Archive for July, 2007

Taliban to use smaller suicide-vests to limit civillian casualties.

I only wish:

It is NATO which is going to limit itself by using only smaller bombs in Afghanistan. I think it is a huge mistake — only more civilians will die in suicide bombings, unless Taliban will be crushed asap. This is like invasion of Japan going forward because Truman chickened-out and did not drop a bomb on Japan.

Are we fighting a war in Afghanistan, or is it a police operation? What is next — our troops reading Miranda rights to Taliban?

From GlobalSecurity.org:

NATO To Use Smaller Bombs in Afghanistan


30 July 2007
NATO officials say they plan to use smaller bombs in Afghanistan to limit the rise in civilian casualties.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said the number of civilians killed during fighting between NATO with the Taleban has damaged the reputation of the alliance. He added that NATO commanders recently instructed troops to hold off attacking rebels in situations where civilians would be at risk.

The NATO chief spoke in an interview published Monday by the Financial Times. In the past, Scheffer has blamed Taleban militants for using Afghan civilians as human shields.

The coalition in Afghanistan has been criticized for the number of civilian casualties resulting from combat operations against the Taleban and other militants.

Last month, Afghan President Hamid Karzai accused NATO and U.S.-led forces of killing 90 civilians in air strikes and artillery fire against the Taleban.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP.

Leave a Comment

Cindy Sheehan profits from her son’s death just like Halliburton.

Cindy Sheehan leads the charge of pro-defeat movement by saying that “war profiteers as Halliburton are raping the American tax payer of billions of dollars as a matter of company policy” (from original article by C. Sheehan). 

Any reasonable man had to admit — all corporations, just like people, are different. Most (not all, of course) corporations are law-abiding, free-enterprise inventors of new technology, wonder drugs, products and services that drive our lifestyle and powerhouse economy. I am not expert of Halliburton, so, for the sake of argument only, let us say that Halliburton indeed is dirty.

But my point is not about how profoundly useful most honest and law-abiding corporations are. My point is this:

Cindy Sheehan exploits her dead son for own political and financial gain in the very same way as (supposedly dirty) Halliburton exploits war.

FACTS:

1. Cindy Sheehan declared that she runs for Congress against Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D) (video from PoliticalTickerCNN blog).

2. The members of Sheehan’s own peace organization, the Crawford Peace House, have admitted that “tens of thousands donated during Cindy Sheehan’s 2005 war protest are unaccounted for” (from AP report at SFGate).

QUESTIONS:

Would she be in position to run for Congress, if her son would be alive?

Would all that money be given to her if her son would be alive?

Where is the money?

How can SHE talk about Halliburton when SHE embezzled money given to her because of her dead son?

Is she not RAPING American conscience for profit, using corpse of her WAR HERO son as a flag, just as she accuses Halliburton of doing the same?

Comments (2)

Newsweek: if Muslims in USA will not be happy, we all will pay the price.

I found this incredibly interesting posting by 2008Voter.

He had graciously allowed me to share it in its entirety below:

I do not read Newsweek, but thanks do DR Bulldog and his article I paid attention to this piece. As you read my notes below, please understand that my notes are addressed not against Muslims, but against Newsweek and its interpretation of problems of Muslims in America.

“After the attacks “our responsibilities changed,” says Mohiuddin, who emigrated from India when he was 17. “It forced people to say, ‘Where do I stand? Either I walk away from the faith or I become more involved in defending the faith, which [is] under assault’.”

Defending the faith, which [is] under assault????? Wait a second, it was us who were attacked!!!!! And, correct me if I am wrong, all those who attacked us were Muslims!! I am not saying that Muslims in general attacked us, but I am stating the simple fact — those who attacked us on 911 were in fact Muslims.

“The Council on American Islamic Relations, an advocacy group, counted nearly 2,500 civil-rights complaints by Muslim Americans in 2006, a dramatic increase over the previous year.

It may mean that there are more violations, but it may mean that there are more complaints (including these which were inspired by propaganda of Newsweek).

