Archive for the ‘Terrorism’ Category
"We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahedeen."
Al-Qaeda commander and spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid, referencing the assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto; Adnkronos International News Service (AKI), December 27, 2007.
Lest I wind up standing back-to-back with actor Will Smith tomorrow morning defending myself against flying produce (Smith is taller, so I might not fare too badly), I’ll insert the disclaimer here: My personal, moral and religious values preclude a belief that any ethnic group is inherently superior or inferior to any other.
That being said, periodically I find it necessary and useful to state that such values do not preclude a belief that a particular culture might be inherently superior or inferior to another, and this is precisely the comparison I am making as regards Western culture versus the retrograde Indo-Arabic culture that spawns the mentality and social convention we glimpse in radical Islam.
True, the West and Western-influenced cultures do produce our share of sick freaks, however one cannot compare the body counts generated by one Jeffrey Dahmer, Jim Jones or even Aum Shinrikyo to that of radical Islamists worldwide or the primal, inhuman barbarity that is the hallmark of so many of their atrocities. Islamic extremists around the globe are currently averaging one People’s Temple-sized massacre each month, according to a cross section of media outlets, both reputable and questionable.
Benazir Bhutto, like many heads of state, particularly in the Third World, was no saint. Though definitely a cut far above her craven killers, this wasn’t Gandhi getting gunned down. In addition to the charges of corruption that plagued Bhutto during her tenure, the former Pakistani prime Minister was party to the repression of religious minorities in Pakistan. As is the case with many foreign politicos America has supported (and perhaps should not have), being an open advocate of cooperation with the West was Bhutto’s chief appeal. It was widely expected that her pro-Western stance would result in a government more cooperative and less duplicitous than that of the Pervez Musharraf regime.
This brings us to the likely course that might have been taken by the Bush administration and whichever administration follows. Was the hope that Bhutto would have immediately allowed NATO forces into northern Pakistan to wipe out Taliban and Al-Qaeda operatives – as opposed to sucking another $10 billion in American taxpayers’ money out of the invertebrates in high office as did Musharraf? The scenario is indeed reminiscent of that in Egypt, where a "cooperative" Sadat replaced the anti-West, anti-Israel Gamal Abdel Nasser, with Bhutto being an avatar of the former. As long as the U.S. aid dollars kept flowing, Sadat was willing to come to the table with Israeli leaders. It bears mentioning that he too was gunned down for his political coziness with the West.
By Alan Caruba
In lieu of the assassination of Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto, it is necessary once again for those in the West to gain some insight into the culture of Islam and, in particular, of the Middle East. What can be easily observed is the abject refusal to take any responsibility for anything done in the name of Islam.
While the memory of September 11, 2001 recedes for Americans, our British cousins have been subjected to a number of Islamic terrorist acts since then. On July 7, 2005, there were four separate suicide bombings in London that killed 56 people and injured 700. More recently, on June 30, 2007, there was the attack on the Glasgow International Airport in Scotland.
On December 27th I received an email from the London School of Islamics with a text by Iftkhar Ahmad titled “Terrorist V Terrorism.” It is a window into the mind of Muslims living in the United Kingdom.
“The recent events have strengthened the prejudiced belief that ‘Islam is the religion of the sword”, said Ahmad who asserted that, “Islamophobia is not only a cause of discrimination against Muslims, but also an open threat to world peace.” The peace of the Middle East has once again been put in jeopardy by the instability of Pakistan. One might conclude that American and British troops are in Afghanistan because of an open threat to world peace posed by al Qaeda and the spread of Islamism, but not Ahmad.
by Sher Zieve
Just when we thought Congress could not become more demented—it has. As the Democrat-run Senate and House of Representatives are experiencing their lowest approval rating in recent recorded history (Zogby polling ranks said approval at only 14%), with the stroke of 2 pens Democrat leaders have removed provisions from legislation that would have protected US citizens from being sued for reporting potential terrorist activities. This is the latest addition to the ever growing Democrat Death Wish List that its leaders have been preparing since taking Congressional leadership in 2006. In this latest fiasco, leader of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) stripped out the provision that would have allowed limited immunity for reports of witnessed suspicious behavior. Reps. Peter King’s (R-NY) and Steve Pearce (R-NM) had drafted the ‘John Doe Protection Amendment’ after the infamous Flying Imams simulated airline hijacking behaviors.
Now that the Democrats have deleted and destroyed any protections for US citizens who would report potential terrorist activities, the terrorists are free to pursue their evil intent and mission with full support from the Democrat Congress. Suffice it to say, we-the-people had no participation in this suicide pact decision. Congressman Steve Pearce commented that the Democrats had to make a choice as to "whether they are going to side with the American people or with the terrorists" and Rep.
