Archive for the ‘Shiite’ Category

Obama Ends War On Terror; Terrorists On Different Page

January 23, 2009

Barack Obama ended the war on terror yesterday.  He announced he was going to end the practice of incarcerating terrorists; he said that we must treat all terrorists captured as the most gracious of hosts and precede questioning with the words, “Pretty please”; he selected a liberal political hack who would make it his life’s work to dismantle our intelligence apparatus; and he basically holds the position that the whole “war on terror” thing was just a big mistake to begin with.

The Washington Post has a powerful article entitled, “Bush’s “War On Terror” Comes To Sudden End,” which I shall post in its entirety at the end of this article.  Let me post a couple of introductory paragraphs:

President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the “war on terror,” as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless…

Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military’s Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration’s lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.

Unfortunately, in his haste to end the war on terror – which of course HAS been a source of embarassment to every liberal who glorifies world opinion – Barack Obama kind of forgot to consult with the terrorists.   I mean, no, we really don’t WANT our President getting cozy in dialogue with the kind of people who saw kidnapped victims’ heads off, but we might have wanted to know whether terrorists were interested in ending the war on terror before we decided to quit fighting.

There seems to be a prevailing notion among liberals that terrorism began during the Bush Administration, and that now that the Bush Administration is gone terrorism will end.  This attitude is wrong, and just-how-idiotic-are-you-people? wrong.

Modern terrorism began in the late 1920s in Egyptian prisons with the advent of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Whether it was founded with an aim toward “moral and social reform” or not is moot; it didn’t take them long to resort to political violence as a political weapon to win political gains.  And terrorism has been building and growing expontially ever since.

Israel has seen limitless violence since its birth in 1948.  The world saw terrorism first hand in the Munich Olympic massacre in 1972.  The world saw the advent of genuine state terrorism in the 1979 seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran.  The US took its first massive casualties to terrorism in the terrorist bombine of the Marine barracks in 1983 that took the lives of 241 Americans.

Then, throughout the Clinton years, terrorist violence took a near vertical climb on the graph chart.  There was the first World Trade Center bombing, and then the “Blackhawk Down” violence in Somalia in 1993.  There was the attempt to crash a plane into the White House and a bombing of the American military facility in Riyadh in 1995.  There was the Khobar Towers barrack bombings in Saudi Arabia in 1996.  There was the bombings of two U.S. Embassies in  Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.  And there was the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000.  In all likelihood, that list is not exhaustive.

The 9/11 attack was nothing new; it was the continuation of a pattern of exponentially escalating violence that has been building for decades.  We may decide we are weary of fighting them.  But they will fight us until we submit to them.  Such “submission” is the true meaning of Islam.  Wake up to reality, or die as a naive fool.

Has that growth seemed to appear faster since President Bush’s declaration of the “war on terror” following 9/11?  Most certainly.  But war ALWAYS stimulates more recruitment, doesn’t it?  We certainly wouldn’t have decided it best to not fight against Hitler and the Nazis lest they expand their recruitment, would we?

Let me bookend two philosophies.

As a result of the “Blackhawk Down” incident in Somalia – after which President Clinton ordered the American presence to leave with their tails prominently displayed between their legs – Osama bin Laden said:

“You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew. The extent of your impotence and weaknesses has become very clear,” he said. “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”

Now lets look at another approach:

9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – after being hounded all over the world and then waterboarded until he spilled his guts to CIA interrogators – said that he doubted that al Qaeda would ever again dare to attack the United States again due to the massive, overwhelming response.

In the philosophical approach taken by President Bill Clinton and now embraced by President Barack Obama, our enemies perceive weakness and hesitation, and as a result they attack without mercy.  In the philosophical approach taken by President Bush, the United States responds with such massive force that our enemies are cowed and disheartened.  The American military machine is the finest in the history of the planet, and when it is unleashed, it wins – and God, or Allah, or Buddha, or place your deities’ name here – help whoever stands against it.

At least until Barack Hussein Obama became our Commander-in-chief.

How should al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations bent on murdering Americans react now that the policy of Harry Reid – “I believe that this war is lost” – and Jack Murtha – our Marines are the real murders and criminals – becomes the new law of the land.

How should they feel now that they are facing Democrats – who acted the part of the paper tiger to a “T” by spouting tough talk only to spend the next five years advocating that we cut and run (see here and here and here)?  Do you think they’re still afraid of us, now that we have voted for a Paper Tiger-in-chief with a Paper Tiger House and a Paper Tiger Senate?

