Sunday, April 29, 2007
Jan 29th was a cold foggy morning and the Orcs plan to cross the Nasser Canal was under way. Everyone knows that Air can't fly in the fog. Even Orcs. Orcs are not Stupid. Under the cover of fog the morning was perfect time to transfer a load of weapons and supplies. But the law of the Unknown Knowns caught up to the Ocs that cold foggy morning. And what the Orcs didn't know was a killer : When the Fog rolls in and hides the canal from the Air---the canals are still OWNED by DSU-3 Marine Riverines. The look on Orc faces when DSU 3 came flying up the canal to intercept the transfer of RPG's, AK-47's, bombs must have been Priceless. All the Orcs knew is one second they are alone on the canal unloading boats and next the Pillars of Heaven start shaking, Poison arrows falling from the sky and some of them are being roughly introduced to the Hell of Ruling the Universe from the Grave. The ones that could---ran.
"Even though I was wounded in an ambush, once I heal up I am more than willing to go back over. Good things are happening out there. The US has effectively lassoed Anbar province and the fighting there has slowed greatly. In Haditha there were many engagements daily, but now there is usually only 1-2 attacks a week now. The US, IA's and IP's have made it very difficult for insurgents to operate in the cities and our DSU Marines made it just as difficult to traffic weapons, drugs, money, and men on the waterways that connect all the cities in Al Anbar.''
Saturday, April 28, 2007
"There are many reasons, each would take a post to list, and I just do not have the energy to list them. As anyone who has been reading this blog for the past month, I think it is apparent that things are not the same with me. There are reasons for that:
One of the chief reasons is the fact that there has been too much heat around me lately. I no longer believe that my anonymity is kept, especially with State Secuirty agents lurking around my street and asking questions about me since that day. I ignore that, the same way I ignored all the clicking noises that my phones started to exhibit all of a sudden, or the law suit filed by Judge Mourad on my friends, and instead grew bolder and more reckless at a time where everybody else started being more cautious. It took me a while to take note of the fear that has been gripping our little blogsphere and comprehend what it really means. The prospects for improvment, to put it slightly, look pretty grim. I was the model of caution, and believing in my invincipility by managing not to get arrested for the past 2 and a half years, I've grown reckless. Stupid Monkey. Stupid!...........
.....So here comes my apology to those of you who read me: I am sorry. I really can't continue to do this. You guys have been the best readers anyone could hope for, altough there are some of you who made me come close to shutting down the comments section many many times. I love you all for everything you have done for me, for all of the egyptian blogsphere. When I asked for your help, you gave us more than a helping hand. You cared. You gave a damn about a bunch of egyptians who had a dream to be free and stood by us in our houres of need. For that you are my heroes, and I can not possibly thank you enough.
May the day comes when I rant once again…."
Love you all,
Abd al Hadi, Voted Most Intelligent, Most Experienced, Most Ruthless, Is in the Bag at Guantanamo Bay-Times Online
Abd al-Hadi, an Iraqi, was captured LAST YEAR trying to cross the Iraqi border over from Iran. In the terrorist circles Hadi is considered second only to Laden and the Master Mind of the Brit's 7/7. Given the time interval between capture and press announcement, Hadi has had lots of singing practice.
Abd al-Hadi was taken into CIA custody last year, it emerged from US intelligence sources yesterday, in a move which suggests that he was interrogated for months in a “ghost prison” before being transferred to the internment camp in Cuba.
Abd al-Hadi, 45, was regarded as one of al-Qaeda’s most experienced, most intelligent and most ruthless commanders. Senior counter-terrorism sources told The Times that he was the man who, in 2003, identified Britain as the key battleground for exporting al-Qaeda’s holy war to Europe.
