John R. Houk
© July 31, 2013
Brig. Gen. Samson Simon Sharaf (ret.) of Pakistan has sent a critique of my post ‘A Response to “Samson Simon Sharaf and Pakistani Christian Patriotism”’ via the Google+ comment system. I usually place my thoughts preceding responses to comments; however General Sharaf’s comment is a post length and is well written with ideas I agree with as well as disagree. I’ll do my best to answer the Brigadier General’s well thought out comments below his post.
Brig. Gen. Sharaf (ret.) Defends Pakistan Patriotism and USA Criticism
(Title created by Editor)
Comment posted: July 28, 2013
Please understand that like you, we Pakistanis are also justified to claim our patriotism. . The right to freedom of thought cannot be viewed in black and white and selectively. If American citizens have a right to criticise government policies, so do we. I neither despise USA nor its people. Our opinions manifest fundamental rights and freedom of expression.
USA is a great country, the world’s only super power with a rich history. American Civil War was the Zenith of the Renaissance, Industrial Revolution and Nation States. Yet it took USA over a century to come to grips with civil rights epitomised in the tragedies of Martin Luther King and John F Kennedy. Social dynamics in an instant go berserk, but ages to take a correction course.
The America of our dreams that rose out of the civil war and the land of opportunities is not the America we see in recent international policies. Cocooned in its trans-Atlantic isolation, the advantages of globalisation do not manifest themselves in the policy towards conflict zones that lie far away. There are dual standards we protest.
The biggest and most enduring lesson of the Civil War was the decisive nature of the Social Dimension of conflict, again brought to fore in WWI and II. Hence post WWII, the process of rebuilding and restructuring was initiated for Central Europe, Japan and South Korea. The same was not done for Afghanistan and Pakistan in the post-Soviet withdrawal in the late 80s. The forces of religiously inspired militancy that were US allies from 1979 to 1989 were disowned and allowed to rot in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I felt then and in retrospect feel convinced that had USA followed the development model of Japan/Germany thereafter, much of what is happening now could have been moderated and contained. In fact, the absence to factorise societal factors and psych-social dynamics in policy and war plans has hurt countries adversely: from Gulf of Tonkin that destabilised the entire peninsula to AFPAK that has destabilised the entire region. The SledgeHammer and Daisy Cutter approach to kill a fly can only be paid back by collective hate.
USA and its allies could also have played a more assertive role in settling political issues in South Asia and prevented it from becoming a nuclear keg. Rather, Arab militants were allowed to transcend international borders and create a floating threat. OBL was allowed to Sudan and after Kenyan bombings facilitated to enter Afghanistan. Mansur Ijaz, an American opinion maker claims that USA refused to take him over from Sudan and I know through personal knowledge that USA refused to take him [OBL] over through a neutral country once Taliban wanted to hand him over in 2001.
In strategic parlance, Pakistan was the pivot from which the act of containing godless communism and Iranian revolution took place. Pakistan’s allies notably USA promoted the policy of using religion for strategic purposes as a result of which no measures were taken to hedge against religious and sectarian divides. The process began in 1949 and continued to become more exclusive with time. It is this effect we see in the religiously motivated violence in our country.
Unlike 1947-1971, Pakistani Christians are seen an extension of western influence. Acts of intolerance against Christians saw a sharp rise after 1981, when USA began sponsoring religiously inspired violence against Iran, Shia populations and USSR. Apart from blasphemy cases, in 28 incidents of terrorism spanning 10 years, 116 Christians have been killed and 410 severely impaired. 7 churches or properties have been destroyed. Human rights organisations and many Christian NGOs watching Pakistan through a periscope ignore the linkages of this violence to global politics. The socio-economic indices of Christians have plummeted and majority resigned to life in slums and ghettos. This is what I am fighting against as a Pakistani Christian activist.
During a lecture at Vatican, I said that we do not need reinforcement of Faith. In all adversities, we stick to our religion. Please convince the world to follow constructive policies that will help us prosper in other things as we do in Faith (3rd Letter of St. Paul, 1:2). As a religious right and a strong lobby, it is also your responsibility to instil the fear of God in your policy makers, whose Shock and Awe rains hell for Pakistanis and Afghans.
John R. Houk Response
July 30, 2013
General Sharaf is absolutely correct that he has as much right to criticize foreign and domestic governments as much as I do. Well anyway, from an American perspective. I doubt that General Sharaf would criticize the Pakistan government action that potentially would criminalize a group of Pakistani Christians for having an outdoor Easter Sunrise Service. General Sharaf is a Roman Catholic thus if he chose such criticism I suspect he would run afoul of Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws. It would be blasphemous for a Muslim to accept an open Christian Service proclaiming the Resurrection of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Christ’s Resurrection and Sonship are a direct contradiction of the Islamic Quran. Hence the probable accusation of breaking a Blasphemy Law.
That was the point I was attempting to drive home in the post that got this discussion rolling – “Samson Simon Sharaf and Pakistani Christian Patriotism”. It is a mystery to me that Pakistani Christians are patriotic to a government that validates Islamic Sharia Law that results in persecution for the simple practice of Religious Freedom (e.g. proclaiming Jesus is the only way to God and all other paths – including Mohammed’s – are false paths). In America it is annoying to Biblical Christians when Muslims preach that Mohammed is the last Prophet and his revelation from Allah is truth while the People of the Book are deceived following a corrupted Scriptures. Annoyance does not lead to societal riots in which Mosques are burnt to the ground and Muslims homes and stores are destroyed and women are violated. That is something that does occur in Pakistan aimed at Christians when Americans speak what they believe is the truth about Islam. Muslims go beyond being annoyed to something said in a nation foreign to them leading toward taking out their vitriol on Pakistani Christians. AND still Pakistani Christians are patriotic to a government that does little prevention and only sometimes prosecutes only a few Muslims when hundreds may have been involved in violence and desecration of Churches. I have to be honest, Pakistan Christian loyalty and Patriotism mystifies me.
General Sharaf you say America is great nation then write a paragraph of America’s Civil Rights struggles in the past that are better now than any time in our history as if that greatness has now evaporated. I do agree America’s shining star on the hill status has diminished but Civil Rights have not been the cause of that dimming light. The American struggle to rekindle the fire to the light has more to do with the unfortunate success of Left Wing politics diminishing America’s moral fabric by separating all things Christian from influencing the nation on a Federal, State and Local level.
Prayer has been removed from our Public Schools, Christian symbolism in Public buildings are being extracted by legal means, lax abortion laws has enabled the murder of millions of unborn children and America’s Left has successfully forced American society to accept homosexuality and transgenderism as a part of the society’s normal fabric. There are a plethora of moral issues that I haven’t mentioned that the Left is using as a legal war on Christianity in an attempt to slowly expunge our faith and Biblical Morality.
America’s Founding Fathers believed in a Church-State separation; however that separation was not a two-way street like the American Left has been revising for the last 50 years or so. America’s First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Religious Freedom and ensures that the government will not establish a State-managed Church. There is no mention whatsoever in the U.S. Constitution of preventing Christianity (literally any ‘religion’ in the wording, but the intent was referencing Christianity) from influencing the morals of American society on a Private or Public level.
The result of this moral encroachment by America’s Left has seen a skyrocketing of crime on an urban and rural level. Children that were once predominantly innocent angels have multiplied into disrespectful violent criminals. Most of America’s rural areas (which was my upbringing) had so much neighborly and community trust that people did not lock their doors in their homes or their automobiles. Those days are gone in the 21st Century. Actually those days left before the 21st Century arrived.
Chuckle. Now look what you did General. You got me contemplating the things that I do find disturbing about America’s current state of society.
