It’s raining in Israel.  You won’t hear about it on the weather channel, though, because it’s not your typical rain.  Sadly, the fact that rockets are raining down on the Israeli town of Sderot won’t be found easily on the regular news either.  No, it is more likely you will hear about actual rainfall in Sderot than the sort that Hamas is barraging the Israelis with.

And if you do hear about the rockets, you’ll likely get a distorted view.  Likely you’ll hear about “a few” rockets “injuring” Israelis, and then, in the next breath you’ll discover all the atrocities the Israelis perpetrated retaliating or defending themselves, as though Americans or Europeans wouldn’t react the same way to a steady downpour of missiles….

This is what we always forget when we discuss Israel–how would we respond?  After 9/11 we invaded Afghanistan.  If New York or Chicago was suddenly bombarded with a daily helping of rockets and suicide bombers, you can be damn sure the American military would respond, and probably not gently.  Israel does its best to not involve civilians, but the terrorists and militants occupy buildings and areas where the civilian population is dense.  This serves two purposes: first of all, it deters Israel from striking back with full force; second, it makes Israel look bad, and gains sympathy for the militants.

The world is quick to forget the lessons of the Holocaust.  Somehow it is easier to ignore the signs than to heed them.  It is more comforting to dismiss the Iranian calls to “wipe Israel off the map” than to stand up to these statements.    Perhaps we are too quick to desire peaceful solutions to complicated problems–not that we shouldn’t wish for peace, but perhaps we should look for it in a different manner.  I think we wish that irrational people would think rationally–that hateful people will suddenly embrace love.

Waiting for Iran and the other Arab States to come to the realization that they can live in peace with their Democratic neighbor, Israel, is a pipe dream in the current set of circumstances.  It will never happen so long as Iran is ruled by the iron, theocratic fists of the mullahs and extremists.  The extremists have no desire to find a peaceful solution, because peace undermines their power.  Don’t look to Hamas for a diplomatic solution, regardless of their newfound political status as elected gunmen.

The only way to take power from the extremists and terrorists is to cripple them, take away their effectiveness, and reveal them as the cowards and criminals that they are.  When they can no longer harm Israel, then maybe their own people will realize who their true enemies are.  Israel must, of course, do this in as humanitarian a way as possible.

Perhaps someday the mainstream media will start telling the truth about Israel and the rain in Sderot.  Until then, hopefully the online community and the supporters of Israel can keep speaking the truth, and spreading information about what’s really going on in the Holy Land.  Peace can be achieved, but not by working with terrorists whose only goal is the utter destruction of Israel.

In the Korean War, we weren’t fighting the Koreans. Not really. We were fighting the Chinese, but we didn’t call it the Chinese War in Korea. Everybody knew that this was happening, that the Chinese were heavily involved in the war, and that without their influence, we probably would have stopped the North Koreans–but it was easier to continue calling it the Korean War. Could stronger diplomacy with China have changed the course of events?

Iraq is the same. We’re not really fighting Iraqi insurgents. Now that we’ve chased many of the major al-Qaeda elements out of the country, we’re not really fighting them either.

We’re in a proxy War with Iran.

Iran has sponsored illegal militias since the formation of the Maliki government in 2006. The Qods Force, Iran’s premier terrorist training team and exporter of its revolution, provided between $750,000 and $3 million-worth of equipment and funding to Iraq’s militias monthly in the first half of 2007, according to U.S. Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner.

More information about the Qods Force and the Iranian “Special Groups” who are the puppet-masters behind the Sadr militia and many other Shiite militias in Iran can be found here.

Ms. Kagan writes a very informative article about the depth of Iranian funding and training of “insurgents” in Iraq. For an even more detailed look at the Iranian smuggling of arms and general support to their Iraqi counterparts, visit this site.

It’s apparent that what’s happening in Iraq is not so much about the welfare of the Iraqi people, but as an attempt to undermine America’s influence in the region. Essentially, Iran is exporting, in a violent fashion, their “Revolution” to Iraq. Both are Shiite countries, and while one is Persian and the other Arab, the Shiite bond is strong. Iraqi Sunis aren’t too fond of the idea, and while they helped US forces drive the Suni terrorists organization al Qaeda out of Iraq, the Shiites have done nothing to halt the flow of Iranian influence in their country.

Indeed, this war has no hope of every ending so long as US and Iraqi forces can’t stop the Iranian presence. This will probably not be won through military means alone, although the recent show of strength from the Iraqi government is a sign of progress, even if the execution was not entirely successful.

People worry that we might invade Iran, or strike them militarily. I propose that it is too late to avoid war with Iran, as we are already caught up in it. It is not, however, too late to broker a peace. The moment Iran decides to stop intervening against the Iraqi government is the moment peace will return to the Iraqi people. al-Qaeda alone is no more than an organization of thugs, but Iran is a rich, influential, and powerful nation. It’s time they realized that peace in the region will lead to greater stability for everyone involved. If they do not, we may need to take greater lengths to disable their actions in Iraq.

Every day, Sderot–the little town near the Gaza Strip in Western Israel–is hit with countless Qassam Rockets. Some days only a few rockets are fired, at random, into the streets of Sderot. Other days several dozen fall down amongst the heads of the civilian population there. It’s hard to believe anyone would call that an attack against “occupying forces.” Still, the Israelis are ignored in their plight, as their men, women, and children are targeted indiscriminately by the terrorists in Gaza.

Now, as an American, I’m not terribly familiar with a Qassam. They look like giant fireworks, but pack a much fiercer punch. This is not to say that they are terribly effective weapons, but they are certainly devices of terror.

Production of the Qassam began in September 2001 during the al-Aqsa Intifada.

The Qassam was developed by Nidal Fat’hi Rabah Farahat and Mohamed Khaled and named after Izz ad-Din al-Qassam who led a group of fighters in the 1930’s. So, one cannot argue that it’s a fitting choice of title: an object of Terror named after a Terrorist.

