Saturday, January 17, 2009

Unilateral Ceasefire???

I'm a logical person. And not one who has arrived on the scene just yesterday. But this makes little sense to me.

Israel is bombarded by thousands of missiles over the past several years from its Hamas-led neighbor in Gaza whose Charter vows to annihalate Israel and exterminate Jews.

Two weeks ago, Israel finally responds, first with a several day attack from the air, and then a ground offensive into the fringes of the densely populated urban centers where Hamas missles are being fired from.

Gazan missiles continue being fired at the rate averaging 20 per day (that would be 6100 per year)

Israel announces a "unilateral ceasefire", claiming its objectives have been achieved.

Meanwhile, Hamas claims they will never cease their attacks on Israel, and continues doing so - concurrently with their vow of revenge on the life of Israels' Foreign Affairs Minister Tzippi Livni.

What am I missing here? What kind of "achieving our objectives" is this? Has Israel again caved to world pressure? What has the United States promised and how likely is it that such promise will be carried out by the Obama administration? How much trust is being placed in their good Muslim friends in Egypt?

Sounds like Israel got a case "what have I gotton myself into", like I get when I climb a 20' ladder to get a cat out of the tree, look down 20' to the ground as I hug the ladder with both hands and feet and mutter under my breath "what the hell have I gotten my self into. To hell with the cat."

Well, Israel's cat is still in the tree. I really doubt the cat will climb down by itself. It's not in its charter - I mean character.

Friday, January 16, 2009

"A small band of fanatics..."

As patriotic and well meaning as George Bush may be, he has disappointed me in several areas, the most dangerous of which for our nation is his assumption about the nature of Islam.

The latter shortcoming is illustrated in this excerpt from his farewell address...

"The battles waged by our troops are part of a broader struggle between two dramatically different systems. Under one, [a] small band of fanatics demands total obedience to an oppressive ideology, condemns women to subservience, and marks unbelievers for murder. The other system is based on the conviction that freedom is the universal gift of Almighty God and that liberty and justice light the path to peace."

A "small band of fanatics" indeed. Has Mr. Bush ignored the near-violent and pointedly anti-Semitic protests in many American cities sponsored and attended by thousands of Islamists over the last couple of weeks? Has he ignored the violent and pro-genocide demonstrations in many nations of the world sponsored and attended by the same "small band?" I'm not talking about U2 or Kiss here.

Has Mr. Bush ignored the over 100 reported atrocities per month committed by Islamists in the name of Islamic jihad worldwide? View these here.

Mr. Bush must certainly realize that the federal government is not spending the highest national defense appropriation since the end of WWII, close to a trillion dollars, plus or minus a few billion to defend ourselves against a "small band of fanatics." C'mon, George. Why do you continue to sugar-coat our pickle in your rhetoric?

And the purpose of our $$$$$$ efforts in Iraq is to create a democracy? I recently read an apt description of democracy in Muslim dominated nations: One vote - One time.

The heart of Islam is the Koran. The heart of the Koran is world domination through spiritual, physical, and violent means. Muslims who are not terrorists themselves are either ignorant of the historical teachings of their religion, are knowledgeable but don't care for that part of it, or are supporters either in spirit, financially, politically, or logistically. What percent of the 1.2 billion Muslims might constitute the "small band of fanatics"? 10% (120,000,000); only 5% (60,000,000?) What part of the 95% are active supporters of the "small band" in one form or another? The US Muslim population is estimated at between 4 and 7 million. How many of these seek Sharia law in this nation? How many support the imposition of Islam here? How many will resort to deceit, infiltration, threat, or terror?

In any scenario, Bush is either the poor communicator the media claims (true), he is ignorant of the nature of Islam and is getting bad advice (most likely), or is purposely toning down his rhetoric for some obscure strategic purpose (possible).

None of these excuses are helpful to our nations' understanding of the nature of Islam and its impact on national security and our quality of life and national survival.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Professor: "What happened to an eye for an eye?"

Saree Makdisi, a UCLA English professor and defender of Hamas Islamofascists in Gaza asks "What happened to “an eye for an eye?” He, like many in the main stream media, believes Israel's response to Hamas firing thousands of rockets into civilian areas in Israel over the past couple of years is excessive. He apparantly believes that for every rocket Hamas fires on civilians in Israel that doesn't kill someone, Israel should limit its reaction to firing one rocket on Hamas civilians that doesn't kill someone.

He apparantly doesn't care that he selectively quoted only a portion of this principle of justice. He doesn't care that the Old Testament justice of "an eye for an eye" was applied to a one-on-one personal transgression - only after those who attempted evil were duly warned and eliminated from their midst. It did not apply to attacks by one nation upon another. It would be suicide for Israel to apply that principle to a neighboring government whose charter calls for the eradication of Israel and elimination of Jews. Sigh. But that is obviously what Saree would prefer.