Addressing America’s international policies there is an essence of truth to what you have observed. America’s Foreign Policy had a central paradigm that was established by our first President George Washington. Do not meddle in European affairs. Americans distrusted Europeans shortly after the American Revolution. Even after the establishment of our honored Constitution that has been the benchmark of American governance, America’s military strength was purposefully kept small because Americans do not trust the power of government which controlled the military. Even after America’s Civil War military personnel was reduced monumentally to limit government interference with American citizens. Only after a war began was there a military mobilization. This included America’s involvement in WWI. After WWI was over the military was reduced. The political reasoning for military reduction was because of the belief of the difficulty for foreign powers (with the focus on Europe) to cross the Atlantic and/or Pacific Oceans to make a sustained attack on American soil. The policy was called Isolationism.
Japan’s bombing of the Navy Base at Pearl Harbor Hawaii changed America’s military strategy forever. America had to play catch-up in mobilizing the army and navy to confront Japanese aggression in the Pacific and join the British in fighting Japan’s European ally Nazi Germany in the Atlantic-European theatre.
After WWII America was the big winner. All of Europe from the Atlantic Ocean to Moscow Russia suffered the devastation of truly horrible carnage and destruction. Japan’s industrial complex had been destroyed as well.
There was only one nation that did not experience destruction on their home soil during WWII. Of course that was the USA. Part of the reason for this again were the two oceans of the Pacific and the Atlantic; however it was obvious from WWII that ocean protection was quickly coming to an end. Soon after WWII the old Soviet Union set out to turn lands their Red Army had captured into a Communist Empire by imposing Satellite status of European nations the USSR did not directly absorb into their Marxist union.
If the USA had returned to past demilitarization as in all previous wars Europe and Japan would have to depend on their own diminished resources to rebuild their Industrial Complex AND they would become an obvious target of Stalin’s Communist expansionism that was quickly forming an Iron Curtain.
Seeing the change in the wind of geopolitics and National Security it became a wise choice to use America’s abundant resources to aid Europe and Japan to rebuild their Industrial Complex. Thus it was also inevitable that America would protect their investment from Soviet aggression by protecting it. To protect the USA had to expand their Military Complex for its first time in history.
Nuclear energy and hi-tech science turned America into the most formidable military the world has ever seen to the chagrin of the Soviet expansionist agenda. The USSR was constantly playing technical catch-up with our Military and Scientific Complex but were always a step behind. Marxist principles simply could not develop innovation with their resources in the same way as America’s Free Market Capitalism did. Even Russia’s nuclear program and armament was the result of espionage rather than personal development.
Have there been Foreign Policy mistakes and bad decisions by the American government? We all know the answer is yes. Nonetheless, America’s National Interests are more important to us than that of an unstable or destabilized nation that has the capacity to initiate WWIII conventionally or with a nuke war strategy.
General you stated the Muslim world (well specifically you use the global stretch example of the AFPAK area through the Vietnamese Gulf of Tonkin) could have benefitted from the post-WWII rebuilding of Western Europe and Japan. This a point I believe is categorically incorrect. In the case of the Muslim dominated world, it is not willing to allow the kind of American encroachment that would have been needed to create industrialism and an uncorrupted government Civil Service ex nihilo. Europe and Japan had a long history of a growing industrialism and a Civil Service to make the apparatus of government to function efficiently. Islamic Supremacism and Tribalism among Muslim nations makes such an American investment nearly impossible.
I didn’t use to believe that. I too felt the Westernized traditions of the Europe and Japan (yes Japan learned Western ways to make their nation military world power in the 1930s) paradigm would also benefit the Muslim world. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that nation-building political infrastructure that would infuse stable institutions of governance and economy cannot happen between America and Third World Muslim nations. America was able to do this with nations that already had a foundation to rebuild upon.
Ironically the Iranian model will probably work best among Muslim nations; however that government is so full of loathing of everything non-Muslim that American National Interests compels the USA to marginalize Iranian development. General you have to realize Pakistan has the capacity to become a model for the Muslim world, but again Islamic Supremacism compels the USA to meddle in Pakistan internal affairs. After all Pakistan has nukes. Perhaps saner people are managing Pakistan’s military than those managing the Iranian military; nonetheless from an American National Interest standpoint the Radical Islam that appears to becoming more and more pervasive makes the USA to overtly or covertly meddle to maintain some kind of balance of weakness rather than a balance of strength. The issue of finding Osama bin Laden holed up in Pakistan for years certainly adds to that distrust.
You don’t seriously think America was going to fix Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin reference) after developing a Marxist paradigm for their economy and industry? Even today Vietnam maintains a Maoist-Stalinist repressive regime in which Civil Rights are non-existent unless you accept the Communist paradigm. Just briefly on Southeast Asia: South Korea and Taiwan join Japan in creating an Economic-Industrial Complex with American help.
I checked out the source you mentioned concerning Mansur (or Mansoor) Ijaz. There appears to be a bit of controversy on Mr. Ijaz’s reliability. The Memogate scandal he caused in Pakistan (and less publicized in the USA) in which Ijaz accuses Pakistan’s President Zardari and the Pakistani Ambassador at the time to the USA to be in collusion with America in allowing soldiers to fly into Pakistan and attack bin Laden’s Abbottabad paramilitary complex which resulted in OBL’s death. If true, in my opinion that is a plus for Pakistan’s President. Any Pakistan negative public reaction frankly shows why Pakistan should be a concern to American National Interests. As the USA departs from Afghanistan militarily the Afghanis deserve what happens to them if their good citizens allow the Taliban to rule again. After an Afghan departure the USA has less reason to meddle in Pakistan internal affairs except perhaps as to who controls Pakistan’s nuke arsenal. And also I have to be frank: the killing of Osama bin Laden makes it easier for American citizens of a Conservative nature to stomach leaving Afghanistan even with the failure of Presidents Bush and Obama to use a win at all costs strategy as was last practiced during WWII. The win at all costs strategy probably would have ended America’s interest in fighting in Afghanistan sooner; however as in WWII civilian collateral damage in both Afghanistan and Pakistan would have been much steeper. Musharraf’s game of getting US military aid in exchange for Pakistan cooperation in creating an anti-Taliban front was a travesty of a faithful alliance with Pakistan.
Apparently Mansur Ijaz is the global source of how America could have captured Osama bin Laden two times before the 9/11 Islamic Terrorist attack that led America into a Middle East war. The reasoning is no OBL means no 9/11 attack. No 9/11 attack suggests no American Global War on Terror (GWOT). The reality is 9/11 caused an American military mobilization like Pearl Harbor caused a mobilization to participate in WWII. You see WWII had been going on in Europe since 1939 and in Asia between Japan since before the Day of Infamy on December 7, 1941 in the early 1930s. Islamic Terrorists had been attacking Israel-Jews since before its inception in 1948 and American interests since at least from the late 70s and early 80s. It took around 3000 deaths on American soil to wake up American sensibilities that Islamic Terrorists are more than just a nuisance, but rather a threat to the American way of life at home and abroad. Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar simply gave the USA something tangible to extend American wrath for the senseless killing of Americans just because they are Americans. Frankly I and a lot of Americans would not be bothered using our resources to strike down Islamic Terrorists wherever they are hiding no matter the sovereign nation. Whether it takes the reach of SEAL Team 6 or Drones, Islamic Terrorists need to feel the pain they inflict on others. If Islamic Terrorists are dumb enough to hide among accepting non-combatants then so be it.
I apologize General I know it sounds harsh. Honestly though I’ve grown weary of Islam’s contribution to messing up the trust between individuals that I experienced in my childhood and youth.
Okay, back to Ijaz.
Ijaz claims the USA could have collected bin Laden from Sudan with the full consent of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Google exploration appears to validate Ijaz (See Also HERE) however the 9/11 Commission and Clinton Administration disagreed with Ijaz’s contention. Exposing Clinton to potential Foreign Policy screw-ups made Mansoor Ijaz a media darling among American Conservatives. However, more and more evidence seems to be pointing toward Ijaz as a narcissistic showboater in the case of Memogate.
Journalist David Frum believes Mansoor Ijaz is a faker because he lied about Frum under oath in a Pakistan investigation:
I finally concluded that Ijaz’s version of events was almost certainly bogus, and I raised the possibility that “Pakistani democracy has been corroded, and the U.S. and Pakistan have been pushed toward a dangerous confrontation, by a reckless fantasist motivated by childish vanity.”