Indeed, many Israelis view the Qassams more as “more a psychological than physical threat.“

Still, imagine the constant fear–the paranoia! Imagine your town was subjected to a constant barrage of rocket fire? Even if the missiles themselves were poorly designed. The terrorists fire these things at random, we must remember, and they strike innocents. A rocket will kill you, even if it is a lousy one. And yet, the media responds to all of this as though these “crude” rockets were nothing more than a minor nuisance.

I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want any sort of rocket fired at my town. Would any American? Would anybody anywhere?

So About that Qassam….

The rocket contains four small stabilizing wings on one end, a middle section containing the engine, and an attached warhead with a detonating fuse on the other end. The rocket is constructed from iron approximately 2.5-3mm thick.

Qassam rockets are fueled by mixture of sugar and potassium nitrate, which is a widely available fertilizer. The warhead is filled with TNT and urea nitrate.

They are free-flying rockets, utilizing no guidance system.

Basically, they’re big steel tubes filled with explosives that Hamas fires off at random, while hiding themselves behind masks (as Islamic extremists are prone to do out of…shame?)

I mean, in discussing the anatomy of a Qassam, there’s just not all that much to say…they’re the technological evolution that occurred when throwing rocks proved too ineffective. In that regard, Hamas did well. Blowing up children is a much more effective way to meet with Israeli reaction and bring hellfire down on your head.

The only thing accomplished by Hamas in their use of Qassams, aside from killing innocent Israeli civilians, is bringing more death and chaos to their own people. In the end, that is the legacy of the Qassam. The lives of innocent Jews and Arabs.

And peace will never happen while the Qassams keep falling.

Resources

• List of Qassam rocket attacks.
• Global Security
• Al Qassam Homepage (don’t you love the Internet?)

~ by Michael A. Minton

OK, look, I’ve had it. Enough of this crap is enough! When will the world, INCLUDING the United States, stop laying down under the threats of Islamo-fascism? A couple of years ago, most American newspapers (if they can still call themselves that), totally chickened-out on printing the Danish cartoons depicting the supposed-prophet mohammed with a bomb hidden in his turban. Why? For fear of Muslim reprisal. How ridiculous!

As I pointed out in an article then, they sure didn’t have a problem showing a picture of the Virgin Mother Mary painted with elephant crap. Nor was it beyond their high moral standards to show pictures of the masterpiece of a crucifix which had been dipped in urine and called “Piss Christ.” Yet they refuse this other stuff, which has much more validity.

I think the only real reason the Muslims got mad about the whole bomb-turban thing was that it unwittingly revealed plans for their next attack.

(more…)

Hizbullah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, speaking via satellite to a crowd gathered in Beirut asked an interesting question (and provided an even more interesting answer):

Can Israel disappear? A thousand times, yes.

Now, it’s true that the Jewish people have been cast from their homeland a few times, so perhaps the seeming discrepancy in Nasrallah’s logic isn’t so off-kilter after all. A thousand times, though?

The content of his speech, however, remains disgusting and fanatical no matter how you look at it. Nasrallah has shown himself to be little more than Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s mouthpiece and finger-puppet.

The two men certainly have their similarities. Nasrallah has said of the Jewish people:

If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide. (Daily Star, Oct. 23, 2002)

and

If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli. (New Yorker, Oct. 14, 2002)

Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric is less direct, but equally as virulent and reproachful. Of the Holocaust he has said that:

they have concocted a myth of deprivation and innocence for the Jews of Europe. They use this pretext of the innocence of Jews and the suffering of some Jews during the Second World War. Riding on the crest of a wave of anti-Jewish sentiments, they have laid the foundations for the Zionist regime.

Both of these cowards are heroes to many in the Islamic world. This is the sad state of affairs that the Muslim world faces. Their leaders are not only ignorant, they propagate terror, murder and genocide. Not content to wield power over the rest of the Middle-East, they must possess the tiny Jewish homeland as well. Having only the two Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina, not to mention the countless other Islamic sites that dot the region, they must also control Jerusalem, the historically Jewish Holy City. Islam is a much younger religion than Judaism, and any claims that religion makes to Jerusalem can in no way supercede the Jews’ claims.

For some reason, the Arabs feel they have more of a right to the Jewish homeland than the Jews themselves. This has nothing to do with Zionist tyranny or fascism as the Islamists and sympathizers call it. Muslims enjoyed more freedom and more prosperity under a Jewish State than under any of their oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia or Syria.

No, this is Antisemitism and Islamism combined. Islamism is a factor all over the Middle-East. Lebanon, which is heavily populated with Christians, is constantly under Syria’s control, with hired thugs like Nasrallah leading the continued campaign of fear and control. Christians, however, make much less appealing targets than Jews. Antisemitism is far more prevalent, and the concept of Zionism allows men like Ahmadinejad free reign to spew their hatred without actually saying that they hate Jews. One word replaces the other.

No, if Israel were a Christian nation the Arab governments would still try to destroy it–however they would meet with much stiffer world resistance from the rest of the world. Fortunately for Iran, Syria and the terrorists, they have the Jews to target instead, and two thousand years of worldwide animosity toward a people whose homeland was wrenched from them so long ago. Unfortunately for these States and the terrorists they sponsor–they sponsor terrorists because their attempts at actually attacking Israel militarily have been constant embarrassments–Israel has proved far more resilient than they hoped. The Israelis have turned out to be much stronger and much more strong-willed than the Arabs thought.

“The Zionists are the true manifestation of Satan” the Iranian President has told the world. He and his puppet, Nasrallah, and the terrorists they control are sure to fight Israel to the death (though surely not their own death, nor even the death of Iranians–they use pawns and so-called Palestinians to do their dirty work). There is no peace for such men. In another speech, Ahmadinejad said:

Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented

Are these the words of a man seeking peace? No, these are the words of a man seeking a cease-fire and a bit of breathing room to build up arms in Gaza and the West Bank. After all, if the end goal is the “elimination of the Zionist regime” aka Israel, then why should he want a cease-fire?

To re-arm and re-deploy terrorists, plain and simple.

It’s time the Israeli government, and the American government, woke up to the scary reality of the enemy. These are Hitler’s heirs, bent on the eventual destruction of Israel, and the elimination of the Jews. “If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide” Nasrallah said. And he means it.

