Archive for taliban
March 23, 2008 at 5:58 pm · Filed under America, America-hate, anti-semitism, christianity, crusade, culture, democrats, hamas, hate, hating America, hezbollah, history, intolerance, iran, iraq, islam, israel, liberals, military, muslim, news, pakistan, politics, somalia, taliban, templars, terrorism, USA, war
It is a sad fact of today that Islamic Extremists are conducting a vicious campaign of violence against all they consider to be “infidels” and “unbelievers.”
Ironically, whenever I bring up this simple fact, the apologists of Islamic Extremism try to use ancient history of past Christian Extremism during Midle Ages and Crusades as an excuse for what Islamic Extremists do today. So, in essence, Muslims Extremists and their supporters feel that they have a right to go forward with a Muslim Crusade against West in 21st Century, just because Western Christians embarked on a Crusade against Muslims in 12th Century. I do not dispute obvious facts of unimaginable cruelty by Christian Crusaders in Middle East in 12th Century, but it is false to assume that those crimes can be an excuse for barbarism displayed by Islamic Extremists today. Today, Christianity is nothing like violent Crusaders of 12th Century. Today, it is Jihadist Islam that is a monstrous aggressor, striving to destroy and kill all those who dare to differ from it in beliefs.
The analogy is complete – even with modern analogy for Knights Templar – the Taliban, Hezbollah and Hamas! Think about this: all of these are military religious organization, standing armies with goal of killing all who do not believe in Allah. How is that different from Templars or Knights Hospitallers, who were the armies of Jesus? Templars and Hospitallers participated in politics, waged war and pursued goal of genocide of Muslim religion – sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Replace Jesus with Mohammed, and the analogy is complete.
Jihad is a modern-day Muslim Crusade, and groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are its Templars and Hospitallers.
Permalink
January 7, 2008 at 11:28 pm · Filed under 911, al qaeda, anti-war, bin Laden, daily kos, democrats, iran, iraq, islam, israel, liberals, military, muslim, news, north korea, pakistan, politics, pro-defeat, taliban, terrorism, USA, war
In the past, the wars were fought exclusively by nations. If a nation wanted to go to war, it had to equip and train large number of men, which made any sudden attack on an alert enemy impossible. Weaponry available just hundred years ago was limited by small arms, artillery, and aircraft, which necessitated prolonged war with any decently prepared adversary.
Today, the world is awash with countries obtaining nuclear weapons. The nuke, the miracle weapon of ultimate destruction, which was available exclusively to superpowers only 30 years ago, today is owned by countries like North Korea, India, and Pakistan. Nuclear weapons programs have been discovered and documented in countries like Lybia, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
The reality of today is that any entity — terrorist group or nation of ANY size — that has access to nuclear weapons and capability to place them on USA territory, can realistically defeat USA, if it succeeds to do so. And the enemy does not have to be a nation at all — look at Hezbollah versus Israel, Al-Qaeda versus USA! Imagine a hypothetical scenario: a terrorist organization smuggles nukes accross US-Mexico border into USA, and simultaneously detonates the nuclear bombs in LA, Atlanta, NYC, Dallas, Miami, and Chicago. If, in fact such a horrific atrocity would take place without warning, the USA, for all practical purposes, would be done – majority of people would be killed, and those left alive would hardly be able to re-establish our country as we know it.
This is why, it is a sad but crucial necessity to keep pre-emptive war as a viable option when dealing with nations/entities that are unresponsive to other means of negotiations and present clear danger to USA.
Within this framework, Iraq war is a justifiable one. President Bush attempted for 6 months to resolve the Iraqi WMD crisis in UN security council to no avail. Iraqis and the Europeans flatly refused to provide any guarantees that Iraq did in fact destroy its WMD, and that no terrorist group will ever take possession of stockpiles of nerve gas that Saddam used against Kurds. After six months of fruitless negotiations, just having been brutally attacked on 911, our country had no other option that to pre-emptively attack Iraq in order to be sure it will not be a threat to USA any more.
Permalink
January 1, 2008 at 4:01 pm · Filed under al qaeda, America, bin Laden, culture, intolerance, islam, muslim, news, pakistan, taliban, terrorism, USA, war
From the SUN online [h/t: JawaReport]:
“A FANATICAL Pakistani cleric told The Sun yesterday of his chilling dream to turn the world Muslim – by force if necessary.
Qari Hifzur Rehamn, 60, spoke openly of imposing Islamic law’s stoning and beheading on Britain – as Pakistan was rocked by unrest over the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
He warned: “We want Islamic law for all Pakistan and then the world.