Q: Do you know Mr. David Frum, who is also a contributor to CNN?
A: I don’t know Mr. David Frum personally, but I know about him. He has extensively written against me with regard to this matter.
Q: Do you have an article contributed on December 8, 2011, by Mr. David Frum?
A: I don’t have it.
Q: How did Mr. David Frum describe you in the said article?
A: I don’t recall, but it was in negative terms. [Volunteers] In view of the fact Mr. Frum defamed me my lawyers in Washington informed him that if he does not retract, I will be taking legal action against him.
(You can read the transcript here. This exchange is on page 43.)
Let me state flatly for the record: that quoted statement of Mansoor Ijaz is false. I have not been threatened with legal action by any lawyer representing Mansoor Ijaz. I have not had any communication of any kind from any lawyer representing Mansoor Ijaz.
Mansoor Ijaz did ask CNN.com to post a response from him, not only to my column, but also to a column by my CNN colleague Peter Bergen detailing the long, sorry history of false claims by Ijaz. That response can be read here:
Peter Bergen can ridicule my three or four claims that turned out to be inaccurate over a five year period of being interviewed nearly four or five times a week — it won’t change the facts, or the accuracy with which I recorded them in this instance.
Now there is a fifth time (at least) when an Ijaz statement has been revealed as false.
May it please the court, I think we have a regular pattern of behavior here. (READ ENTIRITY - Did The Notorious Mansoor Ijaz Lie About Me Under Oath? By David Frum; The Daily Beast; Mar 21, 2012 10:58 AM EDT)
General Sharaf, using Mansoor Ijaz as a source seems unreliable; nonetheless giving him the benefit of the doubt the U.S. government did not have a sense of a homeland security problem with Islamic Terrorism. It was still viewed as a legal Court issue rather than a military matter. Not until 9/11 occurred that National Security strategists began to view Islamic Terrorism as a homeland National Security matter. Of all the problems blamed on President Bush including some misjudged Foreign Policy decisions, he is a hero to me. President GW Bush made the decision to face Islamic Terrorism as a military threat that the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans could not throw up a wall big enough to keep the barbarians out. America’s war with the Taliban for protecting Osama bin Laden was the disturbing fault of the Taliban leadership of which Mullah Omar was the Chief leader among many.
So if Omar Mullah desired to give up Osama bin Laden in cooperation with the USA before 9/11, why not after 9/11 when bin Laden was considered a military war criminal?
General Sharaf you point out Pakistani Christians became persecution targets of American meddling in religious affairs of Iran. You do remember what the Shi’ite Mullocracy did to the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 right? An Embassy by international protocol is the national soil of the nation that occupies that Embassy. The protocol for diplomatic extinction is to order the national diplomatic personnel to leave the host nation. The protocol is not to attack an Embassy and hold the personnel hostage for nearly ONE YEAR screaming espionage where diplomatic immunity applies. If one thinks the USA will not inflict mayhem at least covertly for such ignorance of the sanctity of diplomatic immunity is sadly mistaken. I suspect the only reason President Carter did not respond as if this was an act of war was because he is Democratic Party Liberal like America’s current President Obama. Most American Liberals live under the delusion that ALL acts of aggression can be solved with a carrot more than with a stick. Radical Muslims do not respond well with carrots from the kafir. Carrots are viewed as weakness. It is only the stick that elicits a negotiation point with the ideology of Radical Islam. Iran is an enemy of the USA. Carter screwed up the opportunity to put Iran in its place. Instead Carter made Iran look like it was negotiating from a point of strength and enabled the Iranian Mullocracy to have an agenda of building a Military Complex that is not only threatening to American National Security but also to initiating yet another global conflict by forcing nations to choose sides if such a conflict breaks out.
The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (Canonical)
13 1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. (13: 1-7 NKJV)
I get why Pakistani Christians should submit to the governing authorities imposing Islamic Supremacism over the Religious Freedom of Christians. After all the authorities appointed are from God regardless of Christian, Islamic, other religion or atheist. However when rulers fail to do good or be a minister of good, that ruler is outside the mandated appointment. When that ruler or rulers support evil over good God raises up another instrument to do the will of God knowingly or unknowingly (e.g. Nebuchadnezzar).
18 O king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your father a kingdom and majesty, glory and honor. 19 And because of the majesty that He gave him, all peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him. Whomever he wished, he executed; whomever he wished, he kept alive; whomever he wished, he set up; and whomever he wished, he put down. 20 But when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit was hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him. 21 Then he was driven from the sons of men, his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild donkeys. They fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till he knew that the Most High God rules in the kingdom of men, and appoints over it whomever He chooses.
22 “But you his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, although you knew all this. 23 And you have lifted yourself up against the Lord of heaven. They have brought the vessels of His house before you, and you and your lords, your wives and your concubines, have drunk wine from them. And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood and stone, which do not see or hear or know; and the God who holds your breath in His hand and owns all your ways, you have not glorified. 24 Then the fingers[a] of the hand were sent from Him, and this writing was written.
25 “And this is the inscription that was written:
26 This is the interpretation of each word. MENE: God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it;27 TEKEL: You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting; 28 PERES: Your kingdom has been divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.”[e] (Daniel 5: 18-28 NKJV)
I am biased nonetheless I believe America has been an instrument of good globally since WWII. I also believe standing as an instrument of good could be endangered because of the American Left purging of America’s Christian foundations that helped bring about good government when a council of diverse people agreed upon a national experiment that has been the U.S. Constitution. All the geopolitical meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations under the policies of American National Interests and National Security might allow another instrument to spank the USA a few times to get the people to wake up. A paradigm God used with the Hebrew Tribes until the disregard of faith in God led to Assyria deporting the Northern Tribes of Israel and 100 years later Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar deported Judah and Benjamin. The largest of the remaining 12 Tribes was Judah and thus the Hebrew descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob became labeled as Jews. After punishment Jews by prophecy returned to their homeland about 70 years later ironically by the direction of the King of Persia which is present day Iran.
My point is God chooses whomever whether of faith or not to accomplish His purpose on the Earth. The New Testament warns that the Antichrist will fool people that he represents God. The Antichrists actions ultimately reveal who he belongs to whether as an individual or as an Antichrist spirit corrupting people and nations. I still believe the USA is God’s global instrument; however the further America descends away from Christianity the more likely that instrumentation will come to an end.
John R. Houk
© June 8, 2013
The Documentary “The Third Jihad” has been free for some time. Social Network friend Robert Fleming shared the link to the video. In these times that a corrupt President and his corrupt Administration is using political tools to attack those with a different political outlook for America, it will be good to refresh your memory that Islam is at war with America. This war is the case even though President Barack Hussein Obama has publicly ended the Global War on Terror (GWOT) on the American government’s perspective.
VIDEO: The Third Jihad
Before I get to that email here is Liz Trotta of Fox News editorializing on BHO’s timing on declaring the war on terror over:
Now below is the ACT for America email which includes an editorial from the Wall Street Journal by Douglas Murray.
The lesson from London
Sent by ACT for America
Sent: 5/28/2013 1:35 PM
“How many ignored warnings does it take?”
Douglas Murray of the London-based Henry Jackson society wrote an excellent column last week for The Wall Street Journal (see below).
The subtitle states, “Britain has been in denial about the Islamist threat.”
So true. It’s very disturbing that this same denial permeates the thinking of far too many of America’s political, academic, media, counterterrorism and law enforcement leadership.
An Associated Press story over the weekend, referring to President Obama’s national security speech late last week, began this way:
“Some call it wishful thinking, but President Barack Obama has all but declared an end to the global war on terror.”
The reason Obama has done so is because he sees only al Qaida and its affiliates as a threat. Doing so misses the point.
The point is the “war on terror” is not confined to one organization and is not limited by geography, but is defined by those who subscribe to jihadist ideology. Denial won’t change this fact.