The question is, will we let him get his wish, or will we stop the half-measures and ill-named “peace talks” and move on to a stronger policy? Will we allow the terrorism and rocket-fire to continue, broken only during “cease-fires” that allow the enemy to gather their strength or will we move toward a policy of overwhelming and nonnegotiable strength?

Sometimes the only way to save life and preserve the peace is to defeat the enemy once and for all, and leave them no room to continue their killing. Not through talks with liars like the men who lead Hamas. Only when the killing stops and the terrorists are broken will retaliation no longer be necessary. Only then can peace be achieved.

 I read this over at Israel Matzav today:

The New York Times today publishes the results of a poll of ‘Palestinians’ and discovers that an astounding 84% - the largest number to support a single terror attack - supported the murder of eight Jewish boys at the Merkaz HaRav yeshiva. Some 75% wish to terminate ‘negotiations’ with Israel and 64% support the launching of rockets on Sderot and Ashkelon. By a narrow margin, the ‘Palestinians’ also support Ismail Haniyeh over ‘moderate‘ ‘Palestinian‘ President Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen, to which the mainstream media ascribe great importance, but frankly there is little difference between them.

Looks to me like we’re dealing with a radical population, intent on the destruction of Israel; the continuance of violence and murder against innocent Israelis; and anything but a lasting peace.

Polls aren’t always the most accurate thing in the world–but these numbers are hard to argue with.

I agree with the 75% who want to end negotiations, however.  These so-called peace talks are nothing more than a cover for Hamas, Iran, Syria, and other hostiles to rearm and plan further attacks against Israel.

~by Richard Baehr

The latest survey on Palestinian attitudes should throw a glass of very cold water on the large class of Middle East peace processors, both here and in the region, assuming that they are conscious. As reported by the New York Times no less, it turns out that an overwhelming majority of Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank support violence against Israel and want an end to any talks with Israel. The kind of violence the Palestinians support includes the cold-blooded slaughter of 8 children in Jerusalem , when a gunman fired hundreds of rounds at yeshiva students in a study hall, and the firing of rockets from Gaza at Israeli cities.

Of course, Israel left Gaza in August 2005, so there has been no occupation or settlements for Palestinians to complain about since then, to use as justification for the firing of over 5000 rockets at Israel since the disengagement. While PA President Mahmoud Abbas initially condemned the Jerusalem attack, he has subsequently elevated the killer to martyr status, and the killer is now glorified in the Palestinian media as another hero of the resistance.

(more…)

~taken word for word from CNN

Swedish artist Lars Vilks says all he’s doing is taking a stand in the name of artistic expression. But because of that stand, on this afternoon he’s lying low — on the ground, in fact — looking for bombs under his car.

Al Qaeda has put a $100,000 price on his head and offered an extra $50,000 for anyone who murders him by slitting his throat after the eccentric artist and sculptor drew a cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a dog.

“I don’t think it should not be a problem to insult a religion, because it should be possible to insult all religions in a democratic way, ” says Vilks from his home in rural Sweden.

“If you insult one, then you should insult the other ones.”

His crude, sketched caricature shows the head of Prophet Mohammed on the body of a dog. Dogs are considered unclean by conservative Muslims, and any depiction of the prophet is strictly forbidden.

Vilks, who has been a controversial artist for more than three decades in Sweden, says his drawing was a calculated move, and he wanted it to elicit a reaction. Watch “I should slaughter you” »

“That’s a way of expressing things. If you don’t like it, don’t look at it. And if you look at it, don’t take it too seriously. No harm done, really,” he says.

When it’s suggested that might prove an arrogant — if not insulting — way to engage Muslims, he is unrelenting, even defiant.

“No one actually loves the truth, but someone has to say it,” he says.

Vilks, a self-described atheist, points out he’s an equal opportunity offender who in the past sketched a depiction of Jesus as a pedophile.

Still one could argue Vilks should have known better because of what happened in Denmark in 2005, when a cartoonist’s depictions of the prophet sparked violent protests in the Muslim world and prompted death threats against that cartoonist’s life.

Vilks’ cartoon, which was published in August by the Swedish newspaper Nerikes Allehanda, hasn’t reached that level of global protests, although it has stoked plenty of outrage.

Muslims in Sweden demanded an apology from the newspaper, which has stood by Vilks on his freedom of expression stand. Pakistan and Iran also lodged formal protests with Sweden.

One Swedish Muslim woman who lives just an hour-and-a-half drive from Vilks said she hopes to make good on the al Qaeda threat and slaughter Vilks like a lamb.

“I can do this in the name of Allah, and I will not fail. I could slaughter him in the name of Allah,” says the woman who identified herself only as Amatullah.

She adds, “If I get the opportunity.”

Dressed in a black burqa from head to toe and uttering death threat after death threat, the woman — a wife and mother — says she is defending her religion and her prophet if she manages to kill Vilks.

Amatullah has already been fined for issuing death threats. Still, she claims she will never stop taunting him.

Swedish police, who declined CNN’s request for an interview, have advised Vilks to abandon his home.

But the artist still works there by day and travels to a safe house by night. Vilks knows his defiance could get him killed, but he says his art is worth dying for.

As he sits at his computer, his phone buzzes with a text message. Another death threat has just come in, this one from Pakistan.

“I will kill you, you son a bitch,” he reads.

 ~from Neo-Neocon

Allison Kaplan Summer translates an Obama interview with the Israeli news source Ynet that is due to appear on Friday. Asked how he would deal with the threat of Iran and whether he would support military action if diplomacy fails, this was Obama’s answer:

I don’t believe that diplomacy alone will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. I believe that we will require our national strength in order to achieve this important goal. The biggest threat to Israel today comes from Iran, where there is a radical government that is continuing its efforts to develop nuclear weapons and continues to support terror across the region. President Ahmedinejad continues to deny the Holocaust and call for Israel destruction, and it is impossible to relate to his threats to destroy Israel as mere rhetoric. My mission when I am president will be to eliminate that threat. The time has come to talk directly to the Iranians in order to arrive at an end to their support for terror and an end to the creation of nuclear weapons. I believe that we need to offer Iran improved relations with the international community. If they do not respond to that, we must continue to intensify the sanctions.