Abd al-Hadi recognised the potential for turning young Muslim radicals from Britain who wanted to become mujahidin in Afghanistan or Iraq into terrorists who could carry out attacks in their home country. He realised that their knowledge of Britain, possession of British passports and natural command of English made them ideal recruits. After al-Qaeda restructured its operations in Pakistan’s tribal areas he sought out young Britons for instruction at training camps. In late 2004 Abd al-Hadi met Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, from Leeds, at a militant camp in Pakistan and, in the words of a senior investigator, “retasked them” to become suicide bombers.
They were sent back to Britain where they led the terrorist cell that carried out the 7/7 bombings, killing 52 Tube and bus passengers.
Pakistani intelligence sources said that Abd al-Hadi was also in contact with Rachid Rauf, a Birmingham man now in prison in Pakistan and alleged to be a key figure in last summer’s alleged plot to blow up transatlantic airliners in mid-flight.
Friday, April 27, 2007
"Mr. President, the supplemental appropriations bill we are debating today contains language that would have Congress take control of the direction of our military strategy in Iraq.
Earlier this week the Senate Majority Leader spoke at the Woodrow Wilson Center and laid out the case for why he believes we must do this--why the bill now before this chamber, in his view, offers a viable alternative strategy for Iraq.
I have great respect for my friend from Nevada. I believe he has offered this proposal in good faith, and therefore want to take it up in good faith, and examine its arguments and ideas carefully and in depth, for this is a very serious discussion for our country.
In his speech Monday, the Majority Leader described the several steps that this new strategy for Iraq would entail. Its first step, he said, is to "transition the U.S. mission away from policing a civil war--to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. forces, and conducting targeted counter-terror operations."
I ask my colleagues to take a step back for a moment and consider this plan.
When we say that U.S. troops shouldn't be "policing a civil war," that their operations should be restricted to this narrow list of missions, what does this actually mean?
To begin with, it means that our troops will not be allowed to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would instead be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them--no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes.
In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians--men, women, and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone. It means turning our backs on the policies that led us to intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles that today lead many of us to call for intervention in Darfur.
This makes no moral sense at all.
It also makes no strategic or military sense either.
Al Qaeda's own leaders have repeatedly said that one of the ways they intend to achieve victory in Iraq is to provoke civil war. They are trying to kill as many people as possible today, precisely in the hope of igniting sectarian violence, because they know that this is their best way to collapse Iraq's political center, overthrow Iraq's elected government, radicalize its population, and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East that they can use as a base.
That is why Al Qaeda blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra last year. And that is why we are seeing mass casualty suicide bombings by Al Qaeda in Baghdad now.
The sectarian violence that the Majority Leader says he wants to order American troops to stop policing, in other words, is the very same sectarian violence that Al Qaeda hopes to ride to victory. The suggestion that we can draw a bright legislative line between stopping terrorists in Iraq and stopping civil war in Iraq flies in the face of this reality.
I do not know how to say it more plainly: it is Al Qaeda that is trying to cause a full-fledged civil war in Iraq.
The Majority Leader said on Monday that he believes U.S. troops will still be able to conduct "targeted counter-terror operations" under his plan. Even if we stop trying to protect civilians in Iraq, in other words, we can still go after the bad guys.
But again, I ask my colleagues, how would this translate into military reality on the ground? How would we find these terrorists, who do not gather on conventional military bases or fight in conventional formations?
By definition, targeted counterterrorism requires our forces to know where, when, and against whom to strike--and that in turn requires accurate, actionable, real-time intelligence.
This is the kind of intelligence that can only come from ordinary Iraqis, the sea of people among whom the terrorists hide. And that, in turn, requires interacting with the Iraqi people on a close, personal, daily basis. It requires winning individual Iraqis to our side, gaining their trust, convincing them that they can count on us to keep them safe from the terrorists if they share valuable information about them. This is no great secret. This is at the heart of the new strategy that General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out.
And yet, if we pass this legislation, according to the Majority Leader, U.S. forces will no longer be permitted to patrol Iraq's neighborhoods or protect Iraqi civilians. They won't, in his words, be "interjecting themselves between warring factions" or "trying to sort friend from foe."
