Archive for October, 2009

Islamic bomb is not a done deal, Re: Getting ready for the Islamic bomb, Washington Times, October 29, 2009

Saturday, October 31st, 2009

An Islamic bomb is not a foregone conclusion. What is a foregone conclusion is that the United States will not use its military to attack and destroy Irans nuclear facilities. This is extremely shortsighted and unfortunate and means that Israel will attack in due course because when the time comes it will see itself as having no other choice. It also means that U.S. national security will be severely, perhaps fatally, compromised and that Americas credibility as leader and protector of the free world will be in tatters.

The United States won’t attack Iran because President Obama and the sycophants surrounding him are ignorant fools who live in a dream world and believe that Iran can be dissuaded from developing nuclear weapons through negotiations, threats and expressions of disapproval. The Israelis know better and will see a successful attack as necessary for their countrys survival. They may not in fact succeed whereas the U.S. almost assuredly would but nevertheless betting against them would be very unwise. An Islamic bomb is therefore not a foregone conclusion at all.

The Associated Press has reported that Obamas administration is “quietly laying the groundwork for long-range strategy that could be used to contain a nuclear-equipped Iran and deter its leaders from using atomic weapons.” That is a complete waste of time. Nothing could more clearly illustrate how out of touch with reality President Obama and his administration really are. If Iran gets nuclear weapons it will use them and to think otherwise is beyond belief. America may be deluded but Israel isn’t, which makes an Israeli pre-emptive attack a certainty.

The U.S. should be planning for the aftermath since it doesn’t have the sense to plan for anything else.

So what, Re: International nuclear experts allowed to inspect uranium site, Vancouver Sun, October 26, 2009

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

‘So what’ is the only proper response to this story.

If inspections are to mean anything at all three things must occur-all of Iran’s nuclear facilities must be subject to inspection at any time without notice, inspectors must not be affiliated in any way with the United Nations and/or the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran must be convinced that severe punitive measures will be taken immediately if evidence is found that nuclear weapons are indeed being developed there. Since the chances of any of this happening are nil the current inspection is utterly futile. Any others would be as well.

Even if the IAEA discovers that Iran was using the site to develop nuclear weapons the program itself will not be slowed down or hindered in any material way because the United States is not willing to bring it to an end by force. All it is willing to do is talk and threaten, which means nothing to the Iranians because they know perfectly well that they won’t have to suffer any real consequences from the U.S. no matter what happens. There won’t be any evidence found on the site in any case. Several weeks have gone by since it’s existence became public knowledge, which is more than enough time to remove anything that might be incriminating. It is ludicrous to believe that Iran wouldn’t have used the time to do precisely that.

The inspection must be seen for exactly what it is, part of an ongoing attempt by Iran to manipulate and hoodwink the United States into thinking that it can be persuaded to bring it’s development of nuclear weapons to a halt through peaceful means in order to buy time until their possession is a fait accompli. It must be said that the Iranians have been very successful at this to date, even though what they are doing is patently obvious. It must also be said that military force and only military force can stop Iran’s nuclear madness. This too is patently obvious. Since the U.S. won’t launch an attack because of President Obama’s ego, ignorance and world view, among other things, it is a foregone conclusion that Israel will have to in due course. Moreover, it will be absolutely justified in doing so when the time comes because the survival of the country will be at stake.

See, ‘So what’ really is the only proper response.

Afghanistan 101, Re: Endurance Test, International Herald Tribune/New York Times, October 20, 2009

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

The unspoken assumption in Roger Cohen’s column is that if General McChrystal’s plea for “patience, discipline, resolve and time” is met and if the United States is more judicious and focused in its efforts, military and otherwise, in thirty years Afghanistan will be firmly in the American camp and will no longer harbor people whose sole interest is destroying the U.S. and its way of life. He seems to think that thirty years from now Afghanistan will no longer pose a security threat to the U.S. if America gives “mud-hat Afghans something to believe in-not least efficient courts, motivated police and easy credit.”

These beliefs are completely mistaken and evince a remarkable lack of knowledge and understanding about the nature of the Afghan people, the history of Afghanistan and the religious underpinnings of the war that is being fought there.

The Afghan people will simply not accept a prolonged American presence in their country and eventually will do everything they can to undermine and remove it, especially when demands are made on them and aid efforts are diminished, as they inevitably must be. They will take as much as they can for as long as they can but sooner or later they will toss the Americans out just as they tossed out the Russians, the British and many others before them. For the same reasons too. Afghans are a particularly duplicitous and prickly lot and there is no reason for the United States to think it can win their ‘hearts and minds’, in thirty years, a hundred years or a thousand years. No one else ever has so why should they? When Americans become too demanding or are no longer of any use, out they’ll go. In the meantime they’ll be manipulated and conned, like everyone before them.