Granted, the topic of Iran is a conundrum for most politicians. No one has what I would consider a good solution—and that’s mainly because there is none. Here Obama tries to give a balanced answer, and allay fears that he is dangerously naive about Iran and far too reliant on “mere talk” in dealing with the country. His first sentence makes that clear.

But what does he actually say after that? I find it exceedingly nebulous. What is “our national strength?” (I hope it’s just a poor translation). Is that some sort of code word for military action, or at least military threat? And if he thinks that talking with the Iranians, and offering them improved relations with the international community, will bring “an end to their support for terror and an end to the creation of nuclear weapons,” I believe he has another think coming.

And sanctions? Iran is not a country especially likely to be affected by them, for a number of reasons delineated here. And here’s a more recent article describing the probable futility of such efforts. It’s unfortunately a matter of too little, too late, and with too little support from the world at large.

Sanctions are an effective tool only under certain very limited conditions. As even the left/liberal Israeli paper Haaretz points out, the sanctions on Iran presently being considered by the international community have a chance of being imposed only because they are so very weak. There are too many players who feel it is in their best interests to keep them that way.

Even under the limited conditions in which sanctions have been successful in the past (and that includes the strong support of the entire international community involved, and the provocation of an unequivocal offense committed by the country being punished—neither of which are present with Iran), they tend to take a long time to work. The Haaretz editorial points out that most of the international community believes there’s no rush with Iran, and the 2007 US intelligence report stating that Iran had suspended its program in 2003 solidified this idea, although Israel strongly disagrees. The Haaretz editors write:

Since the publication of the intelligence assessment, and the gleeful reactions to it in Tehran, they have come to their senses in Washington and are trying to state things precisely. In appearances in Congress and in the media this month, it has been stressed repeatedly that the important dimensions are in fact the other two of the three: the production of fissionable material and the development of ground-to-ground missiles that are intended to carry the warhead.

The Haaretz editors are pessimistic about the chances of sanctions succeeding against Iran no matter who is elected US President. But there’s no question that Iran is watching the campaign with interest.

Obama’s rhetoric is designed to assure supporters of Israel that he is not soft on Iran, and that he isn’t naive enough to think that diplomacy alone will solve the situation. But by invoking intensification of sanctions as the answer (the only answer?), he shows naivete about the inherent difficulties and limitations of that approach. He is so intent to avoid saber-rattling that his words appear to eliminate any military threat whatsoever.

In contrast, McCain understands the the time-honored principle of the big stick. He also has the added benefit of a personal history that conveys an inherent “warrior” message; the big stick is assumed to always be at the ready with McCain. A recent Spiegel interview with McCain (see also Part I) contains his message to the Iranian leaders:

SPIEGEL: Would you like to see Germany reduce trade with Iran?

McCain: I think we have to punish Iran to force them to abandon their current course.

SPIEGEL: Would you be willing to talk to people like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

McCain: As long as Iran continues to announce its dedication to making the state of Israel extinct and as long as the country continues to pursue the use of nuclear weapons, I will continue to say that is not an acceptable situation. I will work with other democracies in order to find incentives and punishments for the Iranians.

SPIEGEL: Is war a legitimate instrument of politics?

McCain: Every nation has the right to defend itself. That is a fundamental right.

SPIEGEL: This reminds us of your biography….

Note the different emphasis. Although we can assume that Obama’s interview with Ynet represents his strongest statement on the subject of Iran, it differs greatly from McCain’s in both its emphasis and its force.

The distinction is far from trivial. It reflects a difference in philosophy about vital matters: the deterability of the mullahs and their ultimate intent, the effectiveness of diplomacy in dealing with such a regime, the ability of the nations of the world to agree on the threat and act together to counter it, and the conditions under which force should be used or even mentioned. In these respects, it appears that Obama and McCain live in different universes.

The IAEA has released a new report on Tehran’s development of Nuclear capabilities.

The report states that Iran has carried out a series of experiments associated with the production of nuclear weapons, high velocity explosives, and uranium enrichment. Teheran has also reportedly carried out simulations of warhead detonations and tests involving Polonium 210, a material used to develop nuclear weapons.

This leads to the inevitable question: If Iran were to get its hands on a Nuclear weapon, what would they do with it?  If I were an Israeli, I think I might have a good idea, and a bad feeling about the answer.

Another question: If radicals are “elected” into leadership roles in Pakistan, where the Bomb already exists, what would they do with it.

If I were an Israeli or an Indian, I think the answer to that question would send me nightmares.

As an American, the only thing I can say is this: We cannot allow either of those scenarios to occur.  We need to work with India, Israel and others to prevent these apocalyptic events from ever happening.

We need to do so in as humane a matter as possible, and of course should approach the matter with at least some level of diplomacy.  But if it comes down to it, we need to be prepared to use force, either to end Iran’s nuclear ambitions, or to keep Musharraf or at least a Secularist in power in Pakistan.

Sometimes even Democracy must be sacrificed, at least temporarily, to save the World.

Well, I’m not planning on adding a “joke of the day” section to this blog, but on this Leap Year February the 29th, I just couldn’t resist. So here it is:

Millions of Russians have voted in general elections expected to confirm President Vladimir Putin’s popularity, but blighted by claims of fraud.

~The BBC

and….

Claims on Monday of widespread ballot-rigging have marred the poll from the day before, which gave United Russia more than 64 per cent of the vote, which will translate into 70 per cent of seats in the Russian parliament.

~Al Jazeera

and…

“I headed United Russia ticket, and, of course, it’s a sign of public trust,” Putin said in televised comments, adding that victory would let the United Russia party cement its power base in the Duma.

~CNN

and…

European election observers warned Wednesday that they might once again refuse to take part in a Russian election, saying the government was still imposing unacceptable restrictions on their work.

~NY Times

and…

The vote followed a tense Kremlin campaign that relied on a combination of persuasion and intimidation to ensure victory for the United Russia party and for Putin, who has used a flood of oil revenues to move his country into a more assertive position on the global stage.

~Fox News

So I’m not sure if this is funny because they’re still calling it an election, or because Fox, Al Jazeera, the NY Times, etc. can all agree on something. Either way, it’s already shaping up to be a hilarious Leap Year!.