The "wise" professor ignores "the rest of the story" told in Deuteronomy which reads:
"The judges [Israeli leadership] shall inquire diligently, and if the witness [Hamas] is a false witness and has accused his brother [Israel] falsely [Hamas accusing Israel], then you shall do to him [destroy him] as he had meant to do to his brother [Hamas means to destroy Israel based on Charter via missiles, but misses]. So you shall purge [eliminate] the evil [Hamas] from your midst. And the rest [other Islamists] shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."
(Deuteronomy 19:18-21, English Standard Version)
(For the nitpickers out there I must state the obvious: I added the annotations in the brackets to draw the analogy.)

These additional verses present a much clearer basis for Israel's action against Hamas, don't you think?

Professor Makdisi also prefers that Jews and Islamists share Palestine equally, sans a nation called "Israel." Another UCLA professor doing hash? He ignores that Jews are descended from the land of Palestine, therefore "Palestinians." Jews are entitled to their own states as much as Muslims are entitled to theirs. Why can't Muslims have... oh wait, they have Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Yemen, and Somalia - with Islamic political systems gaining in many neighboring countries through violent Jihadi practices.

After locating his e-mail address, I wrote him the following answer to his question:

"In you article titled "What Kind of Security Will This Barbarism Bring Israel" you ask "what happened to an eye for an eye?"

Not being Jewish, but familiar with the concept, I can gander a guess. Here it is.

First, there are many times more Islamist Palestinians who want to annihilate Jews than there are Jews. An eye for an eye would exhaust Jews a lot quicker than it would exhaust Islamist Palestinians. Israel likely sees that as a losing ratio. A thousand eyes for one eye would be closer to parity and justice.

Second, Islamist Palestinians appear to have little regard for human life. The murder of their own people for violating their repressive principles of conduct is no secret out here in the civilized world. Neither is their liberal use of human shields and purposeful terrorism via indiscriminately aimed rockets into civilian areas, and Islamic propensity to recruit and deploy human bombs.

Your message loses its potency in its hypocrisy."

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Terms of Cease Fire

Here are the terms I would impose on Hamas/Gaza before I'd agree to a ceasefire (aka what some would refer to as "refraining from beating them to a bloody pulp") ...

* Hamas renounce their goal to eliminate Israel. Acknowledge its right to exist.
* Hamas renounce any violence against Israel.
* Hamas agree to disarm.
* Hamas provide for unlimited inspections inside Gaza by Israel and its allies.
* Gaza set up a permanant Israeli miliatry zone between Egypt and Gaza to assure no arms cross through or under that zone.
* Revise the Hamas Charter to integrate the above principles.
* Israel not permit free passage of Palestinians into Israel. Protect Israels borders.
* Israel maintain a strict cap on the proportion of non-Jewish Palestinians (or simply "Muslims") allowed in the nation either as visitors or citizens.
* The Gazan government agree to promote individual responsibility and productivity to enhance their quality of life instead of focusing their limited resources on the destruction and elimination of Israel.

What is the chance of any of the above happening? 0.0000%

More Self Hatred of Western Civilization - Media Bias on Drudge

The Drudge Report is turning into the same "garbage in/garbage out" as most of the rest of the media.

Two recent back to back headlines read...


"Israeli army says mortar shells fired from school, infantry returned fire..."

The first is taken as fact: "UN School?" How about "UN School used as Hamas stronghold and source of mortar fire?" Maybe that's too complicated for most journalists.

The second is taken as "someone says", as in "its probably not true, but..."

This kind of "take the terrorists word for it" and "question our allies" is all too typical of the media, including Drudge.

Monday, January 05, 2009

Is the stronger country supposed to lose the war?

Israel is criticized by much of the world for using its superior military weapons to defend itself against "poor defenseless" Islamofascist Gaza. This means when there is asymmetrical warfare as in the case of Israel versus Hamas, the stronger military force (Israel) must not use its military force to its ultimate advantage. They need to hold back to make sure there is "proportional response." Israel needs to be sensitive to the fact that Hamas locates their rockets and munitions in private homes, and mosques. Israel needs to respect that Hamas leaders have donned physicians garb and meld into Gazan hospitals. But that sensitivity is tantamount to a call for surrender.

An American general had a word for this stupid military option: Nuts.

There is nothing asymmetrical about this war when all aspects of war are considered. Yes, Israel has its military weapons, its tanks, artillery, and world class air force. Hamas not only has its rockets, and rocket propelled grenades, tons of stored munitions, booby-trapped buildings, roadside bombs and unknown thousands fighters with their own personal weapons. These Islamofacists have perfected their own lurid practice of unconventional warfare including suicide bombers, no regard for human life, however innocent (if a person is not Muslim, he is not "innocent") and best of all, a knack for lying that has been perfected to the point wherein much of the worlds' media has been duped. See here.