Our federal government continues to lead us down the very same path that has failed so miserably in Great Britain and much of Europe.
The London Terror Attack Was More Than ‘Unforgivable’
Britain has been in denial about the Islamist threat. Time to face it down.
How many ignored warnings does it take? That is one question that should hang over Britain after the horror of the daytime murder of a British soldier on the streets of south London. On Wednesday afternoon, Drummer Lee Rigby was killed in Woolwich by two men wielding large knives and shouting “Allahu akbar”—God is great.
Islamists have been saying for years they would do this. They have planned to do it. And now they have done it.
WSJ Europe editorial writer Ray Zhong on the alleged terror attack in London Wednesday, and what it says about the wider war on terrorism. Photo: Getty Images
The attack itself is not surprising. What is surprising is that British society remains so utterly unwilling not just to deal with this threat, but even to admit its existence. Politicians have called the Woolwich killing “unforgivable” and “barbarous.” But expressions of anger should not really be enough.
Attempts to attack military targets in Britain go back to before the millennium and even before, it is important to note, the war on terror. In 1998 Amer Mirza, a member of the now-banned extremist group al Muhajiroun, attempted to petrol-bomb British army barracks. In 2007, a cell of Muslim men was found guilty of plotting to kidnap and behead a British soldier in Birmingham. The plan had been to take the soldier to a lock-up garage and cut off his head “like a pig.” They wanted to film this act on camera and send it around the world to cause maximum terror.
In 2009, al Muhajiroun protested at a homecoming parade in Luton for British troops returning from Afghanistan. Carrying banners saying “go to hell,” “butchers” and “terrorists,” the group was protected by British police officers from an increasingly irate crowd of locals. The resulting outrage toward the police gave rise to the deeply troubling English Defence League, a street protest movement that often turns violent.
Police in Woolwich, south London, after Wednesday’s attack.
Now comes the attack in Woolwich, which the perpetrators—as with the earlier cell—wished to be observed and even filmed. Reports suggest that they invited people to capture their actions on video. The perpetrators gave interviews, machetes in hand, to bystanders with cameras. This horrific scene is something that will stick in the memory.
But it should also have been foreseen. Instead we entered the stage of denial. For there is already, in the reaction to events, more than a hint of what I have previously termed “Toulouse syndrome.” The term is named after the attacks last year carried out by a jihadist called Mohammed Merah, who killed three French soldiers in a rampage that concluded with the murders of four French Jews at a school in Toulouse.
In the early stages of the attacks, when little was known, there was significant speculation that the culprit was a far-right extremist. At that stage everybody knew what they were going to say. But once the culprit turned out to be an Islamist, the gaze nearly fell away completely. “Nothing to see here, please move on” was the order of the day.
“Toulouse syndrome” also touched Boston last month. After the bombing at the marathon, media and politicians waited, hoping—some even said as much—that the attackers would be tea-party types. Then everybody would know what to say. But when it turned out to be Islamists?
So it is with the Woolwich killing, which British officials have lined up to denounce. Yes it is sickening. Of course it is barbaric. But what of it? Even all these years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2011, our societies remain unfit for purpose in facing up to—and facing down—Islamic extremism.
Too many still seek refuge in ignorance and denial that was so memorably displayed by U.S. officials after the Fort Hood shooting in 2009. A man who was a member of the American armed forces, Maj. Nidal Hasan, gunned down his colleagues while shouting “Allahu akbar.” On that occasion the American government, like the French government before it and the British government this week, decided to focus on everything about the attack other than what really mattered: the motive. Fort Hood was put down to a case of workplace violence.
There will be many angles to the events in London that must be addressed in the coming days, and we can hope many will receive the appropriate level of public attention. Among them will be one particularly unpleasant irony.
Most of the extremists who have repeatedly expressed their hatred of British soldiers are themselves supported by the British state. A prominent hate-preacher—Anjem Choudary, a leader of the disbanded al Muhajiroun—was even caught on video earlier this year extolling Britain’s “jihad-seekers’ allowance.” As he explained to his followers, “The normal situation, really, is to take money from the kafir”—a slur for non-Muslims. “Allahu akbar. We take the money.”
After the video showed up online, a BBC reporter asked Mr. Choudary to clarify how much he’s taking—the press has long reported a sum of £25,000 ($37,770) per year. “It’s irrelevant,” Mr. Choudary replied.
This would not be the first time a country has paid both sides in a conflict. But if the reported figure is anywhere near accurate, it would surely be the first time in human history that a society has paid its opponents better than it pays its own. A British soldier can expect to start in the army on a salary of around £16,000 ($24,172).
The events in south London must cause a re-evaluation by British society of the insanity we have been permitting. The question is not how sad we feel. The only question should be what we do about it.
Mr. Murray is associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, a London-based think tank.
The lesson from London
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
The London Terror Attack Was More Than ‘Unforgivable’
A version of this article appeared May 24, 2013, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The London Terror Attack Was More Than ‘Unforgivable’.
Copyright ©2013 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
John R. Houk
© May 17, 2013
Danny Jeffrey wrote an essay complete with a pictorial entitled “The Cave Dwellings of Afghanistan”. The theme is that Afghanis are primitive people that survived centuries of invasions because of their mountainous terrain that has developed cave dwelling system for periods of defense and reclaiming their land after wearied invaders either left or were assimilated into the tribal situations. Thus Afghanis are not now nor will be amenable to Western ways.
I concur with Danny but there were legitimate reasons for America to invade Afghanistan. Now those reasons have been answered and it is time to leave.
The reason for invading Afghanistan is because the then ruler – the One-Eyed Mullah Omar – provided protection to Usama bin Laden as the head of al Qaeda sent Islamic terrorists to the USA that became responsible for around 3000 deaths on American soil. We chased UBL for about a decade until we found him and killed him out in Pakistan.
Being Americans we have attempted to build an infrastructure in Afghanistan that includes democratic principles. Frankly I was all for that agenda; however time has proven that Islam and Western democratic principles are incompatible.
So what’s left? In my thinking it would be to get Mullah Omar who protected UBL. The thing is the One-Eyed Mullah is only alive by reputation. He has not made any verifiable appearances since he fled the collapse of his Taliban regime as the American led forces commenced their invasion:
“…there have been no verifiable communications on paper, by phone, or in audio or video recordings from the so-called Leader of the Faithful, since he disappeared into the Kandahar mountains on the back of a motorcycle in November 2001 as his regime collapsed.” (Taliban Forces Desperate to Hear from Their Absent Leader, Mullah Omar; By Ron Moreau; The Daily Beast; 5/1/13 4:45 AM EDT)
If Mullah Omar is alive he is hiding so deep that the Islamic Terrorists that swear allegiance to him don’t even know if he is running the Taliban terrorist show.
So here’s my thinking: UBL is dead, the Afghan Muslim people are less than pleased with any contribution to Afghanistan and Mullah Omar isn’t running the Taliban operationally.
It is time to leave Afghanistan to its own devices with a warning of future devastation if any Afghan government supports Islamic terrorism on the American homeland. Incidentally devastation does not mean another invasion; it means some kind tactical military action up to and including a small nuke strike to make a point about the long arm of American military might.
John R. Houk
© March 2, 2013
Don’t listen to a Leftie when he/she tells you there is no Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). There definitely is one. Check out this information passed on to me by the Infidel Task Force about al Qaeda Arab Peninsula (AQAP – Slide Show Info) publishing a hit list poster in their magazine Inspire.