“We would like to do this by preaching. But if not then we would use force.”“
Permalink
December 28, 2007 at 6:13 pm · Filed under America, anti-war, bin Laden, culture, democrats, iraq, islam, lawsuit, liberals, muslim, news, politics, taliban, terrorism, USA, war
The “waterboarding is torture” argument is silly. I think any guy who is sane would rather be waterboarded for a day rather than spend a decade in prison. Hell, I would choose to be waterboarded for TWO days rather than taking a shower with twenty 250-pound convicts even once.
So, does that mean that prison sentences are MORE of a torture that waterboarding?
No, of course not.
So what is torture? Hammer to the toes and fingers, powerdrill to the kneecaps and the skull, screwdriver to gauge out the eyes – just a few of things, which I think, legitimately are torture. They all share same characteristic — permanent and horrific damage to the human body. NOT discomfort – PERMANENT DAMAGE!
I guess, to some people any discomfort experienced by anybody while in custody must be torture. Well, those people are very idealistic, to the point of being crudely ignorant.
Permalink
December 27, 2007 at 3:51 pm · Filed under 746, al qaeda, islam, muslim, news, pakistan, politics, taliban, terrorism, war
It is a horrible thing that Benazir Bhutto had to die. I personally thought she was an opportunist, a person of extreme danger to fragile stability in Pakistan. However, even if I am correct, she did not deserve to be shot like a dog. I am sure another example of Islamist misogyny will be quietly accepted without protest. Islamists, who killed her, will not be blamed – Bush and Musharraf will be.
Here is a little history on Benazir Bhutto:
1. Benazir Bhutto and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari (who, by accident of course, served as Environmental Minister in her government) were incredibly corrupt politicians. Ali Zardari and Bhutto were, for one example, found guilty of money laundering by Swiss authorities in 1998, given suspended sentences of 6 months in prison, and fined $50,000 each. Ali Zardari is still being prosecuted in England as I write this, for ownership of multi-million dollar estate, which Government of Pakistan alleges was paid for by bribes.
2. Benazir Bhutto helped Taliban regime in Afghanistan during her rule. Why? Taliban rule in Afghanistan would ensure that Afghanistan would not threaten Pakistan, therefore Pakistan could concentrate all it forces and attention on India. Thanks, Benazir, such a great job you did.
Benazir Bhutto did not return top Pakistan for Pakistan’s sake. She returned there for her own greed for power. Could she not see that Musharraf was the only reason that fragile Pakistan stayed afloat, whole, and not Islamist throughout War On Islamo-Fascism? Of course she did. She knew it well. She could not care less. When she said “Democracy” all she meant was “Bhutto rule”.
It seems very ironic to me, that she died from the very thing that Musharraf tried to protect her from (remember, when she was put on house arrest?) – Islamist assassins.
Permalink
August 18, 2007 at 6:57 pm · Filed under al qaeda, bin Laden, culture, hate, iran, islam, military, muslim, news, politics, somalia, taliban, terrorism, USA, war
This is an original article written by 2008Voter, please visit his blog here.
Here it is:
CNN and the spin on God’s Warriors
CNN Presents God’s Warriors . Despite the all spin that CNN did put into the program the idea to compare Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious radicals is very productive. If we will go beyond what CNN is omitting in its program and we will compare side by side the Jewish, Christian and Muslims “ God warriors” few things will be obvious from that comparison :
- “ Muslim warriors” are only religious warriors who are supported by state ( Iran is an example)
- “ Muslim warriors” are only religious warriors who operate globally and have a goal of imposing its religion as religion on others
- “ Muslim warriors” are only religious warriors who operate in the countries and territories which are out of the historical borders of its religion ( Muslims terrorism in USA and Europe)
- “ Muslim warriors” are only religious warriors who are practicing strategy of intentional mass deliberate killing of civilians
- “ Muslim warriors” are only religious warriors who have own armies with rockets and artillery : Hezbollah
- “ Muslim warriors” are only religious warriors who control entire countries ( Afghanistan, Somalia until recently and Iran today )
- “ Muslim warriors” are only religious warriors who are attacking sovereign countries ( Hezbollah attacked Israel)
- “ Muslim warriors” are only religious warriors who have under military control entire territories (Gaza , Somalia)
So the whole idea to equalize Jewish, Christian and Muslims is disingenuous .
Permalink
July 31, 2007 at 4:45 am · Filed under al qaeda, America, bin Laden, islam, military, muslim, news, politics, pro-defeat, sarcasm, taliban, terrorism, USA, war
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
By VOA News
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.
Permalink
Golos - The Voice 