We were kept safe since 9/11 because our enemies became convinced that they could never defeat a powerful America that would go to great lengths to defend itself and protect its interests.  We are now about to see what happens when we repudiate that strength and embrace a policy of weakness and appeasement.

After Hitler proved that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain – with his Munich Accord and his “I believe it is peace in our time” in shreds – was a moral idiot and a completely unfit leader, his own party in the House of Commons told him, “Depart, I say, and let us have done with you.  In the name of God, go!” and forced him to resign in disgrace.  I truly believe that that will be the end of Obama’s political career, as well.  The only question is how many American bodies will be buried before we come to that conclusion.

Article follows below:

Bush’s “War On Terror” Comes To Sudden End
Washington Post: With Stroke Of Pen, President Obama Erases Controversial Measures

Washingtonpost.com) This story was written by Dana Priest

President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the “war on terror,” as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless.

While Obama says he has no plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad, the notion that a president can circumvent long-standing U.S. laws simply by declaring war was halted by executive order in the Oval Office.

Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military’s Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration’s lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.

It was a swift and sudden end to an era that was slowly drawing to a close anyway, as public sentiment grew against perceived abuses of government power. The feisty debate over the tactics employed against al-Qaeda began more than six years ago as whispers among confidants with access to the nation’s most tightly held secrets. At the time, there was consensus in Congress and among the public that the United States would be attacked again and that government should do what was necessary to thwart the threat.

The CIA, which had taken the lead on counterterrorism operations worldwide, asked intelligence contacts around the globe to help its teams of covert operatives and clandestine military units identify, kill or capture terrorism suspects. They set up their first interrogation center in a compound walled off by black canvas at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, and more at tiny bases throughout that country, where detainees could be questioned outside military rules and the protocols of the Geneva Conventions, which lay out the standards for treatment of prisoners of war.

As the CIA recruited young case officers, polygraphers and medical personnel to work on interrogation teams, the agency’s leaders asked its allies in Thailand and Eastern Europe to set up secret prisons where people such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh could be held in isolation and subjected to extreme sleep and sensory deprivation, waterboarding and sexual humiliation. These tactics are not permitted under military rules or the Geneva Conventions.

Over time, a tiny circle of federal employees outside these teams got access to some of the reports of interrogations. Some were pleased by the new aggressiveness. Others were horrified. They began to push back gingerly, as did an even smaller number of congressional officials briefed on the reports.

Eventually their worries reached a handful of reporters trying to confirm rumors of people who seemed to have disappeared: a Pakistani microbiologist spirited away in the dead of night in Indonesia. An Afghan prisoner frozen to death at a base code-named the Salt Pit. A German citizen who did not get back on his bus at a border crossing in Macedonia.

Front companies and fictitious people were used to hide a system of aircraft that carried terrorism suspects to “undisclosed locations” and to third countries under a little-known practice called rendition.

Unlike the federal employees, who could go to jail for disclosing the classified program, the reporters and their news outlets were protected by the Constitution — but not from government pressure. Then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss and, later, Bush summoned top editors of The Washington Post to press their case against disclosing the existence of the secret prison network.

The published reports in The Post and elsewhere earned the news media sharp recriminations from the administration, the Republican leadership in Congress and the public. Government leak investigations were launched. Bush administration officials argued that such methods and operations were necessary to effectively thwart terrorism, noting to this day that there have been no major attacks since 2001.

If there were dissenters back then, they were largely silent.

But in Europe, the reports set off a firestorm of criticism and government investigations in nearly every capital. Washington was pressured to move prisoners out of the secret jails. U.S. government officials scattered throughout the national security and foreign policy agencies scrambled to learn more about operations they knew little about. A growing chorus within the CIA and the State Department began to question how long the secret system of detention and interrogation could survive, and drew up plans for an alternative.

By then, the color-coded terrorist alerts had ended. Police disappeared from roadblocks around the Capitol. Washington the fortress drew millions of visitors again. Some Democratic members of Congress replaced the “war on terror” phraseology with language indicating vigilance and persistence, but not unending combat and military-only options.

On Sept. 6, 2006, Bush announced the transfer of 14 “high-value detainees” from secret prisons to Guantanamo. He suspended the CIA program, but defended its utility and reserved the right to reopen it. The secret was officially out.

Over the next 2 1/2 years, as Democrats gained power in Congress, as the violence in Iraq sapped public support for the president and as the fear of another terrorist attack receded, the debate over secret prisons, renditions and harsh interrogations grew louder. Presidential candidates felt comfortable to include these sensitive subjects in the debate on the efficiency of Bush’s war against terrorists, and even on the notion that it was still a war.