In the same vein, it is worth noting that no foreign power has ever been able to occupy the country and impose its will there for any length of time, going all the way back to Alexander the Great and continuing to the present day. Coercion and bribery have never worked either. History is replete with examples of foreign powers coming to Afghanistan thinking they could conquer or hold the country for their own ends and finding that they could not. Afghans are a tribal people riven by ethnic, linguistic and cultural differences notorious for fighting among themselves for a wide variety of reasons. Historically, they unite for brief periods of time to get rid of the foreigners in their midst and then go back to carrying on as they always have. No amount of American economic or military power will prevent it from suffering the same fate, not in thirty years, a hundred years, a thousand years….

Cohen also fails to recognize the religious underpinnings of the war in Afghanistan. The Afghan people and the Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters among them are all Muslims who think that infidels e.g. non-believers and transgressors, must be converted, subjugated or destroyed and that any behavior which is proscribed by Islam must be eliminated and/or punished. These are seen as religious obligations and are absolutely non negotiable. Since Americans are infidels by definition and practically everything they do or stand for is unacceptable, tolerating their presence in Afghanistan is not possible, regardless of any benefits that might accrue. Islam requires that infidels must be thought of and dealt with in certain ways, period. This factor alone guarantees that American expectations in Afghanistan can never be met because Islam is immutable and unchangeable and is going to continue to be predominant there for eons.

Does any of this mean that the United States should abandon Afghanistan and leave its people to their own devices? Not at all. Doing so would be disastrous for U.S. security. It would exponentially increase the possibility of large scale attacks on the American homeland and on American interests around the world and of nuclear weapons falling into terrorists hands. Pakistan would almost certainly become a fundamentalist Islamic state and NATO would most likely cease to exist, either of which would be catastrophic for the U.S. Terrorists everywhere would be emboldened and energized and would ramp up their activities. Like it or not, America must stay in Afghanistan. It must act very differently than it has in the past however.

The United States went into Afghanistan in the first place to root out and destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban in order to make America and Americans safer and more secure. That is exactly what the U.S. has shied away from and exactly what it must get back to. The only way to do that is through military means. The American military must be unleashed to do the job it was sent to do to begin with. Then and only then will those original goals be met. Serious, heavy duty counterterrorism is the answer, not fluffy, feelgood but ultimately futile counterinsurgency.

They couldn’t have…, Re: Bomb kills six Revolutionary Guards leaders in Iran, Toronto Globe & Mail, October 19, 2009

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

Iran has accused the United States, Britain and Pakistan of involvement in the attack.

The Iranians couldn’t have overlooked the Israelis, could they?

No, they’re probably just saving them for the next time around, that’s all.

Goldstone’s Goof, Re: Just what did Goldstone expect?, Jerusalem Post, October 19, 2009

Monday, October 19th, 2009

Richard Goldstone has condemned the United Nations Human Rights Council for endorsing his report on the war in Gaza without mentioning his findings on war crimes committed by Hamas. Goldstone said he was “saddened” by the resolution to endorse the report and that it included only allegations against Israel. He also said earlier that “If this was a Court of Law, there would have been nothing proven.” The report severely criticized Israel and Hamas but only Israel was spoken about in the resolution.

That kind of duplicity is just the beginning. Goldstone may be saddened but he shouldn’t be surprised. What else did he expect given the nature, make-up and history of the UNHRC? The minute he saw the terms of reference and the methodology to be used he should have realized the report would end up being a political document with absolutely no basis in reality regarding Israel’s actions that would be used by the country’s enemies to villify and discredit it, no matter what was said about Hamas. That is exactly what’s hapening. Goldstone can have no one to blame but himself if he didn’t recognize that this would occur. All the signs were there for him to do so.

Two things are certain. Goldstone was manipulated and used and the report has done a great deal of harm to Israel and promises to do even more. What is less certain is whether he will try to redress matters by speaking out strongly against the deceitfulness of the UNHRC and the behavior of Hamas before, during and after the war. This would go a long way towards mitigating future events and preventing a great deal of suffering. It most likely would even save more than a few lives. Let’s hope that he is courageous, honorable and sensible enough to go on the attack.

It’s the least he can do.

Welcome Aboard Canada, Re: Rights Watchdog Gives ‘Worst Of The Worst’ A Pass, National Post, October 16, 2009

Saturday, October 17th, 2009

So Gay McDougall, the United Nations chief monitor of the way governments treat minorities, is in Canada to expose discrimination and abuse in the country, discrimination and abuse there being far more endemic and serious than in places like China, Cuba, Russia, Burma, Zimbabwe, any country in the Islamic world and others too numerous to mention where she could have gone.

No doubt her report will be every bit as accurate, unbiased, objective, balanced, valid and legitimate as the Goldstone Report on the war in Gaza. Canadians who took the Goldstone Report seriously will have to take hers seriously as well. Protestations simply won’t do. After all, the U.N. couldn’t possibly be wrong or have ulterior motives could it?

If Canadians are angry, upset and mystified now wait until they see what she comes up with. They won’t recognize the place. The hatchet job she produces will be just like the hatchet job Goldstone produced. Fictional, delusional and highly political.

Welcome to the bizarre world of the United Nations Canada. Now Canadians can have some appreciation of how the Israelis and Americans feel and why they hold that esteemed institution in such high regard.