Therefore, I ask the supporters of this legislation: How, exactly, are U.S. forces to gather intelligence about where, when, and against whom to strike, after you have ordered them walled off from the Iraqi population? How, exactly, are U.S. forces to carry out targeted counter-terror operations, after you have ordered them cut off from the very source of intelligence that drives these operations?
This is precisely why the congressional micromanagement of life-and-death decisions about how, where, and when our troops can fight is such a bad idea, especially on a complex and changing battlefield.
In sum, you can't have it both ways. You can't withdraw combat troops from Iraq and still fight Al Qaeda there. If you believe there is no hope of winning in Iraq, or that the costs of victory there are not worth it, then you should be for complete withdrawal as soon as possible.
There is another irony here as well.
For most of the past four years, under Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the United States did not try to establish basic security in Iraq. Rather than deploying enough troops necessary to protect the Iraqi people, the focus of our military has been on training and equipping Iraqi forces, protecting our own forces, and conducting targeted sweeps and raids--in other words, the very same missions proposed by the proponents of the legislation before us.
That strategy failed--and we know why it failed. It failed because we didn't have enough troops to ensure security, which in turn created an opening for Al Qaeda and its allies to exploit. They stepped into this security vacuum and, through horrific violence, created a climate of fear and insecurity in which political and economic progress became impossible.
For years, many members of Congress recognized this. We talked about this. We called for more troops, and a new strategy, and--for that matter--a new secretary of defense.
And yet, now, just as President Bush has come around--just as he has recognized the mistakes his administration has made, and the need to focus on basic security in Iraq, and to install a new secretary of defense and a new commander in Iraq--now his critics in Congress have changed their minds and decided that the old, failed strategy wasn't so bad after all.
What is going on here? What has changed so that the strategy that we criticized and rejected in 2006 suddenly makes sense in 2007?
The second element in the plan outlined by the Majority Leader on Monday is "the phased redeployment of our troops no later than October 1, 2007."
Let us be absolutely clear what this means. This legislation would impose a binding deadline for U.S. troops to begin retreating from Iraq. This withdrawal would happen regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, in short regardless of reality on October 1, 2007.
As far as I can tell, none of the supporters of withdrawal have attempted to explain why October 1 is the magic date--what strategic or military significance this holds. Why not September 1? Or January 1? This is a date as arbitrary as it is inflexible--a deadline for defeat.
How do proponents of this deadline defend it? On Monday, Senator Reid gave several reasons. First, he said, a date for withdrawal puts "pressure on the Iraqis to make the desperately needed political compromises."
But will it? According to the legislation now before us, the withdrawal will happen regardless of what the Iraqi government does.
How, then, if you are an Iraqi government official, does this give you any incentive to make the right choices?
On the contrary, there is compelling reason to think a legislatively directed withdrawal of American troops will have exactly the opposite effect than its Senate sponsors intend.
This, in fact, is exactly what the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq predicted. A withdrawal of U.S. troops in the months ahead, it said, would "almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict, intensify Sunni resistance, and have adverse effects on national reconciliation."
Second, the Majority Leader said that withdrawing our troops, and again I quote, will "reduce the specter of the U.S. occupation which gives fuel to the insurgency."
My colleague from Nevada, in other words, is suggesting that the insurgency is being provoked by the very presence of American troops. By diminishing that presence, then, he believes the insurgency will diminish.
But I ask my colleagues--where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel'Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?
On the contrary--in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.
So I ask advocates of withdrawal: on what evidence, on what data, have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency, when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that this legislation will strengthen it?
Consider the words of Sheikh Abdul Sattar, one of the leading Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province who is now fighting on our side against Al Qaeda. This is what he told the New York Times when asked last month what would happen if U.S. troops withdraw. "In my personal opinion, and in the opinion of most of the wise men of Anbar," he said, "if the American forces leave right now, there will be civil war and the area will fall into total chaos."
This is a man whose father was killed by Al Qaeda, who is risking his life every day to work with us--a man who was described by one Army officer as "the most effective local leader in Ramadi I believe the coalition has worked with in Anbar [since] 2003."
In his remarks earlier this week, the Majority Leader observed that there is "a large and growing population of millions--who sit precariously on the fence. They will either condemn or contribute to terrorism in the years ahead. We must convince them of the goodness of America and Americans. We must win them over."
On this, I completely agree with my friend from Nevada. My question to him, however, and to the supporters of this legislation, is this: how does the strategy you propose in this bill possibly help win over this population of millions in Iraq, who sit precariously on the fence?
What message, I ask, does this legislation announce to those people in Iraq? How will they respond when we tell them that we will no longer make any effort to protect them against insurgents and death squads? How will they respond when we declare that we will be withdrawing our forces--regardless of whether they make progress in the next six months towards political reconciliation? Where will their hopes for a better life be when we withdraw the troops that are the necessary precondition for the security and stability they yearn for?
Do my friends really believe that this is the way to convince Iraqis, and the world, of the goodness of America and Americans? Does anyone in this chamber really believe that, by announcing a date certain for withdrawal, we will empower Iraqi moderates, or enable Iraq's reconstruction, or open more schools for their children, or more hospitals for their families, or freedom for everyone?
Mr. President, with all due respect, this is fantasy.
The third step the Majority Leader proposes is to impose "tangible, measurable, and achievable benchmarks on the Iraqi government."
I am all for such benchmarks. In fact, Senator McCain and I were among the first to propose legislation to apply such benchmarks on the Iraqi government.
But I don't see how this plan will encourage Iraqis to meet these or any other benchmarks, given its ironclad commitment to abandon them--regardless of how they behave.
We should of course be making every effort to encourage reconciliation in Iraq and the development of a decent political order that Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds can agree on.
But even if today that political solution was found, we cannot rationally think that our terrorist enemies like Al Qaeda in Iraq will simply vanish.
Al Qaeda is not mass murdering civilians on the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenues. Its aim in Iraq is not to get a seat at the political table.
It wants to blow up the table--along with everyone seated at it. Al Qaeda wants to destroy any prospect for democracy in Iraq, and it will not be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. It must be fought and defeated through force of arms. And there can be no withdrawal, no redeployment from this reality.
The fourth step that the Majority Leader proposed on Monday is a "diplomatic, economic, and political offensive starting with a regional conference working toward a long-term framework for stability in the region."
I understand why we are tempted by these ideas. All of us are aware of the justified frustration, fatigue, and disappointment of the American people. And all of us would like to believe that there is a quick and easy solution to the challenges we face in Iraq.
But none of this gives us an excuse to paper over hard truths. We delude ourselves if we think we can wave a legislative wand and suddenly our troops in the field will be able to distinguish between Al Qaeda terrorism and sectarian violence, or that Iraqis will suddenly settle their political differences because our troops are leaving, or that sweet reason alone will suddenly convince Iran and Syria to stop destabilizing Iraq.
Mr. President, what we need now is a sober assessment of the progress we have made and a recognition of the challenges we face. There are still many uncertainties before us, many complexities. Barely half of the new troops that General Petraeus has requested have even arrived in Iraq, and, as we heard from him yesterday, it will still be months before we will know just how effective his new strategy is.
In following General Petraeus' path, there is no guarantee of success--but there is hope, and a new plan, for success.
The plan embedded in this legislation, on the other hand, contains no such hope. It is a strategy of catchphrases and bromides, rather than military realities in Iraq. It does not learn from the many mistakes we have made in Iraq. Rather, it promises to repeat them.
Let me be absolutely clear: In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost--but if we follow this plan, it will be. And so, I fear, much of our hope for stability in the Middle East and security from terrorism here at home.
I yield the floor."
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Fighting Orcs, Remington Raiders and Office Pogs--Case against the Haditha Marines Bogus, Baseless, Barn Yard Pure B!S!