During his campaign and again in his inaugural address Tuesday, Obama used a different lexicon to describe operations to defeat terrorists. “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals,” he said. “… And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.”

Advertisements

Why PBS’ Bill Moyers Et Al Moral Idiots For Condemning Israel – Pt 1

January 20, 2009

Bill Moyers stands out as a moral idiot par excellence in a journalistic field that has itself become characterized by appalling moral idiocy.  And as a man who has access into virtually every home in the country – subsidized by government through taxes – Moyers is able to powerfully advance his moral idiocy and create others like himself as few others are able to do.

In clip that lasts a little over 8 minutes, Bill Moyers pontificates that – although Israel admittedly has the theoretical right to defend itself – it is the brutally oppressive monster in this fight against Hamas.  He spends 1% of his time acknowledging Israel’s right of self-defense, and 99% of his time siding with Hamas terrorists and helping them broadcast their propaganda.

Bill Moyers to Joespeh Goebbels: “Are you having problems getting your message out?  Please, let me help you.”

Bill Moyers on PBS

Moyers says, “Brute force can turn defense into state terrorism,” and adds that, “By killing indiscriminately, Israel did what terrorists do and what Hamas wanted.”

There’s the rub.  But Moyers glides by it like the propagandist he truly is.  The tragic reality is that Hamas WANTS Israel to kill Palestinian women and children, and forces them to do so.  By locating amongst hospitals, and schools, and heavily populated neighborhoods, and by using such sites as weapons depots, and tactical command centers, and launching sites for their constant rocket attacks, Hamas forces Israel to either kill Palestinian civilians or stand idly by and do nothing while the lives of its own innocent civilians are put at risk.  And the latter is simply not an option for ANY nation.

Moyers is depicted by liberals as a courageous man, bravely standing up against Israel and the powerful Jewish lobby.  But he is a coward of amazing proportions.  For all the condemnation he heaps upon Israel, he never once presents Israel’s side in this Hamas-created dilemma, or offers an alternative to what Israel ought to do besides doing nothing while thousands of more rockets are launched into Israel.  He is cowardly, not courageous.  And yet he is rewarded with praise at elitist pinky-in-the-air cocktail parties for his contemptible pseudo-courage.

Hamas is routinely depicted as “the underdog” by cowards and appeasers like Moyers.  And every Palestinian civilian casualty is magnified as a crime against humanity.  Every “journalist” who condemns Israel in this manner becomes an apologist for terrorists who cynically and hatefully use the moral restraint – in fact the moral superiority – of their enemies against them.

Hamas is an “underdog” that uses Palestinian women and children as human shields while it doggedly pursues its mission of murdering Jews.   It is an “underdog” that deliberately locates their fighting and tactical sites in hospitals, schools, and homes.  It is an “underdog” whose very reason for existence is genocidal murder of Jews and the extinction of the state of Israel.  It is an “underdog” that refuses to exercise any moral restraint or show any respect for civilized behavior.  And it is an “underdog” that was elected by the majority vote of the “civilians” who are nevertheless still routinely depicted as hapless victims of brutal and indifferent Israeli aggression.

And what is Israel supposed to do when it suffers 3,000 rocket attacks in a single year by Hamas fighters?  How would Bill Moyers have Israel respond to this intolerable threat?  He lacks the courage to address such questions.

Only the most despicable and most depraved kind of human being would defend such “underdogs” and condemn the race of people who are their victims in attack after attack after attack.  There is no “balance” in Moyer’s analysis: there is only a refusal to face Israel’s dilemma, and to focus on the Palestinian as victim but never as aggressor.

Moyers clearly views deaths caused by Israel  as morally equivalent to the killing of Jews by internationally condemned terrorist organization Hamas.   Moyers appears to agree with the view of Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Zahar, who says:

“The Zionists have legitimized the killing of their children by killing our children.”

This is utterly insane.  Israel doesn’t want to kill Palestinian children.  In fact, Israel has attempted to do everything it could to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties.  It has repeatedly pre-warned Palestinian civilians of impending attacks – giving up the important strategic element of surprise in the process – in order to limit the civilian death toll as much as they possibly could as they went after Hamas fighters.  But Hamas, by contrast, has done everything it could to maximize Palestinian deaths in order to use their deaths for political gain.  And useful idiots such as Bill Moyers – again, using his  tax-funded PBS program as his pulpit – has willingly served as this terrorist organization’s “useful idiot.”

Bill Moyers and those like him speak in terms of “the disproportionate use of force by Israel,” as though it would even be possible for a civilized nation like Israel to choose to send 3000 rockets indiscriminately into Gaza the way Hamas has done to Israel this past year.

