Category Archives: appeasement

Ron Paul: Blame America First for Jihad

Ron Paul is at it again.

But let’s not get to worked up about the crazy old loon. After all, he’ll be 76 in August. That will make him 77 by the time the next president is inaugurated. That’s nearly the age President Reagan was when he left office after two terms.

Ron Paul isn’t in this race to win. He’s one of those perpetual candidates for president who just adores the attention.

In his latest appearance on Fox News, Paul manages to stick to his McGovern-like “Blame America First” script with the tired old assumption that Jihad is being waged against us just because we are in Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or especially because we are an ally of Israel. Paul appears to be a disciple of Michael Schuerer, who has been spouting that line since BEFORE he left the CIA.

Anyway, the good folks at Gateway Pundit posted Paul’s appearance. My comments follow the link:

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/04/crazy-ron-paul-still-blames-the-us-for-islamic-extremism-video/

Here are my thoughts:

It is interesting that Ron Paul bases his entire philosophy on the global Islamic insurgency on the opinions of Michael Sheuer. Michael Sheuer epitomizes all that is wrong with America’s bureaucratized counterterrorism apparatus. First of all, he broke longstanding CIA regulations at the encouragement of his politicized superiors to write a book while in active service. This alone makes him a scumbag in my book. Thousands of honorable CIA operators could have done the same, but none did. There is a reason. It’s called honor. Second, Sheuer had a uniquely disturbing career in the CIA. A career analyst with no field experience, he was somehow allowed to become a case officer and eventually found himself in charge of the CIA unit tasked with killing or capturing Bin Laden. He failed miserably. Moreover, if you actually read his work, it is readily apparent that Sheuer has at best a superficial level of knowledge of Islamic threat doctrine. He is appallingly ignorant for someone who was in the position he was in. This has resulted in his belief that we are only being attacked because of things we have done and especially for our support for Israel.

I ask my friends:

Is Jemmaah Islamiya attempting to establish an Islamic state in Indonesia because the US supports Israel?

Are the Chechyan jihadists waging Jihad against Russia because the US supports Israel?

Is Abu Sayyef attempting to establish an Islamic state on Mindanao because the US supports Israel?

Are Jihadists attempting to establish an Islamic state in southern Thailand because the US supports Israel?

Have Nigerian Jihadists attacked innocent Christians repeatedly because the US supports Israel?

Is Al Shabaad conducting terrorist attacks in Kenya and Somalia on innocent civilians because the US supports Israel?

Are Jihadists attempting to create an Islamic state in India’s Kashmir because the US supports Israel?

Have Jihadists killed thousands in attacks on innocent civilians in Morocco, Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, the UK, Spain, Jordan and Bangladesh because the US supports Israel?

Are young Jihadis rioting in France because the US supports Israel?

Why is all this happening? Could it be that there is something more to this global violence than the simple “blame America first” concept that Ron Paul supposes?

Why hasn’t he bothered to learn about the enemy threat doctrine?

ISLAMIC SUPREMACISM AND CONQUEST

The soon-to-be constructed Ground Zero mosque has generated a lot of controversy. There seems to be a general level of confusion as to what this is all about.

There shouldn’t be.

The Ground Zero mosque is about Islamic supremecism and conquest. It’s really quite that simple–and this is not a new phenomenon, as evidenced by these videos posted on YouTube by an individual going by the alias “mujahadeen911.”








America’s Wrongheaded Approach to Jihad

In the wake of the miraculously failed Christmas day Jihadi attack over the skies of Detroit, we are starting to see our governmental mechanisms crank into gear to institute policies to prevent terrorists from attacking us successfully.

Never mind that it was that very governmental bureaucracy which enabled the Jihadists to penetrate secure areas with explosives and come close to killing 270 people on Christmas day. It was our incompetent governmental bureaucracies which granted a known Jihadi a visa to enter the United States. It was our governmental bureaucracies which let him get on an airliner without a passport. It was our governmental bureaucracies which failed to recognize classic warning signs: ticket paid for in cash, no checked luggage.

Nevertheless, Janet Napolitano, who is evidently conflicted between whether the security system worked like clockwork or failed miserably, has had her department of Homeland Security see to it that no one stands up for the last hour of any flight (an order which has evidently already been rescinded) and Transportation Security personnel are redoubling efforts to tighten access to airliners.

Meanwhile, President Obama managed to tear himself from the links to declare the terrorist an “isolated extremist,” perhaps the worst mischaracterization made by a sitting president since Richard Nixon declared himself “not a crook.” Obama then promised a dragnet to find those responsible. What complete and utter hogwash.

This security and law enforcement approach used against those who are at war with us will never work.

We can button up airliners tighter than a drum and do body cavity searches of passengers and you know what will happen?