When a nation is put in a desparate position, fearing for its existence like Israel understandably is, that nation must use whatever resources they have to achieve their objective despite the rules the enemies of that country have concocted. There are no human rights during war - at least during war that is fought to win. If Israel wants a continuing tenuous existence, it will listen to all the human rights complainers and Islamo fascist hypocrits and curb its military into an ineffective France-like mass of pansies.

But if Israel wants to secure its existence, it will use its weapons to their full effect and let nothing stifle their use. There is no victorious nation on earth who won a war by holding back. During World War II entire cities were bombed indiscriminantly by both sides. Look at any war in history. The ones that were lost were the ones where the loser held back.

Hamas shall bear the full responsibility of human suffering they have brought upon their own people for whom they alone are responsible to defend and protect. But, oh yeah, they do have a different value system, don't they. They do not hesitate to use their own women and children for human shields, suicide bombers, and excuses to stop an effective military from pounding the crap out of them.

Israel should not hold back and suffer because of that difference.

NBC performs its own "ethnic cleansing"

I just learned that Ann Coulter was "banned for life" from NBC's "Today Show". That shouldn't be too long - the life of NBC probably won't last more than another year or two.

French Committ Atrocities Against Somali Fishermen

The French navy committed crimes of the sea when they kidnapped a number of innocent Black African fisherman trying to eak out their frugal living in their humble fishing careers.

This distortion of the "French warship captures 19 Somali pirates" news story is as disingenuous as the French condemning Israel for going after the "peaceloving" Islamic Gazi's. Get a grip, France.

Saturday, January 03, 2009

World Sucked in by Hamas BS

When you hear representatives of Gaza or of Hamas, or of any Islamic nation on CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, or even on Fox, you need to listen with some background knowledge so as not to be taken in by their "taqiya" (Islamic doctrine of purposeful deception.)

I've just listened to one so-called "moderate" representative of the Palestinain liberation movement blaming Israel for breaking the 6 month truce. He proclaimed Hamas innocent of any provocation and accused Israel of unilaterally attacking after starving the poor Gazans.

To realize how much bullsh-t this really is, all one must do is skim the Hamas charter. Take a look here.

A major theme running throughout the Charter is that Israel must be eliminated. It states that enemies of Islam "formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests." It states the only way that Christians and Jews can exist peaceably is "under the wing of Islam."

From our perspective, the Charter is absoltutely psychotic. We must assume that the people behind it and who defend Hamas are psychotic as well - out of control deceptive monsters. "Anti-semetic" is too mild a word for the aims of Hamas and Islam. "Pro-ethnic cleansing" is more accurate.

For an excellent background on the current Gaza/Israel situation, please read this attached link from Barry Rubin titled "Barry Rubin on the Ground in Gaza". His bio is given in the preface to the article.

Friday, January 02, 2009

Shoes Block Miami Expressway

View video here. This was obviously the work of the Iraqi shoe thrower making up for missing President Bush.

Thursday, January 01, 2009

...because that's where the rockets were shot from!

The CNN home page headline reads "Refugee camp missile kills Hamas commander."

Note that the first words of the headline are "Refugee camp." That makes the Israeli's sound like the evil ones, killing people in a defenseless, humanitarian "refugee camp." After all, what do Americans associate with the words "refugee" and "camp" but helpless, dislocated, peace-loving folks temporarily residing around campfires toasting marshmallows. And here comes this dastardly neighbor, killing their spiritual leader. Man, this is like killing the head of the boy scout troop. The shame of it. (Note: The headline that follows the CNN home page link reads: "Air strike on refugee camp kills Hamas commander" "Refugee camp" is still prominent.)

On the other hand, this "refugee camp" was the site of additional rocket launches fired into Israel just moments earlier. This "refugee camp" housed not just the "campers" but additional rockets and munitions. The Islamists have nearly perfected their propaganda war by routinely using homes, mosques, schools (and human shields) as the sites of choice for storing, manufacturing, equipping, and firing the tools of their trade.

The more accurate and truthful headline would read:

"Islamic leader killed moments after firing terror rocket at Israel." And the story would go on..."Moments after firing several of thousands of rockets aimed at Israel towns over the past several months, an Islamic terrorist "spiritual leader" behind this terror against Israel was killed by nearly instantaneous Israeli air response. Most of the rockets and stored munitions are located in homes, mosques and schools throughout Gaza, purposely placed to achieve the greatest possible propaganda advantage. After years of rocket attacks by Hamas and their Islam-inspired hatred of Jews, Israel had no choice but to strike the source of the terror in Gaza.

Shame on you, CNN, for misusing your wonderful command of the English language to mislead and deceive in favor of your apparent agenda to discredit the one civilized entity sharing western values in the middle east.