Friday, July 21, 2006

Preacher of Suicide Bombing Can't Stand Explosions!

(Via Memeorandum)

Omar Bakri, the exiled hate monger known for his enthusiastic support of suicide bombing, is apparently afraid of....Bombs!:

EXILED preacher of hate Omar Bakri has begged the Royal Navy to rescue him from war-torn Beirut.

The Muslim cleric who fled Britain last year, tried to board a ship full of women and children yesterday but was turned away.

He also wrote to the British embassy asking to be allowed back on “humanitarian grounds”.

In an email to officials, dole scrounger Bakri pleaded: “The current situation in Beirut left me without any choice but to appeal to you to grant me a visit visa to see my children for one month.”

But his bid to sneak on one of our ships was blocked at harbour gates by sharp-eyed officials.

Bakri, 46, left his family in Edmonton, North London, last August and went to Lebanon after a Sun campaign to kick him out.

Charles Clarke, then Home Secretary, banned him from returning here.

The mad mullah, who hailed terrorists as “magnificent” martyrs, bought a £150,000 bolthole in the exclusive Doha district of Beirut.

In March he boasted: “When I left England I bought a one-way ticket out. I never want to see the place again.”

But cowardly Bakri changed his tune as soon as bombs started dropping.

The spineless coward was singing a different tune in February '04 (HT: Jihad Watch):

A FANATICAL pal of evil cleric Abu Hamza had told British children as young as ten they must “kill and be killed” for Islam.

Muslim extremist Omar Bakri — speaking in London’s East End — said suicide bombers were assured a place in paradise.

Bakri described such bombings as “self-sacrifice operations”.

An example would be to crash a plane on to 10 Downing Street or the White House, he told a cheering audience of Muslims, including around ten young children.

In one outburst he raged: “You must fight for the way of Allah, for the sake of Allah, to kill first and to be killed.” [Emphasis mine]

Unless, of course, you are Omar Bakri!

Technorati talk bubble

Thursday, July 20, 2006

House Supports Israel 410-8, But for How Long?

(Via AP)

WASHINGTON - The House, displaying a foreign affairs solidarity lacking on issues like Iraq, voted overwhelmingly Thursday to support Israel in its confrontation with Hezbollah guerrillas.

The resolution, which was passed on a 410-8 vote, also condemns enemies of the Jewish state.

House Republican leader John Boehner cited Israel's "unique relationship" with the United States as a reason for his colleagues to swiftly go on record supporting Israel in the latest flare-up of violence in the Mideast.

Little of the political divisiveness in Congress on other national security issues was evident as lawmakers embraced the Bush administration's position.

While it is nice to see such a strong show of support for Israel, I can't help but wonder how deep the support really is. How many of these representatives will end up one day making the claim that they were "mislead" into supporting this resolution and how long will it take for them to do it?

I realize the question is a bit on the pessimistic side, but recent history-- at least on the Senate side-- proves the question is not far-fetched.

Even though the resolution was non-binding, I believe the future behavior of the 410 who voted yea will not only reveal Israel's true friends, but also those who still view events in the Middle East as nothing more than a political game.

Keep a sharp eye out!

Technorati talk bubble

Saturday, July 15, 2006

It's About Time!

I've had modem problems for the last couple of days and have been unable to post on the Middle East conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. I have determined that maybe that isn't such a bad thing. These problems have allowed me to sit back and try to digest all of the information without having to worry about what to say about it. That said, I've decided to simply say what I think without worrying about linkage or what other sources are saying about the situation.

There are a lot of people out there who feel the need to sort out all of the scenarios and what if's and analyze cause and effect regarding Israel's response. I'm not going to do that here, but I will say that I stand by Israel and her right to defend herself and quite frankly I believe the current response is right on the money and long overdue.

Israel's course of action may not be the one the rest of the world would have preferred Israel take, and may in fact lead to further instability in the region, but I believe it is the only course of action Israel has left. They've had enough and have vowed to stop it. Who are we to offer advice to Israel on the proper course of action when we aren't the ones who have to live with it on a daily basis? We are fighting Islamic extremism in the Middle East so that we don't have to fight it here, but Israel doesn't have that choice because it has always been on their doorstep.

They're under the constant threat of terrorist attack and have been continually asked to stand down when attacks occur. Is it really fair to expect them to continue standing down? That's not what we did after 9/11! We took the fight those who did it and have taken an oath to never forget and to fight until the threat has been eliminated. It strikes me as ridiculous for people to expect Israel to sit back and temper their response so as not to inflame the situation. That's not what we did and it was not what we were expected to do!

Everyone has a breaking point and I think Israel has finally reached theirs. They have tried to "do the right thing" according to the world's standards for far too long in my opinion. They've had enough and are now sending a message that world opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans when survival is on the line. They have vowed to take out Hezbollah once and for all just as we vowed to take out Al Qaeda, and I say Godspeed!