King noted: "This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward!–more–>, and it caves in to radical Islamists." And, in true Democrat anti-American/anti-we-the-people fashion Congressional Democrats chose the terrorists’ side. As was to be expected, both the ACLU and CAIR (the pro-Hamas Council on American-Islamic Relations) are thrilled by this patently insane decision.
Note: This is what the 2006 Congressional elections have wrought. Instead of only appeasing our enemies, the MoveOn.org Democrat leaders are now actively working for the Islamist terrorist enemies. House and Senate Democrats have now overtly—and with no apologies to the American people—taken another huge step toward effectively handing the United States of America over to the terrorists. Their suicide treaty is almost complete. Is there anyone out there who still remembers when these sorts of behaviors were considered treason?
With the Democrats’ new absence of fear of anyone stopping their treachery, they have now been unleashed to do whatever it takes to end this country. This is not an exaggeration. In fact, considering the dire consequences of the Democrats’ pro-terrorist vote, it is an understatement. Much the same as our US Border Patrol Agents now fear reprisal for doing their jobs—Agents Ramos and Compean are bearing the brunt of pro-illegals obsessive US Attorney prosecutions—the American people must now face lawsuits or even jail if they report suspicious potential terrorist activity! What in the name of any common sense—at all—is going on with our ostensible ‘leaders’? Have they finally, completely and irrevocably lost their minds? Do they believe they have a God-given right to support the enemies of humanity—whoever and whatever they are? Note: I do not believe God condones anti-human behavior. Or is it that our leaders have sunk into some dark abyss and are forcing the American people to join them and participate in their own self-destruction?
As was the Illegal Immigrant Amnesty bill, the John Doe Protection Amendment is a non-partisan issue. All of us—Republican, Democrat and Independent—are impacted by not being allowed to report probable terrorist activities. If we don’t, we and our loved ones could very likely die. If we do, we are now being told by Congressional leaders that if we do so we could face financial ruin, jail time or both. If this doesn’t make sense to you, contact your Senators and House Representatives and advise them that your life is worth at least as much as are theirs. You might also tell them that if they do not resuscitate the John Doe Amendment and continue to vote against your right to self-protection, they will be voted out of office. By the way, has anyone out there considered using the public’s right to recall rogue elected officials?
This latest insane anti-US citizen protection decision badly and possibly irreversibly impacts the American people—directly. Is this any way to run a county? No. But, it is the most flagrant and definitive pronouncement, yet, to end it.
References:
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/index.php?id=942668
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason
http://www.freeborderagents.com/
Sher Zieve is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. (www.thenma.org). The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
by Robert E. Meyer
I recently heard about a statement from a discussion that allegedly occurred between an Islamic student attending an American university, and a traditional America student. The following statement may well be a fictitious conversation based in urban legend, but it is an accurate anecdote of the real threat America faces from the ideology of radical Islamic extremism. The Islamic student apparently stated resolutely, "Because of your Democracy we will invade you. Because of my religion we will dominate you." It rings as almost a parallel to the prophetic proclamation of Nikita Kruschev, who uttered from an Iowa cornfield during his excursion of the U.S., "we will bury you."
Many liberals, as well as certain of my conservative brethren, have sounded the alarm about the perils to freedom that come from surveillance programs initiated or expanded under the Patriot Act by the current administration. Yet, one has to wonder how we could have or will continue to root out existing internal security threats without them? Such regulation occupies a thankless status. I often have said to colleagues in regards to small, consistent pay increases in my profession: "You hardly notice the difference when you get your raises, but you would sure notice if you weren't getting them." I would suggest something similar could be said regarding onerous security measures. You don't notice that they do any good, but I suspect you would notice something bad were they not in place. That sort of condition lends itself to pejorative consideration.
Imagine a different scenario. You pick up a major newspaper on September 12th, 2001. On page A-17 is a short news story about how several small groups of young Saudi males carrying box cutters, were stopped by security at JFK and Logan International Airports. Read the rest of this entry »
By Alan Caruba
The murders on the Virginia Tech campus, the worst such rampage in our history, might have been mitigated if just one member of the faculty or a student had the means to return fire.
I have owned guns for decades. On rare occasions, I have had to “show” one of my guns to people with bad intentions. Not surprisingly, they changed their plans to take my money and do me some harm. The Virginia Tech murders confirm the value of empowering ordinary citizens to carry a concealed weapon.
On March 9 I learned of a ruling in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia in which Senior Judge Lawrence H. Silberman wrote an opinion, with Judge Thomas B. Griffith concurring, that restored the Second Amendment to the citizens of the District and, by extension, to every citizen of these United States. Not since 1976, had residents of the District had the right to defend themselves with force of arms.