How – after all – is a nation to “proportionately” respond to act after act after act of mindless and insane violence?  Should the United States have sent only 19 men after al Qaeda given the fact that al Qaeda had only sent 19 men on 9/11?  Would a nation that would not use every resource to protect its people from terrorist attack not be an evil nation?

And – having said that – I argue that Bill Moyers is an evil man.

We don’t generally think of someone like Moyers as “evil.”  He hasn’t murdered anyone, or raped anyone, has he?  And he’s an “intellectual,” not a criminal!

Realize something: ideas have consequences.  And some of the most shocking, brutal, hateful, murderous crimes in human history were the product of intellectuals as their “intellectual theories” gave rise to genocides.

Nazism, World War II, and the Holocaust did not begin in the mind of Adolf Hitler.  Rather, it was the fruition of decades of intellectuals advancing their ideas.  Profoundly anti-Semitic theological liberals undermined the validity of the  Old Testament in order to depict Jews as frauds and purge “Jewishness” from Aryan Christianity.  Doctors began presenting their views – based on Darwinism and the best “science” – of the superiority of the Aryan race and the corresponding need – in the name of Darwinian “survival of the fittest” – to eliminate inferior people in order to forge the master race.  Other doctors – affirming the aforementioned theories – delved into eugenics and other measures to create and shape that master race.  And all the while philosophers and other German intellectuals were developing the concept of Lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy to be lived”).

Adolf Hitler – who was shaped and influenced by these intellectuals’ ideas – was merely one of the architects who put them all together.  The view that the Jews were a subhuman race whose very existence posed a threat to the German people, and to the German Weltanschauung (for a more in depth understanding, click here).

Nazi Germany was the most educated, the most scientifically advanced, and the most intellectual nation on the face of the earth.  Do not think that “idea men” who have never actually had real blood on their hands cannot be incredibly evil human beings.  Most of the monsters who orchestrated the Holocaust and the death camps never actually killed anyone.

And Bill Moyers – in his morally blind denunciation of Israel for doing the best it could to defend itself in the midst of a moral dilemma orchestrated by its enemies – is very much like these other “idea men.”  Like these other depraved “idea men” before him, if Moyer’s ideas would be pursued, millions of Jews would ultimately pay with their lives.

Why PBS’ Bill Moyers Et Al Moral Idiots For Condemning Israel – Pt 2

Why PBS’ Bill Moyers Et Al Moral Idiots For Condemning Israel – Pt 2

January 20, 2009

Read Why PBS’ Bill Moyers Et Al Moral Idiots For Condemning Israel – Pt 1

There is more.  I listened to Bill Moyers describe the Bible as a book in which God commands the Jews to exterminate foreign peoples.  He says,

When the ancient Israelites entered Canaan, their leaders urged violence against its inhabitants.  The very Moses who brought down the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” now proclaimed, “You must destroy completely all the places where the nations have served their gods… and wipe out their name from that place.”  So, God-soaked violence became genetically coded.  A radical strain of Islam now seeks to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth.

First of all, let me begin by showing you how Bill Moyers and Adolf Hitler would be nodding their heads in solemn agreement with one another on this subject.  In his Mein Kampf, p. 454, Hitler wrote:

“The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in world history arise for the most part from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in fact, that this type of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the Jewish nature.  This may be a thousand times true; we may deeply regret this fact and establish with justifiable loathing that its appearance in the history of mankind is something that was previously alien to history – yet this does not alter the fact that this condition is with us today.”

That isn’t good, Mr. Moyers.  It isn’t good at all that you and Adolf Hitler are on the same exact page in lamenting so-called “Jewish intolerance and fanaticism.”  There is either something profoundly wrong with your thesis, or there was something right about Hitler’s.  And the latter view is evil to the core.

Secondly, should I begin with Bill Moyers’ setting himself up as a greater moral authority than the God of the Bible?  Or should I comment upon the twisted accusation clearly implicit in Moyers’ analysis that the Jews’ own hateful religion and their own hateful God are sins that are now coming home to roost in the form of Muslims holding to the same religious hatred and intolerance.  Is Islamic terrorism Jews’ karma for introducing their vengeful tribal God to the world?  You can almost see Bill Moyers’ sadness: “Oh, would that the God of the Holy Bible been MOYERS instead of JEHOVAH.”

