 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
What They Thought July 10, 2005 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
||||||
Alan
Caruba If anyone still thinks that the worldwide Islamic Jihad is going to go away simply because we have had some success in Afghanistan and are paving the way for a democratic government in Iraq, the attack in London as the G-8 meeting was to convene should dispel such notions. Most revealing was the G-8 agenda, devoted to so-called global warming and forgiving African debt, two examples of wishful thinking based on neither scientific, nor economic evidence. Neither would accomplish anything. More to the point, the Islamic Jihadists took the opportunity to remind us who and what the real enemy is. “Ya Mahdi, Ad Rekni!” This translates to “Mahdi save us!” and refers to the Islamic Shiite myth about a twelfth imam who tradition says disappeared some eleven centuries ago. In Curt Weldon’s new book, “Countdown to Terror”, he notes that this figure “is expected to return and fulfill the long-awaited Islamic apocalypse, one that will reward the faithful and, with catastrophic violence, purge all infidels from the face of the Earth.” We must face the risk of another even more catastrophic attack that will be justified by an Islamic fantasy. Making this even worse is the “election” of Mahmood Ahmadinejad as Iran’s president. The mullahs that run Iran are perfectly capable of sanctioning some kind of nuclear attack on the US, but Mahmood is on record saying, “The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.” Watching this guy is comparable to having watched the rise of Hitler in the 1930s. This Teheran mayor has served as a senior commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp, responsible for the nation’s missile and nuclear weapons programs. The stage is set for their use against us. Weldon is vice chairman of the House Armed Service Committee in Congress and long familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of our intelligence services. Despite strenuous efforts, he has been unable to awaken any concern in the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and other comparable agencies to prevent an attack on the United States timed to occur on or about the twelfth imam’s supposed birthday. You can begin the countdown now. If an attack is scheduled, it could occur as early as between November 25 and December 3 of this year. The likely target is a nuclear facility in the US. A Jihadist plot to destroy Seabrook, just outside of Boston, was previously foiled. Had it succeeded, producing a “Chernobyl” after a hijacked commercial jet flew into it, much of the northeast would have become uninhabitable. A future “Mahdi save us!” attack might alternatively occur in the Seattle area. Americans in general, it seems to me, have grown indifferent to the threat the Islamic Jihad represents. Too many believe we are engaged in a questionable military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only the daily casualty reports remind anyone that the single most important war of civilizations is occurring and has been for the last three decades or so. And it formally began in Iran. This is why the President delivered a speech on June 28 to clarify the military situation in the Middle East and emphasize again the need to succeed in our mission to install a democratic nation in the midst of a region that has none other than Israel, a backsliding Turkey, and the government we set up in Afghanistan. Weldon’s book is a shocking series of revelations of how unprepared and ill prepared we are for another attack on the United States. Despite the billions spent on our intelligence agencies, they were caught completely off-guard by 9-11 and there are examples of earlier failures such as the revelation that Pakistan had developed a nuclear weapon. These days, one wonders if any of these agencies has a clue where Iran’s or North Korea’s nuclear facilities are located. Detailing how he was contacted by an Iranian living in Europe and working with a network of informants inside the government to avoid another catastrophic attack on the US or elsewhere, Weldon’s book presents his written communications, all of which accurately predicted events and plots that those in the CIA chose to ignore. Frustrated, Weldon met independently with his contact and, finally, has authored this book whose title is enough to tell you he expects something truly awful to occur. Frankly, I do as well. Iran is the single most determined enemy the United States has these days. Its mullahs have poured millions into terrorist organizations and are currently doing everything it can to deter Iraq from emerging as a beacon of freedom on its border and throughout the region. The Iranian population loves America, but everything there is run by a council of mullahs who are determined to extend the Islamic Revolution to the entire world. It is folly to trust them to act rationally. Anyone who does not think that Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda is not closely linked to the Iranian mullahs is deluding themselves. Indeed, I have long believed that the real reason we have not been able to find and kill bin Laden is because he has been safely living in Iran and not the frequently mentioned mountainous areas of Pakistan or Afghanistan. That he has been seen in various safe houses and compounds in Iran is not even in doubt. Weldon’s contact reported that, “In November 2003, at a crucial meeting of the Committee of Nine, it is decided to postpone the Twelfth Imam attack on the United States until after the 2004 elections.” At that time, however, Ayatollah Khameni reportedly decided that “The project should be kept alive and preparations should be made in such a way that once the decision is taken to go ahead, there is no delay in execution.” As Weldon notes in his book, “We live in an age when technology has so empowered man that a small group of terrorists---even an individual---could bring a nation to its knees.” In the midst of the usual blather that followed the President’s speech, the one thing missing from the political partisanship and reflections by various “experts” is that we are very probably living on borrowed time until the “Twelfth Imam” attack occurs. |
||||||
R.A.
Hawkins Last week's attacks in England aren’t really all that surprising given the words coming out of Galloway. One only has to look at what typically happens when Israel announces a pull out. As the troops begin to leave, the terrorists up the ante and start attacking so it will look like they’re being driven out. This only plays well with the illiterate and the pseudo-literate (liberals). This is one very good reason for not giving a timetable for leaving Iraq. It is also a nice little lesson on not compromising with terrorists. They can’t seem to understand how they affect their case with thinking people. Those who don’t think were quick to say that Britain knew in advance and so did Israel. It has been the usual“What Did They Know and When Did They Know It.” I have a much better quote for them. “It takes a demagogue to turn wine into water and only a demagogue would think to do so.” — R.A. Hawkins. As one might easily surmise I have little patience for the water torture "it’s a quagmire" drivel of the left. Many of the leftists want to know when the Iraqis are going to start defending their own country. My oldest son is over there at the moment. He said things have changed since he was there last. The Iraqis are insisting on doing it on their own whenever and wherever they can. Once word of that gets out, the leftists will start a new tune. “They aren’t working with us like they used to. We need to leave them to their own devices.” As I’ve said many times: Grow up. Now back to that little lie about the Israelis knowing in advance and doing nothing. That isn’t quite what my Intel update said. If you are interested in getting facts that are free of polemics, they can be had from stratfor.com for free. If you want the in depth analysis, it costs a little more. I have always found it beneficial to get information from both sides. For some strange reason I have found it to be quite a bit more accurate if I get it from an ex-CIA analyst as opposed to people whose articles can be found in Pravda. If I’m going to get polemics, I want American conservative polemics, not Sino/Soviet propaganda that is being spoon-fed to certain individuals who are their mouthpieces. I won’t say specifically what was in the update other than that certain individuals in the English government are probably going to have a lot of explaining to do. This recent attack in England is about as stupid as Osama’s "if you don’t vote for Bush I won’t blow you up" video. Those of you who voted based on that are probably going to learn that Osama’s campaign promises are as good as Kerry’s. If you think for one second that Osama is going to sit down with a map and avoid the blue areas you are just completely daft. As for the troops from other countries starting to come home, that’s only a surprise to thoughtless people. The Iraqis are starting to do their own work for themselves now. Ultimately we will be keeping a smaller force over there to help only when they need it, but we’re going to be there for a while. The Shia fear being dominated by the Iranians who are really starting to show their collective posteriors. They also fear the Sunnis regaining control. The Sunnis fear the possibility of the Shia running over them out of sheer revenge. All of them have to worry about the foreign fighters that can’t seem to leave them alone. I still get a lot of email claiming that the terrorists (meaning al-Qaeda) have never had any ties to Iraq so I did a little snooping around. I found something to help those of you who either need a little help and some good talking points, as well as to help those who would probably be better served with a lobotomy. Allawi had a few things to say about the Iraqi ties and you can find them at this URL: http://www.newamericancentury.org/allawi-20050525.htm We are in Iraq because the terrorists attacked us and they have repeatedly attacked Israel. They were even being paid by Saddam to do it, something the major media doesn’t like to "remember" anymore. Many complain that the war costs too much. Failure to respond adequately is what brought us 9/11. I now leave you with a lovely quote that sums up my attitude to the naysayers who never accomplish anything:
R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
Conservatives and liberals alike are looking at Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement as a chance to mold the Supreme Court in their image. But if you ask me, both sides are missing the real opportunity here. This is more than a chance to change the court’s ideological make-up. It’s a chance to restructure the court completely. I’m talking about a total overhaul here. The way I see it, the court would be better if it ran like European soccer. But before I get to that, let me explain why. The first week in June, the often-imitated, never-duplicated SCOTUS struck down state medical marijuana laws, saying, in the case of Raich v. Gonzalez, that federal anti-drug bans preceded them. This, of course, was in keeping with the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause. Or so they claimed. At the end of the month, though, the court pulled a rabbit out of its hat and magically struck a blow for states’ rights. This time, in the case of Kelo v. New London, they ruled that the Fifth Amendment gives local governments the power to seize homes and sell the land to private developers—the idea being that local governments would know better than Washington whether seizures were needed to create tax revenue. In light of Raich, the Kelo decision makes no sense. If the federal government has the right to regulate medical marijuana under the banner of interstate commerce, shouldn’t they also have the jurisdiction to regulate eminent domain? If a town wants to kick someone out of their house to build strip malls and office parks, that sounds exactly like commerce to me. The fact that it’s not interstate doesn’t change this. Pot grown for noncommercial, in-state use isn’t interstate, either. Hell, it’s not even commerce. Now, it would be easy to look at these cases and simply conclude the Supreme Court has no idea what it’s doing. But it would be just as easy to conclude something more sinister: Namely, that they know exactly what they’re doing, and it amounts to reducing us under absolute despotism. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between. According to uscourts.gov: “The federal courts often are called the guardians of the Constitution because their rulings protect rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.” That’s nice in theory, but federal judges are appointed for life. And by the time they’re appointed, they’re already so far removed from everyday people that it’s silly to think they’ll have any real sense of which “rights” aren’t being protected. This is especially so with the Supreme Court—the highest and most insular court in the land. Their role is to set precedents, but half the time, their precedent for setting precedents is to look at their own past precedents. Isn’t that a pretty shallow way to run a country? It’s like they’re fulfilling their own prophecies or something. It’s two steps down from divine rule. We talk a lot about checks and balances in America. And we talk about the courts being broken, but we rarely talk about fixing them. People seem to think that, when we say checks and balances, we mean the separation of executive, legislative, and judicial powers. But Americans are not well served by this exclusive definition, because it obscures the separation of local, state, and federal powers. And without that kind of separation, the Supreme Court basically operates in a vacuum. I won’t sit here and tell you state governments are perfect little angels. They aren’t. But back in the day, when states appointed senators, they had a voice in Washington. The Seventeenth Amendment changed that. States no longer have any recourse against federal abuses (what are they going to do—secede?); so for all intents and purposes, they’re like federal satellite campuses now. Not only do they lack the power to protect medical marijuana smokers, but they’re being empowered to bulldoze homes to build strip malls. In either case, checks and balances fail us. What good does it do us if homes are being bulldozed and the best we can say is, “Well, at least the President, Supreme Court, and Congress work in separate buildings”? We don’t really live in a democratic republic anymore. We live in a democracy. And democracies have their merits, make no mistake. But they also amount to mob rule. Politicians may be enjoying this now, when maintaining power is as easy as giving out money from the treasury. But they won’t be enjoying it when Americans go marching through town square with the heads of Supreme Court justices on the ends of sharp sticks. I’m not saying that’s the course Americans should take. They shouldn’t. But that’s what happens sometimes when leaders reduce people under absolute hooliganism. For this reason—for our sake, as well as Washington’s—I say the courts need to work like European soccer. In European soccer, there’s a thing called relegation. What this means is, every year, the best teams in the lower divisions move up, while the worst teams in the higher divisions move down to take their place. I know it sounds like I’m being facetious, but I truly believe this system would work in the courts. The justices on the Supreme Court have worked hard to get where they are, but now that they’re there, they’re there until they die or retire. This won’t do. From now on, we should gather at the end of every year and vote on the justices who did the least to stop states from abusing individuals. And, likewise, state governments should vote on which justices did the least to stop the feds from abusing the states. Then the “winners” should be demoted through the ranks all the way down to the local courts, where they’ll get lower pay, longer hours, and more grief from ordinary folks. And if they can’t find a way to get promoted three years straight, we’ll just assume they’re tyrants and fire them altogether. And as a parting gift, we’ll knock down their house to build an adult emporium. You know, to generate revenue. I realize “abuse” is a subjective word, and the justices may have trouble figuring out the criteria in this system, but that seems about par for the course with these people—I’m not worried about it. The only thing I haven’t figured out yet is how to convince Americans to get excited for a low-scoring game… I mean, government… Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