Judge Silberman wrote, “In sum, the phrase ‘the right of the people’, when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.”
As Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, noted succinctly, “The right of self-preservation was understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government.”
by Chuck Morse
The agenda and political faith of Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, bin Laden, Hamas, and the rest of the international Islamic terrorists can be traced back to World War II and two key figures, Adolf Hitler and Amin al-Husseini, known as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Much has been written about the Mufti, all well documented, including chapters by such prominent authors as Connor Cruise O´Brien, former Irish Ambassador to the U.N. Mountains of documented evidence is out there and available to anyone who cares to look.
The Nuremberg and Eichmann trials revealed that Nazi official Adolf Eichmann met with the British-appointed Mufti in Palestine in 1937. Following this meeting, the Mufti would become essentially an agent of Nazi Germany charged with the funding and organizing of pro-Nazi organizations in Egypt, Syria, Palestine and Iraq.
In 1941, along with Rashid Ali and Kharaillah Tulfah, Saddam Hussein's uncle, guardian and later father-in-law, the Mufti instigated a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq with Nazi-supplied weapons and aircraft. After the coup failed, the Mufti fled to Berlin where he would hold his first of several meetings with Adolf Hitler. At this meeting, the Mufti was reported to have dissuaded Hitler from considering the deportation of the Jews to Palestine. Instead, the Mufti advocated and even possibly suggested what came to be known as the Final Solution against the Jews. In 1942, the Mufti would intervene and stop the Nazis from exchanging 10,000 Jewish children for Nazi POWs.
by Michael Nevin, Jr.
I won’t soon forget the chaos that ensued on June 28, 2003 shortly after beginning my shift and hitting the streets. And I don’t suppose any other first responder that day will forget it either. A 53-year-old man with a history of mental illness went on a shooting rampage in the lobby of the Dalt Hotel at 34 Turk Street before retreating to his room. The killer was described in the San Francisco Chronicle as "a ticking time bomb" who on that day was responsible for killing three and critically wounding another. I can recall stepping over bodies lying in the lobby as we searched for the gunman. He was later found deceased in his fourth-floor room from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, but not until his carnage had left its imprint on a neighborhood unaccustomed to being shocked by violence.
The Virginia Tech massacre will leave an indelible mark on American history. The deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history claimed the lives of 32 innocent souls with scores more injured. The 23-year-old mass murderer was a disturbed loner who stalked women and authoring violent plays. He was declared mentally ill in 2005 and ordered to seek treatment. Unfortunately, after a short stay in the hospital the psychopath returned to society and was back on campus where he would eventually plan and prepare for his day of infamy.
by Sher Zieve
Ever since the Democrat-run US Senate’s unanimous January 2007 confirmation of Lt. General David Petraeus’ position to the new US forces commander in Iraq, the Democrat senators have been fighting against both the General and our troops. House Majority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) traveled to terrorist-run Syria, with her assortment of submission-scarves to wear before the throne of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Pelosi believes conversations with, and lending credibility to, countries that train and support terrorist-factions (as well as vowing to destroy the USA) is the good and appropriate thing to do. Then, in regards to meeting with the more powerful terrorist leader Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) issued the jubilant and begging-Iran statement: "Speaking just for myself, I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning [to Iran], because however objectionable, unfair and inaccurate many of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements are…it is important that we have a dialogue with him. Speaking for myself, I'm ready to go! And knowing the speaker [Pelosi], I think that she might be!"
by Christopher Adamo
It is neither alarmist nor prophetic to state with grim certainty that America will, in the not too distant future, suffer yet another major Islamist attack, possibly dwarfing the enormity of 9-11. Since shortly after that event, forces both within our nation and abroad have diligently sought to undermine American resolve to appropriately respond to the enemy. As a result, that enemy now perceives a growing and broadening opportunity to eventually hit us again.
Barring a nearly miraculous rebirth of American determination to avert that possibility (and any remnants of such determination are rapidly dissipating from the mainstream of society), the Islamists will, sooner or later, fall upon a feasible occasion to strike, and they will use it.
by Jim Kouri, CPP
As Americans remember the horror of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington more than five years ago, the US borders are practically as porous as ever. Yet Americans get few answers during the heated debate. What many hear are abstractions about tightening border security with no mention of how that is to be achieved.
According to testimony given to the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee by General Peter Pace, then Vice Chairman, now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Hamas has joined Hezbollah and Al Qaeda in the Triple Frontier Zone in Latin America where the borders of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay converge.
There the Islamic terror groups train recruits, gather intelligence on targets, launder money and sell drugs. There is evidence that these terrorists and narco-terrorists will soon migrate north into the United States. He cited terrorism reports indicating terrorist groups are active in Canada and Central-South America.