In a nutshell, the case exploded when an intelligence officer dropped a bombshell on prosecutors during a pre-hearing interview when he revealed the existence of exculpatory evidence that appears to have been obtained by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and withheld from the prosecutors.This officer, described by senior Marine Corps superiors as one of the best and most dedicated intelligence officers in the entire Marine Corps, was in possession of evidence which provided a minute-by-minute narrative of the entire day's action - material which he had amassed while monitoring the day's action in his capacity as the battalion's intelligence officer. That material, he says, was also in the hands of the NCIS.Much of that evidence remains classified, but it includes videos of the entire day's action, including airstrikes against insurgent safe houses. Also included was all of the radio traffic describing the ongoing action between the men on the ground and battalion headquarters, and proof that the Marines were aware that the insurgents conducting the ambush of the Kilo Company troops were videotaping the action - the same video that after editing ended up in the hands of a gullible anti-war correspondent for Time magazine.When asked by the prosecution team to give his copies of the evidence to the prosecution, he told NewsMax.com that he was reluctant to do so, fearing it would again be suppressed or misused, but later relented when ordered by his commanding general to do so.
Confronted by the massive mounds of evidence that Marine Corps sources tell NewsMax proves conclusively that the cases against the Haditha Marines are baseless, the prosecutors were forced to postpone the Article 32 against Lt. Col. Chessani and two of the enlisted men in an attempt to regroup.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
PBS' documentary whitewashes Islamist threat in USA. Could have been scripted by CAIR propagandists. Big P.S. To the Mall shoppers. It was
The IBD tells it like it is...PBS sucking up to Islamic Front...big time...Your tax dollars at work...nothing to see...move along...nothing to be alarmed about...move along go back to your shopping.
PBS' Homage To Islamism
Islamofascism: PBS just aired a "documentary" intended to chronicle "the diversity of Muslim life in America." So why does it give so much face time to anti-American Islamists?
Secular Muslims who want to reform Islam are nowhere to be found in producer Robert MacNeil's film, "The Muslim Americans," part of a PBS series called "America at a Crossroads." Instead, extremists masquerading as moderates are lionized.
Take Sheik Hamza Yusuf, who has a starring role. According to MacNeil, the California imam preaches "tolerance" and "peace," and even hiply incorporates the "Super Bowl" into his sermons. This, we are told, is the progressive face of Islam in America.
To prove Yusuf's bona fides as a moderate and a patriot, MacNeil notes that he was one of the Muslim clerics invited to the White House after 9/11. But he leaves out the fact that just two days before the attacks, the same imam suggested in a speech to Muslims that America deserved severe punishment.
"This country is facing a terrible fate," Yusuf said in California on Sept. 9, 2001. "The reason for that is that this country stands condemned like Europe stood condemned because of what it did. And lest people forget that Europe suffered two world wars after conquering the Muslim lands, Europe's countries were devastated, they were completely destroyed. Their young people killed."
FBI officials investigating 9/11 were so alarmed by Yusuf's rhetoric that they paid him a visit at his Santa Clara, Calif., home to question him about it, according to the Washington Post. When they knocked on his door, the Post reported, his wife answered and told them he wasn't home. "He's with the president" in Washington, she said. The agents thought she was joking, but she wasn't.
The film also left out the fact that Yusuf's partner, imam Zaid Shakir, has lauded the "armed struggle" that brought about the rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Shakir also recently confided to the New York Times that he'd like to see the U.S. become a Muslim country ruled by Islamic law.
Clearly, MacNeil was conned by the subjects of his film. That's why it was important to have anti-jihad watchdogs involved in such a project. But PBS rejected them — Frank Gaffney, in particular. Gaffney's own documentary exposing such extremists, "Islam vs. Islamists," was replaced by MacNeil's sop.
According to Gaffney, MacNeil refused to air "Islam vs. Islamists," because it is "alarmist" and "extremely one-sided." Gaffney, in turn, blasted MacNeil's film as "an appalling, politically correct but disinforming paean to organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Student Association and others who are part of the Islamist problem in this country."