The Jihadists will drive a truck loaded with TNT through the front door of the terminal at a major airport the day before Thanksgiving and kill hundreds.

Or they’ll target subways and trains like they did in Madrid, London and Paris.

Or they’ll target shopping malls or schools.

Until we realize that this is a war and not a law enforcement problem and that these terrorists have a common thread, whether they are lone wolves or part of cells, it will keep getting worse.

The problem is Islam. Not Muslims, but Islam as practiced by a core of Muslims who largely control the Islamic world. Their goal is to implement sharia law. Their goal is not for you and me to convert to Islam, but to impose sharia on us. That is what they are fighting for and sharia is their doctrine as well. We ignore this at our peril. The reason for everything they do can be looked up in books that they wrote. Not just the Noble Quran, but books like “Reliance of the Traveler” and “Milestones” and “The Quranic Concept of War.” If you really want to understand where the enemy is coming from, buy these books on Amazon and read them.

http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0915957728/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262102462&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Milestones-Sayyid-Qutb/dp/0934905142/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262102522&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/The-Quranic-Concept-of-War/dp/8170020204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262102577&sr=1-1

Then download Stephen Coughlin’s thesis from the Center for Security Policy web site. It’s free and it should be the handbook for fighting the war of ideas.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p16600.xml?genre_id=3

There is a global Jihadist insurgency and insurgencies are 80% political/ideological not military. We can win the military side. But we aren’t even fighting the other 80%. And that’s what manufactures guys like this Nigerian, who was, like most Jihadist terrorists, wealthy and educated, even privileged. (This is NOT about poverty; don’t let anyone tell you that.)

The Jihadis are indoctrinated for years in mosques and madrassas. They don’t go “radical” by accident. It is a system. Go to the MEMRI web site and take a look at state-run television in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the Palestinian territories and even Egypt. You will be shocked at what you see and hear, especially on the programs targeted at children. Jihadis are not born. They are created. Furthermore, they aren’t created because the USA supports Israel or because the USA overthrew Saddam Hussein in Iraq or the Taliban in Afghanistan. Their agenda is much wider, longer and deeper than that.

The Jihadists did not slaughter hundreds of school children in Beslan, Russia because the USA supports Israel or because US troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Jihadists killed 241 US servicemen in Beirut in 1983, blew up the World Trade Center in 1993, blew up a USAF barracks in 1995, blasted our embassies in east Africa in 1998, attacked the USS Cole in 2000 and flew airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11th 2001 before a single American soldier or Marine set foot in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The Jihadists didn’t kill 200 Australian tourists in Bali, Indonesia because the US supports Israel. They didn’t slaughter dozens in Mumbai, India because the US is in Iraq. They aren’t killing people in southern Thailand because the US is in Afghanistan. And the Islamic insurgency in the Philippines predates all of this.

There must be something else at work.

It’s called Jihad.

You can expect some type of Jihadist incident involving Americans to be in the news every week from now on. Some incidents will be violent Jihad like Fort Hood and Flight 253. Others will be civilizational or “stealth” jihad, such as refusing to allow bomb-sniffing dogs near Muslims based on some notion of religious “freedom.” This is the environment that fighting a politically correct war for 8 years has created. Get used to it.

Let me give you an example of what we’re up against. The best example is Saudi Arabia. Some in the US refer to the Sauds as “allies” in the “war on terrorism.” But if the Sauds are really at war with Al Qaeda and the Jihadists, then why don’t we hear about lots of attempts on the lives of Saudi princes (and there are thousands of Saudi princes)? They are not hard to find. Go to a casino or disco in London or Monte Carlo and you can find them and often without tight security. Since Al Qaeda was founded in 1989, the number of Saudi royals killed by their terrorism stands at 0. In that time, there was only a single documented attempt by an Al Qaeda terrorist on a Saudi prince, who just happened to be the minister of the Interior, in charge of a large portion of security forces.

In Saudi Arabia when you are caught shoplifting, under their Sharia law, you have a good chance of getting your hand chopped off as punishment. A woman gets 100 lashes for the crime of adultery. The Sauds behead people for more serious crimes.

Yet, when a Saudi is caught on the battlefield as a member of Al Qaeda by US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan and is turned over to the Sauds, what happens to them?

They are sent to rehab. In rehab they are issued crayons and paint for art therapy. (I am not joking.) After rehab, they are released.

Why do you suppose this is?

I’ll tell you why. Because they haven’t committed a crime as far as the Sauds are concerned. Shoplifting gets your hand chopped off, Jihad doesn’t even get you a slap on the wrist.

Does anyone still believe that the Sauds are our allies?

The Jihadists get funded, they get trained and they get granted safe haven. This happens a number of ways and from a number of sources and we need to go after them. Use our strengths to go after the ideological and financial and training sources. Until we do, expect this to get worse and worse. Taking our shoes off before getting on the airplane isn’t going to help one damn bit.