The AQAP English magazine Inspire has published a wanted poster to kill Counterjihadists deemed insulters of Islam. Here is the list on the wanted posted:
1. Carsten Luste (should be Juste), Danish journalist, former editor of Jyllands-Posten
2. Terry Jones, President of Stand Up America Now
3. Kurt Westergaard, Danish cartoonist
4. Geert Wilders, Dutch politician
5. Lars Vilks, Swedish cartoonist
6. Stephane Charbonnier, French editor of Charlie Hebdo
7. Flemming Rose, Danish journalist
8. Morris Sadek, Copt Christian who promoted Innocence of Muslims
9. Salman Rushdie, author
10. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author (not pictured – she does not wear a veil)
Carsten Luste (Juste)
The newspaper published the cartoons when a Danish author complained that he could find no-one to illustrate his book about Muhammad. Jyllands-Posten wondered whether there were more cases of self-censorship regarding Islam in Denmark and asked twelve illustrators to draw the prophet for them. Carsten Juste, the paper’s editor, said the cartoons were a test of whether the threat of Islamic terrorism had limited the freedom of expression in Denmark.
The publication led to outrage among the Muslim immigrants living in Denmark. 5,000 of them took to the streets to protest. Muslim organisations have demanded an apology, but Juste rejects this idea: “We live in a democracy. That’s why we can use all the journalistic methods we want to. Satire is accepted in this country, and you can make caricatures,” he said. The Danish imam Raed Hlayhel reacted with the statement: “This type of democracy is worthless for Muslims. Muslims will never accept this kind of humiliation. The article has insulted every Muslim in the world.” (Jihad Against Danish Newspaper; by Paul Belien; Brussels Journal; 10/22/05)
Jones is the most prominent picture in the wanted poster. One of many reasons is his campaigns of Burn the Quran Day and more recently “International Judge the Koran Day … and the execution: burn it!” Here is a photo of burning the Quran.
Terry Jones (born October 1951) is the pastor of Dove World Outreach Center, a small nondenominational Christian church in Gainesville, Florida. He first gained national and international attention in 2010 for his plan to burn Qur’ans, the scripture of the Islamic religion, on the ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. He was a self-declared independent presidential candidate in the 2012 U.S. Presidential election. (Wikipedia READ THE REST)
Westergaard is the guy famed for drawing caricatures of Mohammed in a humorous light. Muslims view this kind satire as a reason to kill.
The Danish cartoonist whose caricature of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed sparked global Muslim riots seven years ago says he has no regrets, and wants no censors.
Speaking in an interview this week with the Austrian magazine “News,” Kurt Westergaard said that freedom of speech is too precious to relinquish. ”Should we in future let ourselves be censored by Islamic authorities in deeply undemocratic countries?” he asked.
Westergaard’s question carried particular relevance in his own personal life: in 2010, he nearly died in an assassination attempt by a Muslim extremist wielding an axe. The would-be murderer, 29-year-old Mohamed Geele, was convicted of attempted terrorism and attempted murder and sentenced to a nine-year prison term in Denmark. He will be deported after serving his time in prison.
Muslims around the world said the image of the Prophet Mohammed drawn by Westergaard, which they believed mocked Islam, had offended them. In response, there were worldwide riots and violence that resulted in a number of deaths. (READ THE REST: Danish ‘Mohammed’ cartoonist Kurt Westergaard has no regrets, opposes censorship; By Chana Ya’ar; Reposted on 1389 Blog – Counterjihad! – 9/21/13)
Here is the Google Search page abbreviated version of a Wikipedia entry:
Geert Wilders is a Dutch politician and the founder and leader of the Party for Freedom, the fourth-largest political party in the Netherlands. Wilders is the Parliamentary group leader of his party in the Dutch House of Representatives.
Wilders is notable because he is the head of a political party that has come close to being a mainstream political force in Netherlands even while the Dutch judiciary tried to convict him for hate crimes related to exposing the dark side of Islam beginning with the movie short Fitna.
Lars Vilks, Swedish artist/Cartoonist spoke on September 11, 2012 at the Stop Islamization of Nations’ International Freedom Defense Council held at the UN Plaza Millennium Hotel.
Here is some recent info on Lars Vilks from Before It’s News:
Swedish artist and sculptor Lars Vilk- who gained international notoriety for pushing the limits of freedom of expression by drawing the head of the Prophet Mohammed on the body of a dog in 2007 and was subsequently targeted for death by offended Muslims, and was then attacked at a lecture on freedom of speech in 2010- has some new paintings of Mohammad ready to exhibit. The exhibition is set for July this year, in Malmö, Sweden- a city that is heavily populated by Muslims. Vilks believes:
“It’s important to continue because if you yield to the threats and back away, you have abandoned the democratic principle.”
His Mohammed dog drawing was published in 2007 along with an editorial on freedom of expression in the Swedish paper Nerikes Allehanda after several gallery exhibits pulled the Mohammed drawings because of security concerns.
but this time: (READ THE REST: Lars Vilks Has More Mohammed Drawings To Exhibit, In Spite Of Death Threats; Before It’s News; 2/21/13 13:40)
The offices of the French ‘Private Eye’ style satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo have been destroyed in a petrol bomb attack in Paris.
It came after the publication named the Prophet Mohammad as its editor-in-chief for its latest issue. The cover of the magazine carried a picture of Muhammad making a joke.
The real editor of Charlie Hebdo, Stephanie Charbonnier, said Islam could not be excluded from freedom of the press. He said: “If we can poke fun at everything in France, if we can talk about anything in France apart from Islam or the consequences of Islamism, that is annoying.”
The editor said the magazine had received several threats prior to the attack.
He continued: “This is the first time we have been physically attacked but we won’t let it get to us.” (READ THE REST: French ‘Private Eye’ attacked in Paris over Mohammad joke; By “Civil Liberty Correspondent;” Civil Liberty; 11/6/11)
Childish. Irresponsible. Hate speech. A provocation just for the sake of provocation. A PR stunt. Critics of 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten have not minced their words. They say that freedom of expression does not imply an endorsement of insulting people’s religious feelings, and besides, they add, the media censor themselves every day. So, please do not teach us a lesson about limitless freedom of speech.
I agree that the freedom to publish things doesn’t mean you publish everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or graphic details of dead bodies; swear words rarely make it into our pages. So we are not fundamentalists in our support for freedom of expression.
But the cartoon story is different.
Those examples have to do with exercising restraint because of ethical standards and taste; call it editing. By contrast, I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still believe that this is a topic that we Europeans must confront, challenging moderate Muslims to speak out. The idea wasn’t to provoke gratuitously — and we certainly didn’t intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.
This is the sort of debate that Jyllands-Posten had hoped to generate when it chose to test the limits of self-censorship by calling on cartoonists to challenge a Muslim taboo. Did we achieve our purpose? Yes and no. Some of the spirited defenses of our freedom of expression have been inspiring. But tragic demonstrations throughout the Middle East and Asia were not what we anticipated, much less desired. Moreover, the newspaper has received 104 registered threats, 10 people have been arrested, cartoonists have been forced into hiding because of threats against their lives and Jyllands-Posten’s headquarters have been evacuated several times due to bomb threats. This is hardly a climate for easing self-censorship.
… (READ IN ENTIRITY: Why I Published Those Cartoons; By Flemming Rose; Washington Post; 2/19/06)
Religion News Service (RNS) is reporting that Morris Sadek, an Egyptian-born Coptic Christian, translated the movie into Arabic and sent it to Egyptian journalists. He also allegedly promoted it on his web site and through social media, the outlet reports. RNS has more about his background:
Morris Sadek describes himself as a human rights attorney and president of a small group called the National American Coptic Assembly, based in Chantilly, Va. Sadek says on his website that he is a member of the Egyptian and District of Columbia bar associations who has “defended major human rights cases” including the late Coptic Pope Shenouda III, who died in March.
But fellow Copts depict Sadek as a fringe figure and publicity hound whose Islamophobic invectives disrupt Copts’ quest for equal rights in Egypt.
Michael Meunier, president of U.S. Copts Association, claims that, by taking these actions, Sadek was likely looking for fame in Egyptian media. Considering that he lost his Egyptian citizenship and was banned from the country back in 2011, it makes sense that he would potentially be looking to raise his profile in the region.