Well, I’m proud to say that I did publish the Danish cartoons, and if that means a Fatwah will come raining down on me, so be it. I doubt I’m significant enough, but hey, who knows? Salman Rushdie probably wasn’t expecting a contract on his life, but then again, who is? It’s not the Dark Ages after all, right? Freedom of speech and all that–freedom of expression….

Ah, but I forgot…Muhammad is exempt from the standards to which all other political and religious and public figures are held. We can do whatever we like with Jesus, Gandhi, Bush, Blair, Buddha, et al but if we draw a bomb in the Prophet’s turban, well then! No more Legos for Muslim children! Burning flags only!

This all speaks to the general hypocrisy of Muslims and the Islamic movement as a whole. While every other citizen of the world is required to tiptoe around all things Islamic, respect every oppressive Islamic custom, deal with Islamist threats to native culture, standards and so forth, we are not allowed to send any anti-Islamic message back.

The excuse is always the same: “Oh, it’s not Islam that is to blame, it’s a few bad apples! That’s all.”

Well there are bad apples in every group and every religion, but I have yet to find another example of a religion that has spawned quite so many suicide bombers. And women haven’t been so repressed since the witch hunts as they are in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan.

So perhaps there is something inherently wrong with the religion. Perhaps we shouldn’t blame the bad apples. Could it be that they went bad because they were fed bad ideas, and made to believe in a poisonous faith? I am distrustful plenty of the Evangelical movement in Christianity, because it blindly accepts its tenets, and is willing to resort to hateful means at times, and even violence, to further its goals. Islam is almost entirely “evangelical.”

No, I believe that Muslims would be better off as Atheists, Pagans, or Buddhists. Imagine if Israel had been set up in the middle of a dozen or so Buddhist countries? Do you think any of this mess would be happening then? I sincerely doubt that Buddhists, allowed to live freely in a Democratic nation would start blowing themselves up on public buses.

So, is it about bad apples my friends? Or does the problem lie in the roots.

Technorati Tags: islam,israel,danish cartoons

Can we trust Obama to be a strong supporter of Israel?  This is a good question, no matter how you look at it.  Maybe Obama is Christian, and perhaps he never got sucked into Islam, but he certainly has Islamic sympathies.  Like many liberals here and in the EU, Obama has convinced himself that the Palestinians are somehow the victims of Israeli hostility and that a peaceful co-existence can be possible only if Israel continues to make concessions to the Arabs.

This “can’t we all just get along” belief may be nothing more than naivety, true, and I have a hard time believing that Mr. Obama has any ill-will toward Israel–I simply believe he has an inexperienced view of the Middle-East crisis and a too-liberal perspective on the hard facts about Islamism.

Nevertheless, speaking to Haaretz Obama spoke in no uncertain terms about his support for Israel in the years ahead.  So, once again, we are faced with the oratorical and rhetorical skills, left wondering about reality.  After all, what can we base our judgments of Obama on?  He is a rookie Senator.  He has practically no foreign affairs credentials.  Through what lens can we view this man, now poised to take leadership of the country?

This is the fear I feel when imagining an Obama presidency.  I don’t know what to expect, and beyond the Rhetoric of Hope, nobody else does either, not even his rabid supporters…

from Meryl Yourish

A ten-year-old boy nearly lost his arm in a kassam rocket attack yesterday. A mother and one-year-old infant were also hurt. Bet you didn’t know either of these facts. Because the wire services choose not to highlight Israeli casualties of war, except when their ignoring the Sderot victims makes them look like they’re being negligent in their duties. Oh, oh, I don’t know, when their editors get tired of writing the same-old, same-old whitewashing of terrorism.

The facts are there. You just have to find them.

Ha’aretz has video of the aftermath of the kassam attack that wounded a 10-year-old boy. It’s as heart-wrenching as any video you’ve seen on ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN of Palestinians. But you won’t see it there. Why? Good question.

In fact, although the kassam attacks that occurred after the so-called “peaceful” protest (which included a riot, described in the same articles that call the protest “peaceful”) yesterday, the attack barely rated a blip on the wire services’ Israel radar. You have to dig deeply into any of the AP stories to find that a child was severely wounded. You have to dig even deeper to find that a grown woman and her one-year-old infant were wounded. Well, deeper in the fact that the AP stories never carried that information. Hell, it took the AP eight paragraphs in their worldwide Hamas protest story before they acknowledge that anyone in Israel was hurt by the “crude, homemade missiles.”

Later Monday, militants fired 11 rockets at southern Israel, the military said. One seriously wounded a 10-year-old boy in the battered town of Sderot, just across the Gaza border.

Doctors said shrapnel cut through the boy’s shoulder, but surgeons were able to save his arm. Earlier this month, an 8-year-old boy in Sderot lost a leg in a rocket attack.

AFP put it in the next-to-last graf in a 26-graf article.

Meanwhile, an Israeli youth was moderately wounded when a rocket fired from Gaza hit the entrance to a housing complex in the southern city of Sderot, officials said.

And they justified it.

That attack came after four Palestinian militants were killed by Israel raids overnight.

I’d be outraged, but these are the same people who are blaming Muslim “youths” nightly rioting and torching of cars on poverty and failure to assimilate. The French are always ready to justify evil actions. The Vichy government wasn’t created in a vacuum.

I couldn’t find a word about it in Reuters, the BBC, or CNN. Guess it wasn’t their turn to publish the news of Israeli casualties of terrorists.

Omri found a mention in the LA Times, which uses the execrable phrase “parallel protest” when describing the kassam attack that nearly killed two children.

As Israelis watched nervously from across the border, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip staged parallel protests Monday against the Jewish state, placing a few thousand placard-waving demonstrators along the main highway and firing 11 rockets into Israel.

Sick. Twisted. That’s the only way to describe an article that calls firing weapons of death into a civilian town, hoping to randomly murder as many people as possible, a “protest.”