CAIR and MSA also are lionized in the PBS film that aired in place of Gaffney's. Several executives of CAIR, a spinoff of a Hamas front, have been convicted of terror-related crimes. MSA was funded by the Saudis, and founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Ignoring such relevant facts, PBS dismisses criticism of CAIR as coming from "pro-Israeli groups." And it likewise pooh-poohs MSA's critics as "right-wing bloggers."
The film quotes a CAIR official boasting, "We have the law on our side," in reference to its exploitation of freedom of religion statutes to spread Islam in America. Later in the film, it praises MSAs for acting as good "ambassadors of Islam" on college campuses after 9/11, saying nothing of the militant anti-Israel rallies it's sponsored.
PBS' documentary whitewashes the Islamist threat inside the country. It could have just as easily been scripted by CAIR propagandists.
Your tax dollars at work.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
"Major universities in the Washington area will be among more than 70 U.S. campuses participating in nationwide "Islamo Fascism Awareness Day" events today.
The events at Georgetown, Catholic University and George Washington University in the District, George Mason University in Fairfax and the University of Maryland's Baltimore County campus will feature screenings of "Obsession," a documentary film about Islamic radicalism, as well as discussions of related issues, including terrorism and the war in Iraq.
The campus project was planned by conservative writer and activist David Horowitz as a response to attempts last year by officials at Pace University to prevent a Jewish student group from hosting a screening of "Obsession" on the university's West-chester, N.Y., campus.
Mr. Horowitz, whose Terrorism Awareness Project is sponsoring tomorrow's events, said the use of the term "Islamofascism" is part of the educational mission of the "teach-ins" planned around the film showings.
"The most important thing is to make people recognize who the enemy is. People cringe when we use the word 'Islamofascism' because they haven't been prepared for it," he said in a telephone interview, adding that there are real similarities between Islamic extremism and the fascism of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. "It's not for nothing that the Iranian army goose-steps."
"Obsession" won best feature-film honors at the 2005 Liberty Film Festival. It has been widely praised by conservatives and broadcast on the Fox News Channel.
The movie made headlines when members of the Pace chapter of Hillel, a collegiate Jewish organization, said they were "intimidated" by university administrators after a campus Muslim group complained of Hillel's plan to show the documentary in November as part of Judaism Awareness Week.
Pace President David A. Caputo last month said "no such coercion or intimidation was intended" and apologized "for any action that may have unfortunately led to that belief."
Pace is among the schools where "Obsession" will be shown as part of this week's "teach-in." Other universities participating in the project include Notre Dame, Ohio State, Columbia and Dartmouth.
Several of the events will feature special hosts introducing "Obsession." Former Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, will host the Georgetown screening; other hosts include talk-radio personalities Allan Nathan at George Washington, Frank Pastore at the University of California at Los Angeles, Melanie Morgan at San Francisco State University and Martha Zoller at Georgia Tech.
The use of campus "teach-ins" reflects Mr. Horowitz's history as an early leader of the 1960s-era student New Left movement that opposed U.S. involvement in Vietnam. In the 1970s, Mr. Horowitz became disillusioned with the movement, renounced his pro-communist past and advocated the re-election of President Reagan in 1984. In recent years, Mr. Horowitz has increasingly focused his activism toward colleges and universities.
"There's a pall of political correctness over the campuses," Mr. Horowitz said.
Despite his support for the Iraq war and his staunch Republicanism he was one of the so-called "Pioneers" who helped raise contributions for President Bush's election campaign in 2000 Mr. Horowitz is critical of the Bush administration's use of the term "war on terror" to describe its policies since the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks.
"Terrorism is an inadequate word," Mr. Horowitz said. "It's true that the enemy uses terror as a first weapon, but it's inadequate to understand what we are up against. It's about a mass movement of fanatics who want to convert the world to Islam and Shariah law."