“These are the kinds of stories that make news—women who sue for the right to wear the hijab in their driver’s license photo”

Wait a second: the right to have a driver license without showing a face on the license is a civil right??? Why Muslim have to have more rights than me? Nobody would allow me to have a license without my face on it.

Are Muslims, according to the author, better than me, more special??

“The six imams who were pulled off a US Airways flight last fall after praying openly at a Minneapolis airport gate have sued the airline and the airport commission for civil-rights violations.”

Nobody argues that Muslims do not have right to pray — nobody! It does not mean, however, that they have special right to pray anywhere, anytime, with disregard of others. If I would start praying, for example, on sidewalk of a highway, a trooper would be interested in me in the very same moment. You want to pray? Go to mosque, church, synagogue, your home — somewhere private! End of story.

“I think the poll miscaptures what’s being said,” he says. “There is such a thing as legitimate resistance to oppression, and there is terrorism on both sides. It’s wrong, but there’s also the right to resist.”

 

Who said that ? Operative of Hamas? Leader of Hezbollah? None of the above. Those are words of executive director of the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services in Detroit.

I am not going into whole Israeli-Arab question for right now (that is totally different conversation) but the message of Mr. Director of the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services in Detroit is until Israeli issue will be not resolved (and we all know what that means) USA cannot rely on its own Muslim citizens. Is that a message? Give us Israel to pacify us?

“The poll numbers, in his view, don’t point to a threat of homegrown suicide bombers, but to a passionate defense of a resistance movement—the way, 30 years ago, an Irish-American teenager would have supported the IRA.”

IRA did not present the global religion which is in state of holy war with my country.

Did I miss something or we are still talking about religion which, under flag of Jihad, is calling to kill Americans everywhere? You want a fair comparison ? The fair comparison with IRA would be adequate only if IRA would declare holy war on all non-Catholics around the world.

“For him, the bombing of Afghanistan that followed was much more tragic and painful.”

Just one question: was bombing of Belgrade similarly painful to him ? When Americas were bombing Serbs to protect Muslims in Yugoslavia?? Or this particular bombing was OK?

If indeed “the Lackawanna Six were vulnerable boys seduced by a charismatic radical.”

First of all, it is the executive director of the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services in Detroit who is saying that violence against Israel “legitimate resistance to oppression” is an excellent inspiration for these “boys” as well.

Second of all, if charismatic radical is to be blamed, then why instead of condemning “charismatic radical” (sounds like a honorable title in this context) they are running stories about alleged anti-Arab racism like an excuse for terrorism? If you are so understanding to your “vulnerable boys,” have some understanding to our “vulnerable boys” who may be “frustrated” with 9/11 and with Jihad declared against their country, together with anti-cartoon paranoia and beheading of infidels.

May be our “vulnerable boys“ are as “vulnerable” as yours? Did you ever had this thought??

Article ended with a statement which in this context sounds like a chilling threat :

“Losing Jamil Ahmed and Autri Sajedeen would be the worst thing in the world—not just for them, but for all of us.”

Meaning, if Muslims in USA will not be happy we all pay the price??

Comments (4)

Liberal = Anti-semite ??? Blogger sued over criticism of open anti-semitism???

Quote (directly from Wonkette):

“In a stunning rocket, Rudy Jew-liani basically admitted that he doesn’t know anything at all about foreign policy — or maybe that he knows too much. In an interview with the Jew York Times, Rudy inavertendly revealed that the US has been fighting an entire extra war these last few years that only he knows about.”

WHERE IS OUTRAGE OF PEOPLE WHO CONSIDER THEMSELVES “LIBERAL” OVER THIS?

UPDATE:

An Israeli blogger was a man enough to voice his disagreement with openly anti-Semitic comment quoted above. Now he is being threatened with lawsuit. h/t LGF

What about First Amendment? What about the right to criticize whomever you want to criticize?