Here’s a video that purportedly shows him screaming “Islam is evil!” outside of the National Press Building in Washington, D.C.:
On Sept. 6, Mr. Sadek sent an email to journalists around the world promoting a Sept. 11 event held by Rev. Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who previously sparked deadly protests by burning a copy of the Quran. In the email, Mr. Sadek included a link to the 14-minute YouTube clip.
On Sept. 6, Sadek emailed journalists around the world, promoting Jones’ anti-Islamic event and including footage of “Innocence of Muslims,” according to The Wall Street Journal. A conservative TV host in Egypt broadcast the video on Sept. 8, sparking protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo.
Salman Rushdie is a British author who was born in India. In 1988, he wrote the highly acclaimed book, The Satanic Verses. Shortly after that, India banned the book. In the U.S., the publisher received bomb threats. The book was then banned in South Africa. Soon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, Bangladesh, Sudan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Qatar banned the book. There were book burnings in England. In Pakistan, six people died and 100 were injured in demonstrations against the book. Then on Feb. 12, 1989, the Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran, declared that the book was blasphemous, and called for the death of Rushdie. Rushdie went into hiding, with protection by the British government. An Iranian charity offered a million dollars reward (later raised to 2.5 million) for Rushdie’s murder. Two bookstores in Berkeley California were firebombed. Twelve people died during rioting in Bombay. Britain broke off diplomatic relations with Iran. In Belgium, two Muslim leaders who opposed Rushdie’s death penalty were shot to death. Papua New Guinea, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Tanzania, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Venezuela, Bulgaria, Poland and Japan banned the book. The Ayatollah Khomeini died, and the Iranian government reaffirmed Rushdie’s death penalty. Five bookstores in England were firebombed. The Japanese translator of the book was stabbed to death. The Italian translator was seriously wounded. The Norwegian publisher was shot and seriously wounded.(READ THE REST: Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses; By Jim Loy; JimLoi.com; © 2002)
Salman Rushdie’s memoir provides a fascinating insight into the life of a man who, haunted for a decade by the death sentence that hovered over his head, struggled to cobble together something resembling a quotidian existence. The event that was splashed across the pages of the national press is now recounted by the man who lived through it in bare, reflective, thought-provoking prose; Joseph Anton: A Memoir recounts the ten years Rushdie spent living under a fatwa.
The publication of Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses in 1988 enraged Muslims across the world, including the Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who soon publicly demanded his execution. Throughout the decade of the fatwa, pronounced in 1988 and eventually lifted in 1998, Rushdie lived under an assumed identity, adopting the pseudonym Joseph Anton in a personal homage to the writers Joseph Conrad and Anton Chekhov. (READ THE REST: Any Other Name; By Rebecca Loxton; Oxonian Review; 2/17/13)
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an outspoken defender of women’s rights in Islamic societies, was born in Mogadishu, Somalia. She escaped an arranged marriage by immigrating to the Netherlands in 1992 and served as a member of the Dutch parliament from 2003 to 2006. In parliament, she worked on furthering the integration of non-Western immigrants into Dutch society and defending the rights of women in Dutch Muslim society. In 2004, together with director Theo van Gogh, she made Submission, a film about the oppression of women in conservative Islamic cultures. The airing of the film on Dutch television resulted in the assassination of Mr. van Gogh by an Islamic extremist. At AEI, Ms. Hirsi Ali researches the relationship between the West and Islam, women’s rights in Islam, violence against women propagated by religious and cultural arguments, and Islam in Europe. (Ayaan Hirsi Ali – AEI Profile Page)
Ayaan Hirsi Ali captured the world’s attention with Infidel, her compelling coming-of-age memoir, which spent thirty-one weeks on the New York Times bestseller list.
Now, in Nomad, Hirsi Ali tells of coming to America to build a new life, an ocean away from the death threats made to her by European Islamists, the strife she witnessed, and the inner conflict she suffered. It is the story of her physical journey to freedom and, more crucially, her emotional journey to freedom – her transition from a tribal mind-set that restricts women’s every thought and action to a life as a free and equal citizen in an open society. Through stories of the challenges she has faced, she shows the difficulty of reconciling the contradictions of Islam with Western values.
In her books Hirsi Ali recounts the many turns her life took after she broke with her family, and how she struggled to throw off restrictive superstitions and misconceptions that initially hobbled her ability to assimilate into Western society. She speaks movingly of her reconciliation, on his deathbed, with her devout father, who had disowned her when she renounced Islam after 9/11, as well as with her mother and cousins in Somalia and in Europe. (From Islam to America; KeenTalks.com)
VIDEO Originally preceding this article – it is nearly an hour long but worth the view:
If you have made this far in the post here is the obligatory reminder that I was notified about the AQAP “Wanted” poster from the Infidel Task Force. And ITF sourced this info from the Weekly Standard.
Al Qaeda Mag Publishes ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive’ List
“Yes We Can: A Bullet A Day Keeps The Infidel Away.”
Mar 1, 2013 10:26 AM
The latest edition of the al Qaeda English-language magazine Inspire is out today. A digital copy of the magazine, provided by MEMRI (the Washington D.C. based Middle East Media Research Institute), shows a “Wanted: Dead or Alive” feature on page 10 of the new issue:
“Wanted: Dead or Alive for Crimes Against Islam,” the page reads. The list includes: Molly Norris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Flemming Rose, Morris Swadiq, Salman Rushdie, Girt Wilders [sic], Lars Vilks, Stephane Charbonnie, Carsten Luste, Terry Jones, and Kurt Westergaard.
No further reason is provided to explain why these folks were singled out for the hit list, though many are notable critics of radical Islam.
“Yes We Can,” the image reads. “A Bullet A Day Keeps the Infidel Away.”
“Defend Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him,” the image reads.
AQAP Inspire Mag – Kill these 10 Infidel ‘Wanted Poster’
John R. Houk
© March 2, 2013
Al Qaeda Mag Publishes ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive’ List
© Copyright 2013 The Weekly Standard LLC – A Weekly Conservative Magazine & Blog. All Rights Reserved
John R. Houk
© December 12, 2012
Conspiracy Theory is something I love to look at. I especially like the Conspiracy Theories that slant toward Conspiracy Reality. In saying that, Tony Newbill sent a link that is truly based on fact.
The link leads to a story about secret government documents that David Wallechinsky the author believes Americans should be aware. Wallechinsky is quite bi-partisan listing secret documents from both Democrats and Republicans.
Wallechinsky is critical of Obama signing a memo allowing the assassination of American citizens involved in terrorism against the USA living outside the USA.
Let me be clear about Obama. He is one of the most nefarious Presidents in U.S. history because his “Change” agenda is the transformation of America from a Christian ethics Free Market society to a Secular Humanist non-Judea-Christian Socialistic (probably more toward some form of Marxism) society. It nearly drives me crazy that a majority of American voters cannot see that Obama’s agenda will change the American Way for the worst.
In saying my attitude toward Obama I have to side with Obama on assassinating American traitors working against the USA from outside the nation. Here’s the thing. An American that works to bring down America and does so by hiding out on a foreign basis has ceased to be protected by the U.S. Constitution and has become an enemy combatant whether that person is a soldier, spy or terrorist. Taking a traitor out in a foreign nation is the result of the affairs of war as far as I am concerned.
In that same vein I am also a supporter of the Patriot Act as far as it is designed in a time of war to track down the enemies of the USA both foreign and domestic. Regardless of the Left telling us that we are at war with Islam, purist Muslims (i.e. Radical Islam) believe Islam is in a Jihad to end Free America to place Americans in submission to their intolerant Allah.
That which is unfortunate is that the Patriot Act provides the temptation for Presidential Administrations to abuse power beyond the design of the intention. The Patriot Act has been used against American citizens that have no direct part in the Global War on Terror (GWOT) domestically or on a foreign basis. This abuse of power by either Democrat or Republican Presidential Administration is a breach of the people’s trust of government protecting U.S. citizens. The breach of trust is what led then British citizens in the American Colonies to revolt and form a more perfect Union in which the people govern themselves under a just rule of law rather than a foreign despot.
