter let our Iranian Embassy be taken over by radical Islamic fanatics, and it took him 444 days to get our hostages out of there--but, wait. That didn't happen until President Reagan was sworn into office!

Carter: Bush 'worst ally Israel has had'

Carter said the United States should work for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah and the world community should concentrate on a long-term solution, but he is uncertain whether Bush can accomplish a cease-fire.

"It depends on whether world opinion is strong enough to get the administration to change its erroneous policy, which has been to encourage the continuation of attacks on both sides."

President Carter also called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Carter has the answers? Well, consider the following book discussion from the ultra-left wing magazine "The Nation," which I use out of every consideration to make Carter look good, which turns out to be impossible. (It also mentions a previously disproved claim about a Republican "October Surprise," which the Democrats claim in one form or another every September.)

Henry Kissinger in particular felt that Carter's foreign policy was "weak-kneed" and that Carter himself was "ill prepared and poorly suited" for the presidency.

("Taken Hostage" author David Farber) doesn't necessarily disagree with Kissinger's assessment. He portrays Carter as catastrophically unaware of the escalating situation in Iran until events had spun completely out of control. Reading Farber's account of Carter's earnest yet clumsy handling of the hostage crisis, one can't help but share Gary Sick's assessment that the White House seemed to be approaching Iran from a position of "unrelieved ignorance." Certainly Carter's unconsidered praise of the deeply unpopular Shah and his appraisal of Iran as "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas in the world," indicates a shocking lack of insight into a country that almost everyone, including the President's own ambassador to Iran, recognized was on the verge of chaos and revolution.

But Carter's failure to anticipate and adequately deal with events in Iran was not entirely owing to his lack of political acumen. America's intelligence community had been severely handicapped....

...which he handicapped more. Yeah, let's listen to this man. He makes President Bush look like a genius in Iraq.

Sometimes we just need to be reminded about what President Carter actually did when he was in office before we consider taking his advice today.

Did'ja Notice?

Has anyone besides me noticed that the left accepts the scientist's "consensus" on "Global Warming" cause "scientists" know better, but doesn't accept the Arab worlds "consensus" that Hezb'ollah is the aggressor here and needs to be stopped in spite of the fact that as muslims they probably know better also?

What is it with consensus? Is it the ruling meme or not? The world wants to know!!

Now We Find Out: Kerry was better. Just ask him.

Boy, did we blow it. We had two choices for President and guess what we now find out from this article.

U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass....took time to take a jab at the Bush administration for its lack of leadership in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict. "If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry during a noon stop at Honest John's bar and grill in Detroit's Cass Corridor.

Do you think that Sen. Kerry stopped a little too long at Honest John's bar before making that statement? Did he mention leading some swift boat attacks to bring peace in Lebanon?

“Cry ‘HAVOC’ and let slip the dogs of war!�

No Pasaran has an interesting commentary:

Western tofs given to marching in the streets and staging absurd, Self Indulgent antics for the death of their ideological alignments and opponents last month are in no position to demand (an odd sort of) peace this month out of the other side of their mouths.

He is right of course, the left has a lengthy history of asking for peace, but what is peace? Is it just the absence of war? Or is it something else. Is it justice where an ideaological strain doesn't seek to dominate the world according to some 7th century madman? Is it where any faith can take another faith on its own merit and let it be? Is it where one nation can freely trade with another with out fear of being overwhelmed? Is it where children and women have rights, where gay's aren't stoned or thrown from buildings, where reporters aren't beheaded just becuse they are Jews?

It is all this and more. But to insure peace, we must also ask whom are we dealing. With terrorists? With rogue states? Can anyone name a rogue state that has kept its promises? Nazi Germany? The Soviet Union? North Vietnam? North Korea? Iran? Saddam's Iraq? No, none of these. How about Hezb'ollah? Hamas? The PLA? No, none of these either. So, in the current strife I'm curious as to why the left, the EU, etc are asking for "restraint" on the part of Israel because of the death of civilians? Did those same entities ask for restraint on the part of Hezb'ollah or Hamas or the PLA? No? Why am I not surprised.

War is a very nasty business as numerous countries in the last 100 years or so have discovered when they tried to subjigate other peoples, and yes, that includes the invasion of Iraq. A very nasty business and people and children and women die and property is destroyed. John Stewart Mill noted:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

Perhaps Patrick Henry, in a single speech said it best:

For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
[...]
"I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry Hezb'ollah for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves..." (wording changed for effect)
[...]
"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard terrorist shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power." (wording changed for effect)
[...]
"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

If this makes me a cheerleader for the Israelis or a "fighting 101^st keyboardist, so be it.

I Never Expected to Agree with Alan Dershowitz

The Anti-Israel Double Standard Watch by Alan Dershowitz

So here is the deal Israel should offer. If Hamas and Hezbollah think there is a moral equivalent between the Israeli soldiers they kidnapped and the terrorists who are being held by Israel, let them begin by treating the Israeli soldiers the way Israel treats its prisoners. Let the Red Cross visit them. Let them communicate with their families. Let them have access to judicial review. Of course, neither Hamas nor Hezbollah will do any such thing, because they are terrorist organizations who do not operate within the rule of law.

Those who support them, or who suggest a moral equivalency between terrorists who target civilians and soldiers who defend civilians, are morally obtuse--or worse.

And, to think that this is the same attorney who helped Patty Hearst and O.J. Simpson.

I've Bought My Last Persian Rug

Two can play this boycott game. From an alleged news source:

Parvin Heydari, an Iranian mother of two, was flipping back and forth between the nightly news and Oprah when a bulletin on an Iranian state channel caught her attention. It urged Iranians to boycott what it called "Zionist products," including those made by Pepsi, Nestle and Calvin Klein, and warned that profits from such products "are converted into bullets piercing the chests of Lebanese and Palestinian children." As evidence, the voice-over intoned, "Pepsi stands for 'pay each penny to save Israel.'"

But, the article continued:

Heydari says she changed the channel, as she has no intention of crossing Nestle's Nesquik off her shopping list. "Lebanon has nothing to do with us," she says. "We should mind our own business and concentrate on policies that are good for our economy, and our kids."

Okay, if she can continue buying American, then the least I can do is to continue buying oil from that region. Maybe there are a few sane voices rising up in the mideast. I wish they were in charge.

Free Alaa

Bloggers are lining up to support Alaa, a blogger in Egypt who has been taken into custody and who has been supported by The Sand Monkey. Please sign the petition to Free Alaa and urge President Bush to withhold the $2 billion in aid that Egypt receives until more democratic policies are in place and functioning. We cannot Force Mubarrak to be democratic, but we don't have to pay for his autocracy.

Tip of the GM Derby to Glenn Reynolds

Tracked to Kender's Musings and Hard Astarboard