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Rocco DiPippo is an American Thinker contributor and blogger at The Autonomist,
In early December, near the height of the sectarian killing in Baghdad, I took a long trip, accompanied by a civilian personal security detail, through that city and out into the surrounding towns and villages. I saw many improvised checkpoints which looked like they belonged in a Mad Max film. Getting past them intact was a matter of luck and cunning. At two of them, I barely avoided being dragged out of my car. There were several moments during that trip that I thought I would be taken hostage, or killed. You see, back then, near-anarchy sat in place of law and order.I encountered almost 40 checkpoints that day. Most were illegitimate--hastily set up by tossing a few cement-weighted metal poles on each side of the road and channeling traffic through them. I didn't know who was manning the checkpoints, or what their agendas or alignments were. Uniforms of those manning the checkpoints, when even in evidence, were mismatched and sloppy.Were those controlling the checkpoints "policemen" looking for Shiites or Sunnis to kill? (Terrorists in Iraq often pose as policemen; policemen in Iraq are often terrorists.) Were they legitimate members of the Iraqi Army or legitimate Iraqi Police looking to capture or kill terrorists and criminals? Were they tribesmen looking to capture, hold for ransom or kill members of a rival tribe, or were they common street criminals looking to rob, beat, rape or murder people. Were they anti-West Islamic fanatics or street criminals looking for Americans to ransom or kill?Nearly every checkpoint reeked of badness.As we rolled up to each one, tension inside the car would spike. I grasped a pistol, and prepared to use it. I did not feel afraid --in retrospect, I must have been afraid -- but the seething anger I felt watching shemagh-wrapped hunters (yes, these people were hunting humans) at some of those checkpoints masked the fear I must have been experiencing deep in my psyche.That day, for the first time in my life, I faced the possibility of having to kill someone, or to be killed by them. And not only was I prepared to kill in order to protect my life, I felt an urge to kill the hunters of humans, and wanted to satisfy it by emptying my weapon into the head of any one of them who might threaten harm to me, the men with me or to the visibly frightened people in the cars around us.Many times that day I looked out of the car's windows and saw fear: fear in the eyes of the people in the cars around me, fear in the eyes of people by the roadsides and on the streets. I could see fear in the way men walked, in the way women carried their children, in the way people crossed a street or nervously looked at passing cars or other people. Until that day I had never seen such pervasive fear. It is something I cannot forget.People who have done no wrong should not have such fear of other people. Those innocents must somehow be protected from the human-hunters. It is the right thing to do, and America's soldiers are rightly trying to do that. Yet if the American Left and the American Democratic Party accomplish their goal of pulling the protectors from Iraq before law and order there is restored, shemagh-wrapped hunters will stalk their human prey with impunity. They will murder hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent men and women and children in Iraq. And some day America will pay a dear price for that folly when the hunters of humans, the Islamic religious fanatics, the bombers and the woman haters, emboldened by their victory in Iraq and possessing the resources to amplify their destructiveness and to extend its reach, again take aim at America's shores.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Liberal Democrats breed a certain softness, which is a problem because we are at war with savages. (AKA Orcs) It takes democracies a while to recognize threats to their existence. (AKA get your head out of your tuckas)
Thursday, April 12, 2007
For a refreshing change--one just one Presidential candidate actually understands why the ORCs are Out in Force....
EARLIER IN THE WEEK, THERE WAS A LESS-NOTICED SPEECH BY A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. Mitt Romney, speaking at the Bush Presidential Library offered the following assessment of the larger war:"I think many of us still fail to comprehend the extent of the threat posed by radical Islam, by Jihad. Understandably, we focus on Afghanistan and Iraq. Our men and women are dying there. We think in terms of countries, because we faced countries in last century's conflicts. But the Jihad is much broader than any one nation or nations.
For radical Islam, there is one conflict and one goal – replacing all modern Islamic states with a caliphate, destroying America, and conquering the world.”
Monday, April 09, 2007
Episode 4---Wherein the spineless lemmings rush headlong to surrender to the Vampire Orcs---even before they are confronted and Nelson wept....
Please don't offend the Iranians
Patricia Hewitt, health secretary in Tony Blair's Cabinet, was upset by pictures broadcast from Iran of the 15 captive British sailors and marines, reported Christopher Booker of the Sunday Telegraph.
"It was deplorable that the woman hostage should be shown smoking," Ms. Hewitt said. "This sends completely the wrong message to our young people."
When liberals cower when petty thugs make threats (which is pretty much whenever petty thugs make threats), conservatives, understandably, suspect them of cowardice. But Ms. Hewitt's bizarre response to her country's humiliation suggest something else is at work.
The most remarkable aspect of this most recent Iranian hostage crisis is the lengths to which so many prominent people in the West have gone to make excuses for inexcusable Iranian behavior.
Patrick Cockburn, writing in The Independent, said the crisis was America's fault because the U.S. military had captured six suspected Iranian intelligence officers in a raid in northern Iraq on Jan. 11.
Iran has been supplying money, weapons (most U.S. troops killed in Iraq in the last year have been killed by Iranian-manufactured IEDs), training and perhaps more to various insurgent groups in Iraq.
Three of the six arrested in the Erbil raid were members of the Quds Force, the overseas terrorist arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. They may have been directing terrorist attacks.
"The abortive Erbil raid provided a dangerous escalation in the confrontation between the U.S. and Iran which ultimately led to the capture of 15 British sailors and marines," Mr. Cockburn said.
"According to this version of events," said Kenneth Timmerman, a journalist who writes frequently about Iran, "if the United States and Britain would just allow Iran to run roughshod over Iraq, supply terrorists with weapons and suitcases of cash, everything would be just fine,"
Some liken liberal appeasers to those Britons who wanted to make a deal with Hitler after the fall of France in 1940. That's unfair to those appeasers. Their attitude was not honorable, but it was reasonable. The Nazis then possessed a substantial advantage in military power. Today's liberal appeasers embrace dhimmitude even though it's the West that has a huge military and economic advantage.
This extent to which liberals are willing to accept inferior status to Muslims even in their own countries is mind-boggling. In Britain, schools are dropping references to the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims, the Daily Mail reported. In Minneapolis, some Muslim cab drivers reject passengers carrying alcohol, and Muslim clerks in a grocery store have refused to wait on customers who want to buy pork products. In several Western countries, some Muslim cab drivers have turned away blind passengers with seeing-eye dogs. (Many Muslims consider dogs "unclean.")
Liberals are not so much terrified by the threat radical Islam poses as they are oblivious to it. A recent poll indicated a majority of Democrats are more worried about global warming than Islamic terror. While many liberals do indeed need to have backbones surgically implanted, more need to have their heads examined.
One dummy dhimmy is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is under the mistaken impression she was also elected secretary of state. She was unwilling to bring up for a vote a resolution supporting the British in the hostage crisis, but was eager to suck up to Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.
The Washington Post was not impressed by Ms. Pelosi's bumbling foray into foreign policy: "As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel, but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri."
Britain and America (apparently) gave up little to secure release of the hostages. Mr. Timmerman thinks a quietly delivered threat of force (and the arrival of an aircraft carrier to make it credible) was critical to obtaining their release. But Iran won because Iran suffered no consequences for its outrageous behavior.
Most parents understand that if you give ice cream to a 2-year-old each time he throws a tantrum, he will have more tantrums, not fewer. But liberals have convinced themselves that the way to moderate the behavior of Islamic thugs is to offer them apologies and concessions whenever they behave thuggishly.
The infidels Allah is about to destroy, he first makes mad. I suspect that Mahmoud the Magnanimous (as journalist/blogger Jules Crittenden has dubbed the president of Iran) believes this. And with liberals taking his side against their own governments, who can blame him?