The devastating attacks against Londoners today by terrorists illustrated the horror that is waiting to be unleashed by those who take advantage of every opportunity and freedom extended to them and use it to hurt those undeserving of their ire. The contention of some that the United States should show understanding or compassion toward those who would commit acts of terror, absolving them of the ultimate responsibility for their actions, was again proven a futile strategy if we expect to end the fatwa against western civilization. All we succeed in doing when we try to make excuses for their behavior is give them more opportunities to hurt us because they need not fear us using our full power to exterminate them. Trying to appease the demands of terrorists is really no different than giving into a child who is having a temper tantrum. In both sets of circumstances the offender learns that an uncivilized behavior will garner rewards or attention. Any good parent would remove a child who is "acting out" from the object of their desire or any other external stimuli that serves to further misbehavior. The politically incorrect parent might tell the child to be quiet or there will really be something to cry about and then follow through on a pretty painful punishment. Either method would serve to end the episode and make a child think twice about trying it again. Personally, I have come to the conclusion there is nothing inherently wrong with an occasional spanking. Behaviorism has proved that if the effect is painful, the cause will be avoided. So why aren't we employing what we know to be the correct way to end the scourge of terrorism once and for all? Why are we expected to continually treat reasonably those who cannot be reasoned with instead of acknowledging them for what they are — ideological reprobates whose sole goal in this world is to eliminate westerners for the alleged crime of being infidels. These terrorist thugs are nothing more than a bunch of gang bangers. Non-Wahabi are not considered equals and are therefore dehumanized and victimized for no legitimate reason. Terrorists are just school yard bullies armed with deadly weapons. I propose we look at two examples from recent history to illustrate why the appeasement approach to terror is wrong and why the way the Bush administration has chosen to fight terror is correct. Spain, a country which tried to appease terrorists by pulling its troops from Iraq experienced serious acts of terror against them. By trying to cooperate and treat these animals as though there was some humanity that might be unleashed, Madrid (vulnerable to attack) was left on March 11, 2004 counting their dead and injured. On the other hand, when Kamikaze pilots in Japan made their philosophy quite clear – that they would fight to the death – the United States simply took them at their word and dropped the bomb. Many civilians died. It was tragic. But it was better than prolonging the war and possibly subjecting our civilian population to further devastation. We didn't start the war with Japan. We responded. We were left no option but to fight. There is no difference today in the war against terror. Terrorists – not insurgents or militants but terrorists – have literally declared war to the death on us. So, we need to fight them to their death. Today we have a very serious choice to make. We can continue to placate the appeasers among us or we can choose to secure a terror free future for our children. One simply requires us to sit back and continue to allow terrorists to manipulate our freedoms. The other requires steadfast determination and focus — deadly focus. There should be no more political correctness allowed to compromise our military. Civilians in this country might not have to do the actual fighting but that doesn't mean civilians don't have to support the cause. At the very least, civilians should not be allowed to demoralize the efforts of our troops without consequence. At some point, a good exterminator may have to stop using targeted strikes and ask the owner of a home to vacate the premises while setting off a bomb. It is a last resort but sometimes there is no other choice. This administration should not hesitate to bomb any country harboring terrorists. In countries where terrorism has already taken its toll civilians weren't even given the courtesy of a choice to leave the war zone. The civilians in countries that harbor terrorists have already been forewarned. It is time to unleash our full military might, and once and for all defeat the forces for evil that threaten our very existence. Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