Regardless of your political position, you have to agree — this is DESPICABLE!

If you agree with my outrage over the comment and over the threat of a lawsuit, PLEASE WRITE SOMETHING ONLINE CRITICIZING THESE ANTISEMITES! The more people will be against them, the less inclined they will be to sue. They can’t sue whole damn Internet!

Comments (4)

Who is the worst president ever? (Not who you think it is!)

Today President Bush’ approval rating is at 29% (as of July 2007). Yes, it is bad. But, is he the least-approved President ever?

NO!

The title of the least-approved President ever belongs to Democrat Harry Truman, who in the months of worst fighting of Korean War received 22% approval rating.

Why is this relevant?

Because:

1. Democrat assertion (specifically, by Mr. Reid) that Bush is the worst President ever, is flat wrong.

2. It is a fact, that just like Bush today, Harry Truman mishandled the Korean War very badly. He ignored Chinese warnings about possibility of invasion. As a result, North Korea remains communist even today. However, thanks to his resolve to remain alongside our South Koreans allies, South Korea is the prosperous, wealthy country we know today.

I am pretty sure millions living in South Korea today are damn glad Truman did not follow the route modern-day Democrats wish to take in Iraq. 

Perhaps, if we challenge our Congressional leaders to direct their efforts towards actually WINNING instead of LOOSING in Iraq, just maybe we can actually WIN, just like in South Korea?

Comments (9)

Democrats are cherry-picking facts to justify abandonment of Iraqi people by USA.

Democrats lobby American people to justify withdrawal from Iraq. In doing so, they engage in very thing the accused Bush administration of doing in the run-up to the war : cherry-picking of facts.

1. No Democratic leader has even mentioned the issue of imminent genocide that will transpire in Iraq once Americans leave. Has Vietnam taught USA anything at all? The moment our enemies — Iran and/or Al-Qaeda — will gain territory left by Americans, they will gladly slit throats of Iraqis friendly to America we left behind. I am talking about Iraqis, who gullibly believed American promises of “Democracy” and “freedom”, I am talking about Iraqis who enlisted in Iraqi Police and Army.

2. No Democratic leader has even mentioned recent military, diplomatic, and infrastructure successes in Iraqas if the change in Anbar province, for instance, has not happened at all. What major news outlets shrieking Baghdad without power — where are they now, today, to shed light on successes of Iraqi reconstruction?

I admit, maybe invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Certainly, if I knew how Bush would fumble it, I would not have agreed to it. But any reasonable man has to agree —

1. We started war in 2003. Nothing we can do today can change that. Iraqi people did not choose this war — WE DID!

2. If we withdraw, we LOOSE by admitting that Al-Qaeda and/or Iran is more powerful than our military.

2. If we withdraw, we will let Iraqi militias to kill ALL who they see as friend of America in Iraq (just like it happened in Vietnam).

Comments (20)

America will create thousands of “bin Ladens” if it will abandon Iraq.

After 911, I remember how people would say that Usama is angry at America because we used to be his ally in war against Soviets in Afghanistan, and then we dumped him there when we did not need him anymore. We used him, and then threw him out — and probably that was the initial reason for his America-hate.

Today, Democrats are setting us up to do the same trick with the whole Iraqi nation. We are preparing the justification for abandonment of entire nation, which did not choose to live in Iraq, or to start the war we started.

We went into Iraqi homeland, we started the war, we destroyed any resemblance of stability, and now, like a child tired of toy, we want to throw Iraqi people out, we want to force them to deal with the mess we started?

You think we created “bin Ladens” by invading Iraq? THINK AGAIN : We will create far more “bin Ladens” if we will abandon Iraqi people to deal with the mess WE started.