Here’s the story from a source that actually cares about reporting the news:

But less than two hours after the Gaza protest ended, three more Kassams reached their targets, all landing in Sderot itself. Ten-year-old Yossi Haimov, who was playing with his eight-year-old sister, Maria, in the courtyard of the apartment building where they live, was struck by shrapnel, and almost a dozen other people were treated for shock.

Eyewitnesses gathered outside the ramshackle apartment block said shortly after the strike that the boy had heard the “Color Red” siren and tried to take cover near a large cement structure. When the rocket landed nearby, it sent chunks of concrete and glass from nearby buildings flying, some of which hit the boy in his shoulder.

Maria said after the attack that the two had returned home together from school, dropped their backpacks off at home, and then left the house again to meet friends in the sandy courtyard, which is dominated by a bomb shelter and a large concrete block. Although the two tried to take cover, she soon realized that her brother had been hit.

“I saw his arm was covered in blood, but he didn’t cry,” the eight-year-old recalled, describing how she and her brother screamed for the owners of a nearby corner store to call an ambulance. Both of the children’s parents were at work when the rocket struck.

Well, he did afterwards. They were brought into a local store, and someone took cellphone images of the scene. That’s at the Ha’aretz link above. Heartache warning: Hearing an eight-year-old child scream for her brother and her mother may be hazardous to your mental health.

Magen David Adom teams managed to stop the boy’s severe bleeding, but doctors at Ashkelon’s Barzilai Hospital, where Yossi was hospitalized, said that his shoulder was shattered.

They did manage to save his arm. Not that it matters to anyone but the Israeli or Jewish media.

Really. Just when you think the MSM can’t sink much lower, they manage to make you think again.

[Meryl Yourish's site is a must-read for anyone concerned with the State of Israel, the plight of the Jewish people, and the necessity to halt Islamic radicalism throughout the globe.  NeoConstant commends Ms. Yourish and her pen, and stands with her and the Jewish people in support of Israel and Civilization.  The Editors.]

By Ardeshir Arian (pajamas media)

The Iranian regime does its best to keep a tight rein on news outlets, but new media – cell phone video, YouTube, and the countless number of blogs and news forums in Farsi means that when large-scale protests against the regime occur in public they are impossible to completely conceal.

This is apparently what happened over the weekend. Sources have told PJM of a major public uprising over the weekend in Tehran – an account corroborated by other reports on the Web.

This is the story they tell: at approximately 7 pm on Saturday, February 23, the Ershad patrol, modesty police assigned to enforce clothing regulations, accosted and attempted to arrest a young woman at Goldis Shopping Mall, located in western Tehran, presumably because her dress was not sufficiently modest.

In recent weeks, the police squads charged with enforcing modesty have become more rigorous in their enforcement, with thousands of women detained, questioned, and arrested for violating hijab standards.

Instead of meekly submitting to her fate, the woman fought back. A young man - it is unclear whether he was accompanying her - came to her defense and joined her in fighting the police. In an attempt to subdue – and humiliate him - the police grabbed the young man and threw him into the garbage can nearby.

That was when the large crowd, predominately made up of young people, rose up against the police and attempted to liberate the young woman themselves.
Faced with a full-blown riot - complete with angry crowds with garbage cans being set on fire - the frightened police jumped into the van and fled the scene, except for one unfortunate officer who was left behind. The policeman was reportedly attacked and beaten by the mob.

The police returned, reinforced by a full-fledged anti-riot unit. To gain control of the situation, members of the unit fired warning shots into the air and threatened to fire directly into the crowd. There were reports of between 10-15 arrests.

The incident documented by cell phone video that was uploaded to YouTube. While the quality of the video is extremely poor, the Farsi narration and background voices were intelligible and translatable.

Among the calls coming from the angry crowd after the police were first driven away:

“You have put us on since 1979 until now” (the Islamic Revolution of 1979) The crowd cheered after repeating the slogan multiple times.

Another slogan chanted repeatedly - accompanied by boos: “We do not want the Islamic regime”

The crowd continuously boos and heckles the police: “A revolution is happening” When a police vehicle approaches, there is a call: “Look this guy is entangled too” “He is going the wrong way”, “What the hell are you going to do?” “How many people do you think you can kill?”

Then, there are cries of “Death to the Police”

On the video, the voice of an individual – a citizen reporter - narrates: “Thy (police) arrested a girl and put her in the van, people rushed to free her from the police custody. The arresting officer let go of her and they started attacking him. The van belonging to the agents left the scene, not wanting to be hit by the people and left that officer behind. People ambushed him as he was running away from them and beat him up badly.”

In a report on the event that appeared the Iran Press Service web site, student web sites are quoted as saying “to disperse the angry mob, heavy police and anti-riot units that arrived fired into the air but were met with a crod of more than 300 people, now changing slogans against the regime and its leaders, mostly Ayatollah Ali Khameni and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, chanting “We don’t want dictatorship,” “We don’t want emergency and martial law.”

The story comes on the heels of reports of student uprisings. As with this story, the reports are nowhere to be seen in the official Iranian press or the Western media - but by those who are determined that stories of resistance are somehow told.

from Churchill’s Parrot

“Our loyal, brave people… should know the truth. They should know that there has been a gross neglect and deficiency in our defenses… This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of the bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year, unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time.”

- Sir Winston Churchill, 1938
A remarkable document has been produced by our good friends at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), the leading forum in the United Kingdom for national and international Defense and Security, founded in 1831 by the Duke of Wellington. So pointed and soaring are its words and concepts we are surprised we did not author it ourselves. In fact we did, in so many words. But as many seem apt to regard the word of high ranking British officials weightier than that of a 108 year old blogging parrot, we shall defer, for their clout and experience more than warrant it. We advise, in particular, our American cousins to consider this essay’s observations carefully, as you are less than a year away from deciding whether to follow Britain further down the path of surrender under President Obama/Clinton, or continuing the fight under President McCain.
“Security is the primary function of the state,” declares the RUSI essay Risk, Threat, and Security: The Case of the United Kingdom, “for without it, there can be no state, and no rule of law.”