First Things First, Re: How We Can Win in Afghanistan, Commentary Magazine Website, October 14, 2009

Thursday, October 15th, 2009

The basic problem in this article is the same as the basic problem we face in Afghanistan. The article advises us that counterinsurgency will enable us to win there and counterterrorism will lead to our defeat but nowhere does it tell us what winning actually means. The closest we get is a brief statement about NATO’s exit strategy-”creating local forces strong enough to police their own territory with minimal outside assistance.” Is this what winning means and is this definition acceptable to the United States, which is after all providing the bulk of the soldiers, weaponry and materiel in the war effort.

Put another way, why are we in Afghanistan in the first place? Are we there for humanitarian reasons? For strategic reasons? Geopolitical reasons? Are we there because our presence in the country reduces the possibility of terrorist attacks on our homeland? Any or all of the above? None of the above? I don’t know-do you?

Trying to decide on tactics before answering these fundamental questions is putting the cart before the horse. Surely we have to decide what our goals are and then decide how to achieve them. A commitment to counterinsurgency, counterterrorism or anything else is premature until we are clear about what we wish to attain in Afghanistan. Then and only then can we decide on the best way to go about things. Counterinsurgency may indeed be more appropriate than counterterrorism but we can’t come to that conclusion until we determine what we’re really there for.

Tell me why we’re in Afghanistan, tell me what winning means, tell me what the human and financial costs to meet the desired ends are and I’ll tell you whether I think counterinsurgency is a better method than counterterrorism under the circumstances.  In the meantime however don’t try and sell me on it’s efficacy because I can’t possibly make an informed decision until I have the answers.

Nor of course can anyone else.

Ignoble Nobel, Re: Obama says his Nobel Peace Prize a ‘call to action’, Washington Times, October 9, 2009

Saturday, October 10th, 2009

The Norwegian Nobel Committee must be delusional. That is the only possible explanation for their ridiculous decision to award the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama.

If Obama continues on his current path the anti-west, anti-semitic and venal United Nations will play a much more prominent role in world diplomacy and American decisionmaking, unilateral U.S. nuclear disarmament will become a reality and Islamic actions that clearly violate Western and Judeo-Christian values and can only be described as hateful, hurtful and destructive will be even more accepted and encouraged. It means a war in the Middle East which will almost assuredly lead to a third world war, continued human rights abuses throughout the Muslim world and further large-scale attacks on the American homeland, Europe and Israel. If the Committee believes that Obama’s policies will lead to peace, security and prosperity for all they are sadly mistaken. Only the opposite will occur.

America’s political system with it’s checks and balances may be the only thing that can prevent these disasters from happening. Let’s hope that the prospect of the Democrats losing their majority in the 2010 midterm elections will curb Obama until then. In the long run let’s hope that he winds up being a one term President because he is demonstrably unfit for the job, not only in foreign policy but in domestic policy as well.

Lying for Islam, Re: Islam, Israel and the United States, Wall Street Journal, October 8, 2009

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

Muslims are permitted to lie under certain circumstances and that is why the sentiments expressed in ‘Islam, Israel and the United States’ can only be viewed with a great deal of skepticism, to say the least. The article is full of code words, inaccuracies and equivocations and is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to re-write history and curry favor in America and the West, with the demise of Israel being the ultimate goal.

Lying for Islam takes one of two forms, taqiyya or kitman. Taqiyya is saying something that isn’t true and kitman is lying by omission, telling only part of the truth. Both are rooted in the Qur’an and the Hadith and may be used against unbelievers in order to defeat them or to serve some other Islamic purpose.

History is replete with the use of taqiyya and kitman. It happens every day and has since Islam first came into being. Since the Islamic world is unalterably opposed to Israel’s existence and would like nothing better than to see it destroyed and wiped off the map, any statements that have anything to do with the country must be seen through this lens. Lying for advantage is as old as Islam itself and this makes it impossible to trust anything that Islamists say regarding Israel or the conflict in the Middle East.

Of course, it helps if the recipient of taqiyya or kitman is susceptible in the first place. President Obama is definitely a recipient and is most certainly susceptible. He has to be, for reasons we can only speculate about. Lies and exagerrations, mistruths and untruths are presented to him daily and he is swallowing them hook, line and sinker. Iranians and Palestinians in particular are playing him like a fiddle for their own nefarious purposes. He is being manipulated and suckered and this is jeopardizing the national security of the United States, the survival of the State of Israel and the peace and security of Europe, among other things. This has to change and change very soon because otherwise a third world war is inevitable.

Marching hordes, Re: Media to blame for “so-called terrorists”, National Post, October 7, 2009

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

I suppose we should be grateful that Nuzhat Jillani is expressing her hatred, stupidity and inability to actually think by writing a letter to the editor instead of rioting or setting off bombs like so many of her fellow travellers with their seventh century mindsets and perverted view of the world.

For now anyway. What exactly does she mean when she says “the only escape is to turn against you”?

Infidels beware. Muhammed and his hordes are on the march.