I don't know what will happen in the end, but I do know that good cannot triumph over if it isn't in the fight. Whether we like it or not, Israel is in the fight now and I have a feeling they're in it to stay.

Far be it from me to tell them they don't belong in it!

Technorati talk bubble

Friday, July 07, 2006

Missile Snipers?

Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough present an interesting theory regarding missile defense in this morning's Inside the Ring:

We have no evidence that the U.S. was able to sabotage North Korea's Taepodong-2 missile, which malfunctioned 42 seconds into launch on Tuesday and crashed.

But we do note that special operations forces (SOF) are playing an increasing role, overt and covert, in the world under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's rule. We also note that one of the reasons that SOF procured the powerful .50- caliber Barrett's sniper rifle was to have the capability to disable ballistic missiles. It's a scenario for missile defense you won't see in any literature from the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency: insert a commando behind the lines, who positions himself within shooting range of the launchpad.

"One of the original reasons for procuring the .50-caliber sniper system was to disable missiles," a SOF source says. "A round pumped in prior to launch, or during to cover the noise, in the right place would cause a catastrophic malfunction."

If we assume, for the sake of discussion, that this scenario goes beyond mere assumption and is actually the reality; then what is commonly referred to as our missile defense system is only one link in the chain. The mere possibility that this is the case goes a long way toward easing my mind.

Of course, it would make perfect sense for the first line of our missile defense system to start at the launch pad and work backwards. I'm no expert, but I believe it would be far easier to take it out or disable it while it is sitting on the pad than to rely on hitting a moving target.

Even if this scenario doesn't exactly square with reality, I think it is still clear that at least one level of redundancy is in play here. It simply wouldn't have made much sense to rely solely on a system that has not been proven to be fully reliable as our sole means of defense against a threat that is this serious.

Technorati talk bubble

North Korean Missile Was Aimed at Hawaii

If there's still anyone making light of the recent failures and apparent ineptness displayed by the North Koreans in their recent missile tests, they may want to consider sobering up in a hurry:

TOKYO (Reuters) - A North Korean missile launched on Wednesday was aimed at an area of the ocean close to Hawaii, a Japanese newspaper reported on Friday.

Experts estimated the Taepodong-2 ballistic missile to have a range of up to 6,000 km, putting Alaska within its reach. Wednesday's launch apparently failed shortly after take-off and the missile landed in the sea between the Korean peninsula and Japan, a few hundred kilometres from the launch pad.

But data from U.S. and Japanese Aegis radar-equipped destroyers and surveillance aircraft on the missile's angle of take-off and altitude indicated that it was heading for waters near Hawaii, the Sankei Shimbun reported, citing multiple sources in the United States and Japan.

North Korea may have targeted Hawaii to show the United States that it was capable of landing a missile there, or because it is home to the headquarters of the U.S. Pacific fleet, the paper said.

An alternative explanation might be that a missile could accidentally hit land if fired towards Alaska, the report said.

I'm not putting a lot of stock in the alternative explanation. I'm not necessarily implying that Kim Jong-Il intended to hit Hawaii, but I'm convinced he wanted to get close, if for no other reason than to prove that he could. He needs to know if our missile defense system can stop him and whether or not we are willing to use it.

Fortunately, the missile failed this time and he didn't get the answer he was looking for. However, it is worth noting that the United States experienced numerous failures of Redstone, Atlas, and Saturn V rockets before we finally orbited the earth and eventually landed on the moon.

The difference in the determination of a madman and that of a sane one can be razor thin regarless of whether the goal is good or evil. We can't bet on continued failure: If they light another candle, we must send the message that we are willing, ready, and able to extinguish it.

Technorati talk bubble

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

It Ain't A Hunger Strike If You Don't Go Hungry!!!

(Via Brietbart)

Star Hollywood actor-activists including Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon and anti-war campaigners led by bereaved mother Cindy Sheehan plan to launch a hunger strike, demanding the immediate return of US troops from Iraq.

As Americans get set to fire up barbeques in patriotic celebration of US Independence Day on July 4, anti-war protestors planned to savour a last meal outside the White House, before embarking on a 'Troops Home Fast' at midnight.

"We've marched, held vigils, lobbied Congress, camped out at Bush's ranch, we've even gone to jail, now it's time to do more," said Sheehan, who emerged as an anti-war icon after losing her 24-year-old son Casey in Iraq.

The hunger strike was the latest bid by the US anti-war movement to grab hold of American public opinion, after numerous marches, vigils and political campaigns.
[Emphasis mine]

There is one more thing they could do: Get a clue and come to the realization that the decison isn't up to them; it's up to the terrorists! When the enemy is defeated, they'll come home.

Of course, I realize good old-fashioned logic is not a factor when it comes to the Sheehan brigade and here's proof:

The hunger strike will see at least four activists, Sheehan, veteran comedian and peace campaigner Dick Gregory, former army colonel Ann Wright and environmental campaigner Diane Wilson launch serious, long-term fasts.

"I don't know how long I can fast, but I am making this open-ended," said Wilson.