Anyone who thinks that the 'so called' War on Terror has had any success, is sorely mistaken. Those who commit acts of violence and cause suffering from their Terror are inflicting results that few are willing to admit. It never ceases to amaze the denial that most bring to this subject. What's the surprise, EVIL is the normal condition . . . Now that does not make any part of this deplorable situation acceptable. It only illustrates the extent of the derangement that occupies the twisted minds of the participants, and is at the core of the conflict. Let no one have any doubt that acts of violence are wrong, always wrong. When Ari Fletcher coined the phrase "homicide bomber", he is entirely correct. The popular reporting of the term "suicide bomber" is lacking in distinction. Now we are introduced to the description from Hamas that these fanatics should be called "martyred bombers". Talk about irrational perspective . . . The reason that Terrorism is seen as the ultimate foe of governments, is the nature of the warfare. Let no one mistake the stakes. Those who are willing to die to deliver chaos and turmoil are dangerous. But more than that, they are unstoppable. Such an assessment may be unpopular but consider the facts. Regimes and prosperous societies have much to loose. Alienated and hostile adversaries that place little value on life, are no match for standing armed forces. By denying the temperament of the attacker and responding with overwhelming force, the inevitable futility of the end result; is guaranteed. Even tactics of aggressive proactive search and destroy strategy, fails to address or eradicate the underlying conflict. The battle may be won short term, but the war just continues
The Palestine culture has been shaped from a fierce and eternal hatred toward the Zionist State. That is a historical reality. The reasons for such an animosity are too long to cite, and truly define the meaning of biblical, in the all time - blood feud. But when did the Koran become the purview and vision of wickedness, taught by depraved Muslim Mulla's? Clerics are supposed to elevate the spirit, not encourage and endorse the carnage of the innocent. But just who are the blameless? Infants and young children, for sure. Beyond that point, it become argumentative. The case for the Palestine cause is being made to the world. The international media has long been sympathetic to Arafat, especially that coming out of Europe. Now, the recent incursion of the Israeli panzers into the west bank, and the images of overwhelming force, is now raising doubts in America. Absolute support for Israel is being questioned. Just who is without blood on their hands, in this neverending conflict? Sharon's incursion has failed because the world is less likely to condemn the terror that is generated from the followers of Arafat. Facts bear evidence that the "Intifada" resistance is often indiscriminate and collateral damage is intended. That cannot be defended. When Ariel Sharon and other members of the Likud Party marched to the Temple Mount - Haram al-Sharif, the war began. Many Israelis dispute this interruption. While discussions as to blame are circular at best, what matters is that world opinion is being effected through the criminal and injurious deeds of maniacs. What should be a clear cut response of universal condemnation, often takes on the appearance of understandable desperation. Much of the globe adopts this view. So why is Sharon unwilling to work with the American intiative to stop the violence? His recent remarks are troubling: "They (the Americans) have problems in the region, that's true, but I informed them that our activity will continue - and it will continue." In an age where image is perception and becomes reality, how can one separate the good from the evil? Moral relativism is not the sole problem, but equivalent depravity bears much of the indictment. How can anyone conclude or defend either side, when disregard for all life, is the only common bond both demonstrate? It would be impartial to submit that both leaders qualify under the narrowest version as terrorists. Their history of personal revulsion, irrevocably damages even the most remote possibility for a peaceful resolution. It would seem that a "High Noon" show down is inevitable. The appropriate venue would be Arafat leaving Haram al-Sharif and Sharon departing from the Wailing Wall, marching towards each other - for the final duel, winner takes all! If peace was that simple . . . Since we know it isn't, haven't the terrorists already won? The prospect for relief rests upon practicing the teaching that both religions and cultures have rejected. Followers of Yahweh and Allah have ignored the gospel of Jesus. Who could conclude that any brotherly love exists within this troubled land? Terrorism can only be defeated when the minds of men reject its practice. Superior fire power only breeds further terror. Much of Europe, after centuries of tragic conflicts has learned this lesson. When will America grow sincere and wise - reaching that same understanding? Little hope exists that the vendetta among the Semite clans will ever end. Almost makes you think that one religious tradition has the answers . . . while the others prefer to remain blind. Eye for an eye, produces only visionless men!
|
||||||
©2004-2005 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Sunday, July 17, 2005 4:32 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
||||||