Comments (3)

Why Al-Qaeda attacked USA (not because of what you think)

This is quote from an amazing article at Belmont Club:

One of the most fascinating questions — one worthy of a book — must be why Osama Bin Laden chose to order his suicide airplanes into Manhattan rather than say, Beijing or Moscow. Both these nations have been campaigning against Muslims for centuries. And the answer, I suspect, lies in the “excited commands and shouts of glee form the Chinese on the soundtrack”. Or the veritable rain of shells that fell on Grozny in the recent past or the vicious campaign that still rages through Chechnya today. Maybe Bin Laden attacked America because he knew how it would fight. In a mode where even prisoners in Guantanamo Bay could insist upon their Korans being handled with white gloves, while a large section of America’s own media would condemn this treatment as too harsh.”

While on the same topic, a BBC News article from 2005:

China has been accused by two US-based human rights groups of conducting a “crushing campaign of religious repression” against Muslim Uighurs.

It is being done in the name of anti-separatism and counter-terrorism, says a joint report by Human Rights Watch and Human Rights in China.

It is said to be taking place in the western Xinjiang region, where more than half the population is Uighur.

China has denied that it suppresses Islam in Xinjiang.

It says it only wants to stop the forces of separatism, terrorism and religious extremism in the region, which Uighur separatists call East Turkestan.”

I, as a person who grew up in ex-Soviet Union, can tell you: the only reason why Muslims attacks USA (which did a lot of good for Muslims in Kosovo) instead of turning on Russia (which persecuted Chechens, Ingush, and other muslim peoples) or China (just read the quote above) is because they know:

Chinese or Russians would answer to any terrorist act from any Muslim organization with a wave of horrific atrocities, while USA would reply at all only if it would be desperate to defend itself. Look at Chechnya, look at Chinese Uighurs.

That is the reason why Al-Qaeda attacked USA, not Russia or China.

Comments (41)

Why world hates America (not because of what you think)

World hates America not because America start wars, but because America does not have guts to finish them to the end.

America dumped its allies in Vietnam when war became too “inconvienient” — resulting in deaths of millions at the hands of Communists. Then America dumped its allies in the Somalia when war became too “inconvienient” politically for Clinton — resulting in deaths of hundeds of thosands of people at the hands of warlords.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, we are preparing to do it again — IRAQ!

We are the laughing stock of the world, the cowardly cheapskate of the country, which betrays its allies at the earliest convenience.

We started war in Iraq — for better or for worse, we did that.

We got Iraqis involved in it — for better or for worse, we did that too.

And now, we are preparing to tell them : “Go clean your own damn mess”? No wonder world hates America — nobody likes country you cannot trust.

WE STARTED THE MESS IN IRAQ, WE MUST FINISH IT!

Comments (1)

Let us end War in Iraq by winning it, not loosing it!

We are at war. Nothing Democrats can do TODAY can change decision made by Congress and President in 2003. Nothing can turn time back.

Two wrongs does not make one right. If we make a horrible mistake TODAY by withdrawing prematurely, it will not fix a horrible mistake in 2003. Withdrawing today from Iraq means:
1. Slaughter in Iraq beyond anyone’s imagination. Anything in Iraq today will look like a walk in the park. 2. Defeat of US military by terrorists — just like Israeli defeat in Lebanon by Hezbollah.

It does not take a genius to end war by loosing it — it is like a doctor who cures headache with decapitation. We can END war by WINNING it, or we can END war by LOOSING it. Question is : which one do we prefer?

Democrats undeniably choose defeat — withdrawal from Iraq IS defeat. Defeat of US military, defeat of our morale, acknolwedgement that Al-Qaeda is more powerful than us, Americans.

Do not miunderstand me — Bush has botched this war horribly. He deserves ALL the blame for current violence, for his inability to foresee insurgency (which was obvious — no country submits to occupation without a fight!).

BUT to use Bush’s mistakes from yesterday to justify Democrat’s intention to make mistakes tomorrow is criminal. We must resolve to end the War in Iraq by winning it, not by loosing it, and we must start looking for ways to accomplish that.


UPDATE : I decided to cite the cause of this posting. This posting was inspired by this discussion (foul language warning), involving 2008 Voter.

Comments (20)

Older Posts »