Other supporters, including Penn, Sarandon, novelist Alice Walker and actor Danny Glover will join a 'rolling" fast, a relay in which 2,700 activists pledge to refuse food for at least 24 hours, and then hand over to a comrade.
[Emphasis, once again, mine]

Are you kidding me? A rolling fast? This is the brilliant idea that's going to change hearts and minds? The idea of a fast is to starve, not take shifts! Where's the sacrifice?

If they can't devote more than 24 hours at a time to their cause, why in the world would they expect anyone to give a rat's rear end about what they're trying to accomplish?

How 'bout a little "rolling" patriotism for a change?

Technorati talk bubble

Sunday, July 02, 2006

The Islamophobia Misnomer

Dave Ursillo Jr. has written an excellent essay entitled "One Simple Word" at The topic, in short, is the misuse of the word Islamophobia and if I hadn't finished the entire essay in one sitting, I would have sworn it was penned by Bill Whittle.

Here's a sample:

Even before the dust settled at Ground Zero in New York City, I adamantly believed that the religion of Islam would persevere over the marginal sect of radicals who now threatened to destroy both the religion itself and the free world. Sensible Americans agreed with the commonly held notion that Islam was a peaceful religion. We all remembered that some years earlier, a radical Christian cult viciously struck at the heart of America in Oklahoma City. If the psychotic, hate-filled, murderous Timothy McVeigh did not speak for all Christians, then likewise, Osama bin Laden did not speak for all Muslims. Today, however, I adamantly believe that Islam has arrived at a deciding crossroads, at which the fate of the entire religion and its 1.4 billion followers will be decided. And, it’s all thanks to the fabrication of one simple word that misleads, deceives and divides: Islamophobia. [...]

The dimwits who actively exploit the term actually use it to refer to individuals who call any aspect of Islam or Muslims into question, or even the subsequent attitude which results from experience of, or caution towards, Islamic extremism. Simply put, ‘Islamophobia’ is a misnomer attributed to rational and reasonable criticism of (a) the religion of Islam and/or (b) any other particular facet of the religion or its believers, or used foolishly as a reference to a reasonable, cautious state of mind or set of actions that attempt to deal with radical Islam and/or fundamentalist Muslims. Much like the phrase ‘racial profiling,’ a distorted reference to ‘deductive reasoning,’ ‘Islamophobia’ is simply any act of rational criticism or justified cautiousness. [...]

Read the whole thing.

Technorati talk bubble

Thank You, Mike!!

I would like to take a moment to thank Mike of Mike's America for filling in for me while I've been on vacation the past few days. Mike has really done an outstanding job and the posting has been nothing short of superb. It has been a pleasure to have him aboard knowing that the 'ol blog has been in his capable hands the past few days.

I've been told several times over the past few days that I couldn't have made a better choice than Mike for guest blogger, and I have to say that I couldn't agree more. It's truly been an honor to have him here. If he isn't already in your blogroll, make sure you add him. You'll be glad you did!

Thank You, Mike, for a job very well done!

(On a somewhat unrelated note, I am still "officially" on vacation and posting may be light for the next couple of days. Even though I'm reluctantly back on the mainland and am no longer at the mercy of dial-up, I still have a busy couple of days to go before I'm back up to full speed. Today is my 39th birthday, so between birthday stuff with family and friends and Independence Day plans, there probably won't be a lot of time for blogging. I should be back up to speed by the end of the week.)

Technorati talk bubble

Another Ann Coulter Home Run: Liberal Treason!

Another good one from Ann Coulter. She begins:
When is The New York Times going to get around to uncovering an al-Qaida secret program?

In the latest of a long list of formerly top-secret government anti-terrorism operations that have been revealed by the Times, last week the paper printed the details of a government program tracking terrorists' financial transactions that has already led to the capture of major terrorists and their handmaidens in the U.S.

In response, the Bush administration is sounding very cross — and doing nothing. Bush wouldn't want to get the press mad at him! Yeah, let's keep the media on our good side like they are now. Otherwise, they might do something crazy — like leak a classified government program monitoring terrorist financing.

National Review has boldly called for the revocation of the Times' White House press pass! If the Times starts publishing troop movements, National Review will go whole hog and demand that the paper's water cooler privileges be revoked. Then there's always the "nuclear option": disinviting Maureen Dowd from the next White House Correspondents' Dinner.

Meanwhile, the one congressman who has called for any sort of criminal investigation is being treated like a nut. Don't get me wrong: Congressman Peter King is nuttier than squirrel droppings — but he's right on this.
Maybe treason ended during the Vietnam War when Jane Fonda sat laughing and clapping on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down American pilots. She came home and resumed her work as a big movie star without the slightest fear of facing any sort of legal sanction.
Thanks to The New York Times, the easiest job in the world right now is: "Head of Counterintelligence — Al-Qaida." You just have to read The New York Times over morning coffee, and you're done by 10 a.m.

Read it all here.

Technorati talk bubble
Locations of visitors to this page