It is my opinion that greater extreme prejudice needs to be used against Islamic Terrorists to at least render the GWOT as negligible within the U.S. borders. In accomplishing the efficacy the GWOT within the borders it will then be time to modify or end the Patriot Act so that the abuse of U.S. government power against domestic dwelling American citizens ceases.
I was not aware that President Bush and Vice President Cheney appeared before the 911 Commission under specific stipulations of no taping or transcribing but only secretarial note taking. AND that these notes are still classified. It is no wonder that 911 Conspiracy Theorists believe the al Qaeda Islamic Terrorist attack was actually an inside job by the U.S. government. I’m still not with 911 Truthers nonetheless why did Bush/Cheney want that 911 Commission interview off the books?
Being person that believes in extreme prejudice to bring the GWOT to a quicker end I am in favor of Waterboarding to extract information. Leftist cry torture, I like the terminology of enhanced interrogation techniques. The fine line between torture and enhanced interrogation techniques is physical result. Waterboarding that results in death is torture. Waterboarding that exacts the illusion of drowning without leaving physical marks is not torture. Waterboarding does not add physical scarring: no dismemberment of body parts and no scarring marks leftover from cutting or burning or electrifying or so on.
There is a bit of an irony in the Leftist whining of torture and the Leftist-in-Chief writing the memo for targeted assassination of foreign operating American citizens working to betray America. You realize Obama was thinking of prosecuting Bush Administration Officials and/or the Intelligence Community under the Bush Administration for Waterboarding, right?
Wallechinsky goes on to name quite a few secret documents that are hid from the American public. You should read the entire post.
Lara Logan is a news correspondent for CBS News’ 60 Minutes. She was a keynote speaker at Chicago luncheon of big dogs in “government, politics, media, and the legal and corporate arenas.”
Her speech was a warning that Islamic Terrorism is on the rise rather than the wane as the Obama Administration would have us believe. The BHO propaganda of course is spewing because Obama wants to look like the guy that is ending a decade long war that has been fought in Afghanistan and Iraq began by Republican President George W. Bush because Islamic purists declared war on the USA by attacking the Twin Towers on American soil.
The article I am cross posting is a stark warning of America’s future. This future may hog tie America’s military to respond because BHO’s propaganda of a waning Islamic Terrorist threat has been an excuse to gut America’s military budget.
You should be curious why Logan – a correspondent from a rather Liberal news show – is warning that Islamic Terrorism is far from done and far from unable to strike out the USA. Logan’s politics may have changed on military policy because she was raped at Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt covering Hosni Mubarak being deposed by Islamist incitement of Egypt’s Muslim populace. Logan has a good reason to distrust the Muslim mind so check out her warning in Chicago.
JRH 10/9/12 (Hat Tip: Danny Jeffrey)
Reporter Lara Logan brings ominous news from Middle East
By LAURA WASHINGTON
October 7, 2012 4:04PM
Updated: October 9, 2012 8:02AM
This was no ordinary rubber chicken affair. That was my reaction to the extraordinary keynoter at Tuesday’s Better Government Association annual luncheon.
Lara Logan, a correspondent for CBS’ “60 Minutes,” delivered a provocative speech to about 1,100 influentials from government, politics, media, and the legal and corporate arenas. Such downtown gatherings are a regular on Chicago’s networking circuit. (I am a member of the BGA’s Civic Leadership Committee, and the Chicago Sun-Times was a sponsor).
Her ominous and frightening message was gleaned from years of covering our wars in the Middle East. She arrived in Chicago on the heels of her Sept. 30 report, “The Longest War.” It examined the Afghanistan conflict and exposed the perils that still confront America, 11 years after 9/11.
Eleven years later, “they” still hate us, now more than ever, Logan told the crowd. The Taliban and al-Qaida have not been vanquished, she added. They’re coming back.
“I chose this subject because, one, I can’t stand, that there is a major lie being propagated . . .” Logan declared in her native South African accent.
The lie is that America’s military might has tamed the Taliban.
“There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two years,” Logan said. It is driven in part by “Taliban apologists,” who claim “they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban,” she added sarcastically. “It’s such nonsense!”
Logan stepped way out of the “objective,” journalistic role. The audience was riveted as she told of plowing through reams of documents, and interviewing John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan; Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and a Taliban commander trained by al-Qaida. The Taliban and al-Qaida are teaming up and recruiting new terrorists to do us deadly harm, she reports.
She made a passionate case that our government is downplaying the strength of our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as a rationale of getting us out of the longest war. We have been lulled into believing that the perils are in the past: “You’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script.”
Our enemies are writing the story, she suggests, and there’s no happy ending for us.
As a journalist, I was queasy. Reporters should tell the story, not be the story. As an American, I was frightened.
Logan even called for retribution for the recent terrorist killings of Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other officials. The event is a harbinger of our vulnerability, she said. Logan hopes that America will “exact revenge and let the world know that the United States will not be attacked on its own soil. That its ambassadors will not be murdered, and that the United States will not stand by and do nothing about it.”
In the “good old days,” reporters did not advocate, crusade or call for revenge.
In these “new” days in a post-9/11 world, perhaps we need more reporters who are willing to break the rules.
John R. Houk
© October 1, 2012
Let Freedom Ring has sent out an email that they desire to be shared. The question behind the email: “Is violent Islamic extremism at war with us?”
LFR then links to a website with a 30 second video called an advertisement entitled “At War?” LFR wants to run “At War?” as a TV ad to let people know how out of touch the Obama Administration is in Foreign Policy.
The email links to watch the video ad at a website called: Why Mr. President, Why?
You can the ad then go to the DONATE link to support the ad.
Then you will find a link to a petition. You should really consider signing. The petition’s purpose is “Tell President Obama to stop our taxpayer money from going to the Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Egyptian government.”
VIDEO: At War?
Published on Sep 30, 2012 by letfreedomringusa
I put all these links on one page so you do not have to navigate as much as I did. Below is the wording of the LFR email:
By Colin Hanna, President LFR
Sent: 10/1/2012 9:54 AM
Is violent Islamic extremism at war with us?
The Obama Administration’s public answer, featured in our new advertisement, was NO, they are NOT at war with us. Click here to watch our new advertisement, “At War?” and share with as many people as possible that Obama refuses to recognize that our enemies are at war with us!
Obama STILL hasn’t personally called the recent attack on our Libyan consulate a terrorist attack, but this should be no surprise, as our advertisement points out that he refused to call terrorist Carlos Bledsoe’s attack that killed Army Private Andy Long in Little Rock, Arkansas a terrorist attack. He called it a criminal act.
How can we defeat our enemies if we don’t recognize them for who they are and why they want to destroy us?
Now in the course of preparing to post the “At War?” message which I highly hope all participate I ran into a Website called Losing Our Sons: An American Tragedy. This is a title of movie protesting the Obama Administration and the U.S. Army not providing Purple Hearts for American soldiers that have died on American soil in the line of duty under Islamic Terrorism because of the Left Wing fear that it is politically incorrect that tragedies like what happened at the Ft Hood Massacre and a recruiting office in Arkansas were acts of war by Islamic terrorists.
This all goes to Obama’s refusal to admit America is at war with Radical Islam because God forbid that we non-Muslims of America (of whom which a majority call themselves Christians) say we are at war with a religion that openly hates Jews, Christians AND Americans.
Frankly friends that is just plain stupid. I pray American voters wake-up to just how much stupidity exists to not understand that Radical Muslims consider themselves at war with America.
Trailer to Losing Our Sons:
Losing Our Sons is a documentary and here is the descriptive summary:
A searing true story from America’s heartland, Losing Our Sons tells of two American families whose lives intersected through a shattering act of violence. Melvin Bledsoe, a small business owner in Memphis, watched with pride as his son Carlos went to Tennessee State University in Nashville to better his life through education. Daris Long, an ex-Marine, felt honored that his son, Andy, chose to follow in his footsteps by joining the military. But when Carlos Bledsoe murdered Andy Long in Little Rock, Arkansas, both fathers are forced to confront a new kind of American nightmare. As Melvin traced the trail that led Carlos from Nashville to Yemen and then to Little Rock, Daris confronted an American government that seems to be in denial about what happened to his son. This powerful documentary provides a moment of clarity for Americans who care about their families and their country’s future.