Sixty years ago, such plain logic was so engrained in the minds of Western man that it scarcely required penning. Today, in the era of post-Leftist-enlightenment, it is “controversial” as the state no longer sees its rightful role as security guard, but as doting nanny charged with tending the every whim and desire of spoiled and feckless children. This dereliction of duty has not only rendered Britain disarmed militarily, but has inspired the contempt of the British people and drastically eroded their faith in their system of government. Thus the sad case of the United Kingdom. She is a soldier, thrust onto the battlefield, with neither the weaponry nor the will to fight. And, in Western democracies, while security is indeed the primary function of the state, keeping faith that theirs is a state worth securing is the primary function of the people. Neither function is being duly tended. And this, the RUSI report warns, is potentially lethal.
“The United Kingdom presents itself as a target, as a fragmenting, post-Christian society, increasingly divided about interpretations of its history, about its national aims, its values and in its political identity.”
This statement encapsulates what makes this RUSI report so remarkable to us. British defense officials have made plain their objection to governmental mismanagement and under-funding of the military before. But never can we recall this level of officialdom publicly decrying the erosion of the national character and the perils inherent therein. We and others throughout the blogosphere have been screaming this point for years. Now that it is echoed by Privy Councilors, Vice Admirals, Generals, and Field Marshals will any one listen?
“The confidence and loyalty of the people are the wellspring from which flows the power with which all threats to defense and security are ultimately met,” they rightly remind us.
And diminishment of that flow is inversely proportional to increase in vulnerability. “Our loss of cultural self-confidence weakens our ability to develop new means to provide for our security in the face of new risks. Our uncertainty incubates the embryonic threats these risks represent. We look like a soft touch. We are indeed a soft touch, from within and without.”

This is a crisis we can scarcely afford, particularly in our present circumstances.
“The country’s lack of self-confidence is in stark contrast to the implacability of its islamist terrorist enemy, within and without. … The jihadists deploy the power of conviction that comes from a sectarian understanding of religion. They also surf the Internet and use it to their advantage and our peril. They are not state-bound, but can take over part or all of a state, as has happened in Afghanistan and Somalia, and as could happen in Pakistan.”

The report lists other risks as well, none of which the authors feel, Britain is particularly well suited to address at present. These include the vanishing Royal Navy, the emerging superpowers of China and India, the politics of climate, the re-emergence or Russia, and Britain’s messy love triangle with Washington and Brussels.
A bleak assessment to be sure. But equally certain is that there is hope. We need look no further than our own history.
“History and experience have been neglected in favor of ‘group think’ and enthusiasm for ideological projects. Public expenditure has been directed in correspondingly perverse ways with clear consequences for our defense and security. All this has contributed to a more severe erosion of the links between the British people, their government, and Britain’s security and defense forces, than for many years.
What is needed is to reverse the vicious circle and turn it into a virtuous one. Fortunately, our history and experience suggest tried and reliable tools for doing this.
We need to remind ourselves of the first principles which govern priorities in liberal democracies. Defense and security must be restored as the first duty of government.”

Various strategies are proposed for accomplishing this. One of particular interest is the formation of a Cabinet Committee not dissimilar to The United States’ Department of Homeland Security. This committee would “draw together all the threads of government relating to defense and security whether at home or abroad. It would be ‘somewhere for anyone to go’ in raising concerns.”

This would come as welcome news to those left to fight Britain’s Street Jihad on their own, with no government assistance, only harassment.
Lastly the authors advocate that Britain reclaim her sovereignty from failing multilateral institutions (if you’re thinking the United Nations, The European Union , and NATO you’re tracking nicely) and place her trust in more proven alliances.
“What are the essential features of alliances worthy of that name? Shared essential values; shared culture, and especially military culture; shared interests; and, most basic of all, trust – trust enough to permit the special intelligence relationships enjoyed by the UK for the last sixty years with Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand.”

Ladies and gentlemen – the Anglosphere.

“Foul weather friends are to be preferred to fair weather friends; and the British people know precisely which are which. The English-speaking world – manifestly close friends – and, less openly, those with interests common to ours, emerge as our main diplomatic resource.”
The echoes of Sir Winston are unmistakable. However, the Britain of his day differs from that of today in that his contemporaries – with a bit of prodding - knew who they were and from whence they came. Such self-knowledge is essential, the report points out, if alliances are to be of any real consequence.
“In making our choices, however, we need to know who we are ourselves and what we stand for. How else should we ourselves be reliable allies to others? Once we know these things and admit them, we can restore our divided house to harmony and thence to security.”

As dismal a portrait this report paints of Britain in her current state, it brings great joy to our heart that such has been compiled and put forth by those who have done it. The nexus of the Queen’s Privy Councillor and Lionheart, of the people and their proud history, of Britain and her true allies is the point at which our “supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor,” begins, that we might, “arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time.”

The power is ours to use if we choose. For as the contributors to this essay declare “The deep guarantee of real strength is our knowledge of who we are.” The question for Britain and all free nations is - after nearly forty-five years of demonizing our histories, mocking our principles, and transferring our responsibilities onto government - do we care?

Cheers,
Charlie

Wordpress Tags: national security, defense, campaign 2008, mccain, churchill’s parrot, churchill, anglosphere, Britain

The Kurds of Northern Iraq have been some of the staunchest supporters of America’s War in Iraq since before, even, its inception.  Few regions anywhere in the world are as genuinely pro-American as the semi-autonomous Kurdistan in that oil-rich territory.

Yet we have not supported the Kurd’s in their desire to be truly independent from Iraq, which holds no true claim to sovereignty over them.  We do this because we are afraid that the Shiites and Sunnis will not stand for it, and perhaps this would lead to more bloodshed.

Understandable, but still unprincipled.  After all, we entered Iraq many long years ago in the hopes of liberating the Iraqi people from a brutal dictatorship.  Along these lines, isn’t our natural duty to liberate the Kurds from a country which has only colonially imposed power over them?

Of course, the other reason we dare not support our allies is that another country, the EU candidate, Turkey, has a strong desire to keep the Kurdish people powerless and, at whatever cost, dependent on Iraq.  A free and independent Kurdistan would mean that Turkey’s large Kurdish minority might begin calling for their own autonomy–which they do already, but which is cruelly suppressed.  A free Kurdistan would give the PKK and other Kurdish/Turkish groups more motivation for separatism.