The fact is that Israel would have been wiped out had Bill Moyers been leading them in the pillar of cloud just like they would be wiped out if they listened to his appalling moral idiocy today.  And Moyers is double the fool, for he attempts to imply a moral equivalence between the Jews and the terrorists.  Does he truly not realize that the goal of the terrorists is to kill every Jew; but that it is not and never has been the goal of the Jews to kill every Muslim?  How dare this morally depraved man attempt to create a parity between Jew and terrorist!  Moreover, how dare this depraved man attempt to even insinuate that the God of Moses provides a justification to wipe out Jews.

Let me, then, answer a more fundamental question: Why DID God command the Jews to conquer and kill?  And how is what is found in the Bible different from what is found in the Qur’an?  The answer begins to unfold in Genesis 15.  God foretells to Abraham that his descendants would “be strangers in a land that is not theirs [Egypt], where they will be enslaved and oppressed 400 years.”  And in verse 16 God says, “Then in the fourth generation they shall return here” [to the land God gave Abraham and the Jews forever] – and then comes the big phrase – “for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.”

By the time Moses and Joshua led the Jews into the land that God gave them through His promise to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and on through David, the Amorites had become completely depraved.  God tells the Jews through Moses again and again, “DON’T be like these people!”  And thus we come to Exodus 23:23, which Moyers alludes to.  In Deuteronomy 9:5, God says that “it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”

Scholars use the term “power encounters.”  In the ancient world of Moses’ time, peoples and cultures were entirely bound up in their gods.  And if your people came in and defeated my people, it was a proof that your god or gods were stronger than mine.  And see Deuteronomy 3:21-22 as an example that it was God who went before Israel and gave it victory, just as it was God who had brought Israel out of Egypt with a mighty hand (Deut 5:15).  And that was why Rahab the prostitute – who hid Joshua’s spies in Jericho – said, “I know that the LORD has given you the land, and that the fear of you has fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you” (Joshua 2:9).

In short, God used the cultural reality of the day to show whose God was truly God over and against the depraved gods whose worship mandated child sacrifice, and He used the Jews to judge peoples who had succumbed to total depravity, to incest, child sacrifice, and every evil thing you can imagine.

And how does this differ from what is found in the Qur’an?  Throughout the Old Testament, God’s commandments to His people to commit acts of violence – to be His instrument of divine judgment, so that the other cultures would identify Jews with their all-powerful God  – was always situational.  In every case, God commanded a particular group of people to do a particular thing at a particular time in history – and to a particular enemy.  Contrast this with the Qur’an, which repeatedly emphasizes timeless, static commands to kill the infidel or to othe5 acts of violence (e.g. Sura 2:190−4).  See also the following links, here and here.

Mukhlas, one of the Muslim perpetrators of the 2002 bombings in Bali, cited a historical fact about the Prophet Muhammad in the December 18, 2005 issue of The Australian:

“Aren’t you aware that the model for us all, the Prophet Mohammed and the four rightful caliphs, undertook to murder infidels as one of their primary activities, and that the Prophet waged jihad operations 77 times in the first 10 years as head of the Muslim community in Medina?”

Contrast Mohammed’s 77 historically documented campaigns of violence with Jesus, who said to His followers when His enemies came to seize Him,

“Put away your sword.  For all who live by the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).

Through the Jews, God progressively established over time a completely new moral system to the world.  And by the time of Christ, that system had transformed the moral thinking of ancient world around the Jews.

Yet Islam, which surfaced not in the 13th century B.C. or even in the 1st century A.D., but in the SEVENTH century A.D., exhibits none of the restraints against violence that Judaism had developed and Christianity passionately embraced.  To cite just one example, 100 years after the death of Christ, Christian believers were dying as non-violent martyrs suffering Roman persecution.  Contrast that with 732 AD, with Muslims pouring across Europe to kill and pillage – only to finally be stopped by Charles Martel at Tours, France.  They likewise poured out of Arabia into Africa with the scimitar to seize kingdoms and eradicate Christianity.

This is why Robert Spencer, in his powerful book The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion, argues the terrifying but true thesis that Islam – properly understood through the paradigmatic life of the Prophet Muhammad – entails violent jihad.

Bill Moyers is the very worst kind of fool.  He is a fool who thinks he is wise, and a fool who is respected as wise by many around him.  He knows nothing about religion, or about the myriad differences between Islam and Judeo-Christianity.  And he most certainly knows nothing of moral wisdom or the common sense that emanates from such wisdom.

As Israel wraps up its campaign to deal with terrorists who have indiscriminately launched more than 6300 explosive-armed rockets and missiles into Israel just since 2005, I hope that you stand with Israel in its determination to live democratically amidst terrorists who want to destroy it, and condemn appeasing fools such as Bill Moyers.