Executive Producer, Director and Co-Writer
Producer, Co-Director and Co-Writer
Ilya I. Feoktistov
Feature run time approx.:
Dolby Digital sound
Americans for Peace and Tolerance © copyright – All rights reserved
Warning: This DVD is for private viewing only. It is not licensed for any other use. All other rights reserved. Federal law provides severe criminal and civil penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures, videotapes, or video discs. Manufactured in the U.S.A. (About the Film page of Losing Our Sons)
VIDEO: Petition the Army
On June 1, 2009, Private William “Andy” Long was killed and Private Quinton Ezeagwula was wounded outside a Little Rock Army recruitment center in a terror attack. It was the first Al Qaeda murder on US soil since 9/11. Andy’s killer, Carlos Bledsoe, who changed his name to Abdulhakim Mohammed when he converted to Islam, admitted to targeting US soldiers as part of what he termed his jihad.
Andy and Quinton were denied the Purple Heart award by the U.S Army because of “insufficient evidence”. The Justice Department decided not to bring federal terrorism charges and classified Andy’s murder as a street crime.
We call upon the U.S. Army to recognize the sacrifice made by Andy Long and Quinton Ezeagwula and award them the Purple Heart.
We have to fire Obama, his Czars and his Administration bureaucrats on November 6, 2012 – VOTE ROMNEY/RYAN!
Report: Obama Administration Removed 9/11 Threat Memo From Website After Libya Attack
October 1, 2012 9:03 am ET
A new report alleges that the State Department removed from its website a memo from Sept. 6 that advised U.S. personnel overseas that there was no credible threat of a terror attack to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11.
The memo was reportedly scrubbed from the website by the State Department’s Overseas Security Advisory Council sometime after the Libya consulate attack.
Chris Horner, author of “Liberal War On Transparency,” joined Steve Doocy on Fox and Friends to discuss the bombshell allegation. He said the move is not surprising, given what he calls the Obama administration’s lack of transparency over the last four years.
“They’re not into transparency beyond it being a talking point. By destroying records, generally, and I’ve shown there is a cyber bonfire going on in this administration, they’re covering up,” said Horner, who pointed out that the Obama administration has moved increasingly toward using private email instead of government accounts.
We Don’t Need Obama’s Inept Foreign Policy
John R. Houk
© October 1, 2012
Report: Obama Administration Removed 9/11 Threat Memo From Website After Libya Attack
© 2012 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
Hmm … One really doesn’t read anything from the MSM relating to Iraq unless there is a story that arbitrarily insults the United States of America. You know though – I believe Iraq is still a nation that quite likely will split three ways when the last combat regiment leaves the region carved into a nation by the British (SA HERE) casting favors to tribal Arab allies during WWI.
In an instant Institute for the Study of War (ISW) email there is a news briefing about what is happening in Iraq as the American coalition of the willing downsizes its presence. Here a clue: The Syrian Civil War also includes Syrians other than Radical Muslim Sunnis that desire freedom from Shia Alawite President Bashar al-Assad.
John R. Houk
© July 18, 2012
How many innocent people died from a one day attack on 911?
The body count as of 2008 was 2,977 victims. The body for just the WTC as of 2012 had rolled up to 2,753. I can safely say that nearly 3,000 people died by an Islamic terrorist on unsuspecting civilian on American soil resulting from a one day attack.
Check out this misinformed comment fin a post from June 10, 2009:
Anonymous Sun Jul 15, 10:46:00 AM 2012
What is terrorism … Destruction and mayhem?
So what is all this America causes?
Just because they were suits does not mean they are not terrorists,
Over 300 people died in 9 11.
Do u know how many people and civilians died in Iraq by bombings from America?
Anonymous claims only 300 people died on American soil on that one day attack on September 11, 2001. Loud Buzz!!! Anonymous was of the mark by over 2500 innocent people who were not even close to expecting to die that day!
Now Anonymous is correct in stating over 2000 people died in Iraq that can be related by American from the beginning of the Iraq invasion to rid the world of a psycho-dictator. A psycho-dictator I might add that was hung by a liberated Iraqi government in a near public manner (gruesome alert) so that all Iraqis could know the devil Saddam Hussein would have no ability to return to power to slaughter Iraqi citizens he felt aided in deposing rapacious dictator.
In fact through 2012 4,804 people Iraqis died (I believe this link updates periodically) as a result of 9 years of war by the American led Coalition Forces against Islamic terrorists.
Now let’s stop and think about that. A one day attack resulted in nearly 3,000 unsuspecting people dying. It has taken NINE years of nearly 5,000 Iraqis to die. This is nearly 5,000 people who knew exactly what was coming.
In 2007 the website TheReligionofPeace.com gives us a better picture of who is doing most of the killing of Iraqi citizens. The big hint is American led troops are NOT the primary killers of civilians in Iraq:
In fact, if you do make it through the donation solicitation pages on the main site and begin to browse their database, you’ll notice that the tables are conspicuously missing a column – the party responsible for each attack.
There’s a reason for this, as we discovered when we analyzed each incident to answer this question. It turns out that the vast majority of civilian deaths are caused by Islamic terrorists, and that very few are from American bombs and bullets. This is because (unlike the terrorists) the Americans aren’t in Iraq to kill civilians.
Why does IraqBodyCount vilify Americans, who are literally giving their blood to help Iraqis, while protecting the activities of foreign terrorists, who enter the country specifically to kill civilians? Because the website and the terrorists both share an anti-American political agenda to which the lives of innocent Iraqis are nothing more than a supporting prop.
In fact, Iraqis are mere statistics to these folks. And since the value of these statistics is substantially mitigated by presenting the full truth, IraqBodyCount wisely avoids identifying each incident by relevant context.
Since our sympathies are merely for the innocent, and not filtered by anti-American bigotry, we decided to sift through the data to discover the information that IraqBodyCount doesn’t want you to know. We carefully examined their list of incidents from January 1, 2006 through December 31st to come up with some idea of who’s really behind all those alleged civilian casualties.
Obviously it would have been easier to do this if IraqBodyCount kept track of the party responsible for each attack rather than, say, the time of day that it took place, but (as we found out) this extremely pertinent information completely undermines their preferred conclusions and so it is omitted (to the indifference of fawning new organizations).
Despite this imprecise science, we feel confident in our general findings.
Since the beginning of the year, we counted exactly fifty incidents involving U.S. troops in which civilians were said to have been killed. Some were air strikes against terrorists, others were raids against or ambushes by terrorists in which civilians were killed in the crossfire. Although the Americans aren’t trying to kill civilians and the terrorists are, we added most of these to our count anyway just to allay suspicion.
There were thousands of Islamic terrorist attacks in Iraq during 2006. IraqBodyCount often uses a “who really gives a rat’s ass” method of counting deaths that even they have to admit contains overlap, so it’s difficult to discern the true number of dead bodies from the beginning of the year, but the site appears to be reporting between 18,000 and 26,000 civilians killed (so much for accuracy). What’s clearer is that only about 225 of these involve American troops – or about 1 in 100. (The Real Iraq Body Count; TheReligionofPeace.com, Excerpted, Updated 2/02/07)
So Anonymous, the primary perpetrator of civilian deaths in Iraq are Muslims killing Muslims. Probably in Iraq’s case it is Sunni Islamic terrorists killing Shi’ite Muslim, although I would be surprised if the majority population of Shi’ites did their share of revenge killings.
In nine years of an American presence in Iraq statistical analysis demonstrates that the amount of Iraqi civilians killed by Coalition Forces is far shorter than the anti-war and Muslim apologist crowd. I would even hazard a guess it is far below the nearly 3,000 that died innocently in an Islamic terrorist attack on one day on American soil.