America, tragically, has labeled the PKK as a terrorist organization.  This is similar in its folly to recognizing China’s sovereignty over Taiwan.  True, China is bigger and more powerful, but Taiwan is free and capitalist and aligned in so many other ways with Western belief, and in ways that China has never even pretended.

America must stop pandering to the extremists, the dictators, and those who would crush the spirits of free people.  The Kurds have fought bravely and have believed strongly in our sacrifice and effort, and deserve their independence at long last.

The cost of denying them this is greater than any other cost we might face, because it aligns America with the dictators, the fascists, and the radicals rather than the freedom fighters, the democracies, and the forces of Peace.

Will tensions erupt over Kosovo’s looming independence?  That is the question that has sparked debate across much of Europe and in the United States.

British and NATO troops have been deployed to help maintain the peace which, as you might have expected, is a fragile one.

Russia, naturally, opposes Kosovo’s independence, and does not recognize the new country, while America, the UK, Germany and Italy have all officially declared Kosovo’s sovereignty.

The brutal civil war that swept across Serbia in the 1990’s should be a reminder to all free nations that we must quickly intervene if violence spreads.  Tyrant-States like Russia benefit from instability, but the Free World does not, and never will.

Britain has sent her last troops into the region, and hopefully other European nations will follow the UK’s lead.  While it is unlikely that the same levels of genocidal slaughter will occur, it is always better to err on the side of caution.  In Africa thousands of lives could have been saved if the West had responded sooner in such critical locations as Rwanda and Liberia.  The United Nations has made sure that this sort of swift, effective action will never occur.

This is the duty and responsibility of Free Nations.  Our wealth, our strength, and our ideals all dictate that we stand up for Peace and Freedom wherever it is threatened, and at whatever cost. The alternative is allowing oppressive dictators of the world free reign.

There are greater dangers than terrorism in the world.  Terrorism is just a symptom of a larger strategic battle, as is the instability and poverty and civil war in Africa.  Poverty is a problem.  The lack of women’s rights is a problem.  Islam is a problem.  When poverty, the suppression of women, radical Islam, and no free speech or free press are combined, the seeds of terrorism and revolution are easily sown.  This lack of stability is a perfect weapon for Tyrant States and Rogue Nations such as Syria, Russia, China, and Iran.

People have scoffed at Bush’s “Axis of Evil.”  I only wish he had included more nations under that umbrella.

And isn’t it also funny how many of these Tyrant States and Rogue Nations have a say in the UN Security Council?  Does that not cast doubt on the validity of that organization?

It is high time that the Free World casts off the chains and constraints that the corrupt United Nations has bound us with.  The UN should act as nothing more than a summit for diplomats.  America and our Allies should not be held back by the agendas of the corrupt, nor by the policies of totalitarian, fascist, or theocratic States, whose agendas are beyond suspect.  How can we ever hope to fight, let alone win, the War on Terror if we are forced to compromise with the Sudan, Syria, or other Terrorist sponsors?

A new alliance must be formed.  America is the leader of the free world, but in the coming years we will need strong allies.  Before Europe becomes Eurabia, let us hope they build up not just a strong military, but a social bulwark against Islamification.  The first step in this process should be abandoning the UN, whose member States have banned any and all criticism of Islam, essentially rendering that organizations’ efforts against terrorism null.

by Churchill’s Parrot

John McCain is Winston Churchill? We think not. Nonetheless the comparison is rather in vogue, some less asinine than others. Everyone agrees he is no Ronald Reagan. But then, of course, neither was Ronald Reagan. Rush, Anne, Sean, and Laura are betraying the Party. The Party is betraying Conservatism. What’s a Republican to do?
The identity crises inflicting the American Right at present is providing quite the circus: McCain contorting himself to appear Conservative; pundits pushing a big red nose and smiley face makeover to “redefine” Conservatism; others advocating martyrdom and votes for the Trojan Nag of Stalinism Herself; and GOP loyalists turning on the very individuals who made “Conservatism” a household word.

Painful though it may be, however, this is all quite healthy for the Shining City Upon a Hill, so long as the true source of this pain is accurately identified and addressed. It is not John McCain, GOP loyalists, out-moded Conservatism, Rush, or even Bushie. The source of this pain is your bloody two party system!

We have long pondered what it would take for you Americans to evolve beyond the simplistic understanding of yourselves as merely Republican or Democrat. Could it be the one-two punch of the 2006 and now 2008 elections is just the thing? We can only hope, for the fate of the world is resting upon it.

What is called for is a more scrupulous reconnoitering of your political landscape. Doing so would reveal – we believe – yours is not a two party but a three party electorate falling rather cleanly between the lines of Left, Center, and Right.

Owing to the tectonic shift to the left over the course of the 20th century, what was once known as the Democratic Party no longer exists. In fact, as we have indicated previously, it died decades ago. What you have now, particularly in candidates Clinton and Obama advocating their collectivists policies and government control over virtually everything, are Socialists. In order to remove confusion and sentimentality clouding the minds of an already befuddled and easily hoodwinked public, they ought be formally dubbed so.

This would then allow the beleaguered Republican Party to relax into its actual role as a Centrist party without having to justify itself to its increasingly hostile members of a more Conservative bent.

And as for those Conservatives, what are you waiting for? You have the movement. You have the think tanks. You have the spokespersons. What you don’t have is a formal party nor candidates to represent it. The time is now. Granted it is too late for the present presidential contest; but 2010, 2012, 2014 will be here before you can say Barry Goldwater. It is high time you stop berating the poor Republicans who clearly just want to be everyone’s buddy and take matters into your own hands!

Applying this model then to the current race reveals how ill-served the American electorate is by the two-party rut it has too long been in. Socialism or Centrism, these are your choices. For a population that screams bloody murder if it has fewer than 200 varieties of cereal, toothpaste, bicycles, or lingerie from which to choose you seem oddly complacent in this regard. Clarification and rearrangement of the sort we recommend here – Socialist Party, Republican Party, Conservative Party - just might have the effect of enhancing America’s understanding of her political self and re-igniting substantive debate about foundational philosophies of government. Or not.

As one di