Baloney from Obama on North Korea–and Covering for Iran

In the video below, President Obama is asked if his policies toward North Korea and Iran are accomplishing anything, other than buying those two nations time to expand their nuclear programs.

This was a surprisingly excellent question from the media–and one that could only have been asked overseas. There is simply no way in hell that any member of the lapdog White House press corps, which may as well be a branch of the administration staff, would have sacked up to ask this question.

Predictably, Obama, sans teleprompter, stuttered and stammered his way clumsily through a non-answer. Watch as French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose administration led negotiations with Iran for some time and was critical of Obama’s naivete’ regarding Iran, is clearly uncomfortable sitting next to Obama as our president pratfalls his way through his attempt at an answer:

There is much that is troubling about Obama’s answer, besides his obvious inability to articulate on the subject.

He appears to be taking shots at the Bush administration by stating repeatedly that North Korea will no longer be rewarded for bad behavior.

But the fact is, his policy toward North Korea is EXACTLY a continuance of the Bush policy: We’ve got Russia and China on our side…

Russia and China are NOT on our side here. China in particular has a long history of supplying arms to North Korea. Without Russia and China, in fact, North Korea’s nuclear program would be a group of physicists in a lab conducting experiments and nothing more.

It is especially ironic that Obama is attempting to distance himself from the Bush policies given that he himself personally selected the architect of the Bush policy toward North Korea, Christopher R. Hill, to be ambassador to Iraq, where, even more ominously, he will no doubt have to interact with the neighboring Iranians. Obama picked him over the desires of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who wanted retired Marine General Anthony Zinni for the Iraq ambassadorship. This is an indication of just how impressed Obama is with Hill.

We can only shudder to think what Hill might give away to appease the Iranians. He had North Korea taken off the terrorist-sponsoring list, above the objections of US ally Japan, because of their perceived “cooperation” on their nuclear program, only to watch with his thumb up his you-know-where as they went back on those agreements after the fact. If there is one man in the United States of America who we do NOT want dealing with the Iranians, it is Christopher R. Hill.

Note in the video that Obama completely ignores the issue of Iran. He does not even attempt to answer that part of the question and basically covers up the Iranians’ actions:

1. Like North Korea, Iran has also conducted ballistic missile tests.

2. Iran has announced that they are now spinning 7200 centrifuges–in violation of international treaties and UN Security Council resolutions.

3. Iran has refused to cooperate with IAEA inspectors–again, in violation of international treaties and UN Security Council resolutions.

4. Iran continues to supply heavy weapons to the Taliban, which the Taliban use to kill US GIs in Afghanistan

Obama mentions none of this.

 

Why?

Chas Freeman: Saudi shill and liar

Chas Freeman, Barack Obama’s choice to head the National Intelligence Council has no business being anywhere near classified information, much less heading an intelligence body. 

He has close ties to the Iran lobby. He has enriched himself as a board member of Red China’s China National Offshore Oil Company and he has fed hungrily at the Saudi feeding trough.

alwaleed

 

And, as Martin Kramer reveals, Freeman is also a liar…

http://sandbox.blog-city.com/chas_freeman_911_september_11.htm

LATE ADDITIONS:

Powerline blog has an excellent article on Freeman entitled “Saudi/Manchurian candidate unfit for office”

We’d add that Freeman is also very fond of the Iranians, but it’s still a darn good article:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/03/023008.php

And Ed Morrisey at HotAir does an excellent job of deconstructing Freeman’s transparently pro-Saudi and anti-American views about September 11th…

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/07/chas-freeman-911-our-fault-and-the-israelis/

 

 

Brits give in to Hezbollah, will Obama follow suit?

We have now been greeted with the disgusting news that Great Britain has decided to reach out to Hezbollah in an effort to enter into a dialogue with the group to convince them to abandon terrorism.

This incredibly naive approach to a Jihadist terrorist organization likely stems from the British approach to the Irish Republican Army. This notion of using the IRA model with a Jihadist organization is not new. The rock star Bono has suggested the same moronic idea with Al Qaeda.

We could write volumes about how bad an idea this whole approach is, but it is probably much better to simply use Hezbollah’s own words to illustrate the futility of negotiating with them:

We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.’

These words were uttered by Hussein Massawi, the Hezbollah leader at the time of the Islamikaze attacks on the US Marine Barracks in Beirut.

We can only hope that the Obama administration does not follow the British policy, though we can’t help but suspect that Obama will do something just along those lines, since he is already doing so with Hezbollah’s sponsor, Iran.

The Obama and Brown administrations simply cannot get over with fast enough.

The intrepid Melanie Phillips has an excellent story on this subject:

%d bloggers like this: