The new law will provide $1.5 billion each year from 2010 to 2014 for schools, hospitals, roads, agricultural aid, roadwork and other development projects.

“This act formalizes that partnership, based on a shared commitment to improving the living conditions of the people of Pakistan through sustainable economic development, strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and combating the extremism that threatens Pakistan and the United States,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said

However, critics say they do not believe building schools and hospitals will do much to stop the Taliban and Al Qaeda and that what appears to work in Iraq will work in Afghanistan, a nation that’s been war-torn for many years prior to the US-led invasion.

“This is the liberal-left strategy for fighting a war against terrorists: build schools and hospitals. In other words, increase the number of targets for the enemy — the Taliban and Al Qaeda,” said former NYPD detective and Marine intelligence officer Sid Franks.

“This strategy may have worked in Iraq, but the Afghan terrorists and radicals have been hardened by years of fighting warlords, Russia’s military and now the US. They don’t want our schools and hospitals and Obama just doesn’t get it,” said Det. Franks.

“As usual, when faced with a problem most US politicians believe throwing taxpayers money at it is the solution,” said political strategist Mike Baker.

Meanwhile, on the same day as Obama’s law-signing, terrorists attacked three security agency buildings in Pakistan today, including the Federal Investigation Agency headquarters and two police training centers in Lahore. In addition, a suicide car bomber struck in the northwestern city of Kohat, and a bombing in Quetta in the southwest of the country left more dead.

There were five terrorist attacks in less than 24 hours and at least 40 people have been killed in the latest Taliban attacks.

These attacks follow a rash of violence in Pakistan by an increasingly emboldened Taliban, including an attack over the weekend on Pakistan’s army headquarters.

The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad strongly condemned the terrorist attacks in Pakistan, vowing continued U.S. support to help Pakistan combat violence, according to Donna Miles of the American Forces Press Service.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Pakistan Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani following that attack to express personal condolences for those killed, while emphasizing continued U.S. support.

Mullen has made numerous trips to Pakistan during the past 18 months, and talks regularly with his Pakistani counterparts about their stepped-up counteroffensive against extremists.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said today the United States is encouraged by the way the Pakistani government is “taking on the threat that exists in their country.”

“The Pakistani government looks like they are committed to taking the necessary steps to deal with this threat,” he said.

Whitman called the attacks particularly troublesome because, he said, they take their biggest toll on innocent civilians.

U.S. embassy officials in Pakistan expressed outrage today over the latest string of attacks.

“The horrific injuries and loss of life witnessed in Lahore, Peshawar and Kohat today, along with those lost in the attack on the Pakistan Army General Headquarters, are another stark reminder of the amoral nature of those who commit such acts,” a statement released today declared. “These attacks will not deter the people of Pakistan from continuing in their commitment to a free and democratic society.

“The United States will continue to support the people and government of Pakistan in combating all forms of violence,” the statement continued. “We mourn the senseless loss of life and extend our condolences to the victims’ families, friends and community.”

There were five terrorist attacks in less than 24 hours and at least 40 people have been killed in the latest Taliban attacks.

These attacks follow a rash of violence in Pakistan by an increasingly emboldened Taliban, including an attack over the weekend on Pakistan’s army headquarters.

The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad strongly condemned the terrorist attacks in Pakistan, vowing continued U.S. support to help Pakistan combat violence, according to Donna Miles of the American Forces Press Service.

The embassy issued the condemnation of the attacks as President Barack Obama signed a law that provides $7.5 billion in nonmilitary aid to Pakistan over the next five years. The funds are part of a comprehensive plan that recognizes the importance of confronting the root causes of extremism as well as extremists themselves, stated Miles.

The new law will provide $1.5 billion each year from 2010 to 2014 for schools, hospitals, roads, agricultural aid, roadwork and other development projects.

However, critics say they do not believe building schools and hospitals will do much to stop the Taliban and Al Qaeda and that what appears to work in Iraq will work in Afghanistan, a nation that’s been war-torn for many years prior to the US-led invasion.

“This act formalizes that partnership, based on a shared commitment to improving the living conditions of the people of Pakistan through sustainable economic development, strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and combating the extremism that threatens Pakistan and the United States,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said today.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Pakistan Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani following that attack to express personal condolences for those killed, while emphasizing continued U.S. support.

Mullen has made numerous trips to Pakistan during the past 18 months, and talks regularly with his Pakistani counterparts about their stepped-up counteroffensive against extremists.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said today the United States is encouraged by the way the Pakistani government is “taking on the threat that exists in their country.”

“The Pakistani government looks like they are committed to taking the necessary steps to deal with this threat,” he said.

Whitman called the attacks particularly troublesome because, he said, they take their biggest toll on innocent civilians.

U.S. embassy officials in Pakistan expressed outrage today over the latest string of attacks.

“The horrific injuries and loss of life witnessed in Lahore, Peshawar and Kohat today, along with those lost in the attack on the Pakistan Army General Headquarters, are another stark reminder of the amoral nature of those who commit such acts,” a statement released today declared. “These attacks will not deter the people of Pakistan from continuing in their commitment to a free and democratic society.

“The United States will continue to support the people and government of Pakistan in combating all forms of violence,” the statement continued. “We mourn the senseless loss of life and extend our condolences to the victims’ families, friends and community.”

According to a criminal complaint, at a sensitive stage of the investigation, by questioning an imam about the suspect, the NYPD acted without informing their FBI counterparts.

At least one of the police detectives being singled out in the FBI’s complaint is assigned to the NYPD Intelligence Division and not the NYPD-FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). The Intel Division is responsible for organized crime, terrorism and other special projects and is not connected to the FBI-run JTTF.

The FBI complaint suggests the local cops may have tipped off Najibullah Zazi , a 24-year-old Denver airport shuttle driver, by towing, and then searching, a rental car he was using while in New York City. The police search succeeded in uncovering a laptop computer containing bomb making instructions on its hard drive.

The FBI contends this tipped off the suspect because during a telephone phone conversation with Ahmad Wais Afzali, Zazi stated the car’s removal caused him to believe he was being kept under surveillance.

Members of the JTTF and officials at One Police Plaza in Manhattan said they could not comment on the alleged friction between FBI agents and NYPD detectives and the department’s spokesman, Paul Browne, told reporters simply that “the NYPD and the FBI worked closely and successfully in this case and in scores of others.” He declined further comment as did Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.

“While I don’t know the specific details of these allegations by the FBI against the NYPD cops, I do know from experience that the feds have a habit of blaming others when they fail while taking credit when others succeed in an investigation,” claims former NYPD Det. Mike Schwartz.

“I get worried when I hear stories like this one. It tells me that there are problems with the investigation and [FBI and NYPD] investigators are pointing fingers at one another,” Schwartz added.

Zazi, his father and Afzali were arrested over the weekend on charges they lied to the FBI but weren’t immediately charged with terrorism. According to affidavits filed in support of three criminal complaints, the FBI is investigating several individuals in the United States, Pakistan and elsewhere, relating to a plot to detonate improvised explosive devices within the United States.

Records from U.S. Customs and Border Protection reveal that, on August 28, 2008, Najibullah Zazi flew to Peshawar, Pakistan from Newark International Airport in New Jersey via Geneva, Switzerland and Doha, Qatar. CBP records further reflect that Najibullah Zazi traveled from Peshawar to John F. Kennedy International Airport, in New York City, on or about January 15, 2009.

According to the affidavits, on or about September 9, 2009, FBI agents observed Najibullah Zazi depart his residence in Colorado in a rented car. He drove to New York City, arriving the following day, and spent the night at a residence in Flushing, Queens (“the Queens Residence.”)

On September 10, 2009, New York City Police Department detectives met with defendant Afzali, whom the NYPD had utilized as a source in the past. According to the affidavits, the detectives questioned Afzali about Najibullah Zazi and others and showed him photographs of Najibullah Zazi and others. Afzali allegedly told the detectives he recognized Najibullah Zazi and several of the men in the photographs.

According to affidavits, on September 11, 2009, defendant Mohammed Zazi placed a call to Afzali which lasted approximately 20 minutes. That same day, the FBI intercepted a phone conversation between Mohammed Zazi and his son, Najibullah Zazi. An affidavit alleges that, during the conversation, Mohammed Zazi told his son that he had spoken to Afzali who had informed him about being visited by law enforcement and shown photographs. Mohammed Zazi told his son that Afzali would call him and he advised his son to speak with Afzali “before anything else,” according to the affidavits.

In the midst of this phone call, Najibullah Zazi allegedly received a call from Afzali, who discussed his meeting with law enforcement the day before. According to a draft summary of the transcription, Afzali allegedly stated: “I was exposed to something yesterday from law enforcement. And they came to ask me about your characters.” Afzali also allegedly asked Najibullah Zazi about his last trip to Pakistan and added, “Listen, our phone call is being monitored.”

According to the affidavits, in another intercepted phone conversation on Sept. 11, 2009, Najibullah Zazi told Afzali that his car had been stolen and that he feared he was being “watched.” Afzali allegedly asked if there was any “evidence in his car,” and Najibullah Zazi said no.

That same day, FBI agents conducted a legally authorized search of Najibullah Zazi’s rental car, which was parked near the Queens residence. During the search, agents found a laptop computer containing images of nine-pages of handwritten notes. According to the affidavits, the notes contain formulations and instructions regarding the manufacture and handling of initiating explosives, main explosives charges, explosives detonators and components of a fusing system. On September 12, 2009, Najibullah Zazi flew from La Guardia Airport in New York to Denver.

On September 16, 2009, FBI agents interviewed Najibullah Zazi in Denver. According to an affidavit, when he was asked about and shown handwritten notes regarding explosives found on his laptop computer, Najibullah Zazi falsely asserted that he had never seen the document before and stated he had not written the notes.

On September 17 and 18, Najibullah Zazi was further interviewed by the FBI in Denver. According to affidavits, Najibullah Zazi admitted in the interviews that during his 2008 trip to Pakistan, he attended courses and received instruction on weapons and explosives at an al-Qaeda training facility in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA, of Pakistan.

The affidavits allege that, on September 17, Afzali was interviewed by authorities in New York where he falsely asserted in a written statement that he did not tell Najibullah Zazi or Mohammed Zazi that authorities had approached him seeking information about Najibullah Zazi. According to the affidavits, Afzali also falsely asserted that he never told Najibullah Zazi that they were being monitored on the phone and that he never asked Najibullah Zazi about evidence in his car.

The affidavits further allege that, on September 16, Mohammed Zazi was interviewed by FBI agents in Denver where he was asked whether anyone had called him and told him about his son’s activities and any trouble regarding his son.

According to the affidavits, Mohammed Zazi falsely stated that he had never called anyone in New York other than his son and he had never received a call from anyone in New York. He allegedly revised his statement to say he had received one call from an individual who informed him that his son had missed his flight. According to the affidavits, Mohammed Zazi was later asked if he knew anyone by the name of Afzali and he said he did not.

The prosecutions are being handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of New York and the District of Colorado, with assistance from the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s the former editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.

To subscribe to Kouri’s newsletter write to COPmagazine@aol.com and write “Subscription” on the subject line.

One of the biggest fears advanced by myself and people who I have had the honor of working with in the quest to educate Americans on the threats and dangers posed by radical Islamists, is that the American people would soon forget the horrors of September 11th; that they would start to forget the sense of helplessness they felt as they watched the World Trade Center collapse into the streets of New York City, the carnage at the Pentagon and the despondency of rescuers demonstrated in a field in Shanksville. We all understood that there would be a waning of the immediacy felt in the aftermath of the attacks – immediacy of response, education and prevention – but we feared the encroachment of apathy to the grotesque loss of life and butchery foisted upon the American people on that day. We feared it because we all understood – and still believe today – that to abdicate vigilance to the threat of Islamist aggression is to set the stage for another catastrophic event.

In the days after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Liberal media (formerly referred to as the mainstream media) began to remove the images of the attacks from our television screens. Gone were the images of dust-covered people wandering the decimated streets of New York. We were no longer able to see the images of heroic firefighters and Pentagon workers frantically searched for people to rescue. And we were no longer provided the images of frustrated first responders – professionals trained to save lives – milling about the wreckage of an airliner in a field with no one to save. The media explained the removal of these images – these realities – by insisting it was done in the name of preventative tolerance; to quell any hatred, any catalyst for retribution toward the Muslim community.

The images of the most devastating attack to be perpetrated on American soil by a foreign enemy were replaced by a full-blown propaganda offensive designed to demand “tolerance” toward the American Muslim community. This propaganda offensive was employed not only by the media, but by our government. Leaders in Washington DC, including President George W. Bush (whom I respect and admire to this day) insisted that Islam was a “religion of peace” and that the terrorists who attacked our nation were a small, radical and violent faction of an otherwise peaceful religion. And as the message was repeated, the American people began to distance themselves from the feeling of vulnerability that embraced the country on September 11, 2001, the images of that day fading into the history books.

During the hours of the attack on September 11th, and over the course of the next few days, as we waited to see if any survivors would be found amongst the wreckage of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, many of our lives were changed forever. Many of us did the civically responsible thing and took the time to study the culture that gave birth to the fanaticism of al Qaeda and the ideology that harbors those who would champion brutal oppression, violent conquest and denial of Natural Law to all but their own in the name of religion. Some of us – including myself – came to understand that the ambitions of radical Islamists were far greater than simply striking out at “the Great Satan,” the United States of America. In fact, the goal of radical Islamists – be they Sunni or Shi’ite – was to establish a global caliphate as directed by their Prophet Mohammad; a caliphate that would encompass the world and bring all the people of the world to exist under Islamic Law; Sharia Law.

The quest to establish a global caliphate understood, the popular notion among the Progressive Left that the attacks were retribution for American policies in the Middle East was exposed as naïve, hollow and sometimes disingenuous rhetoric. Even Osama bin Laden’s 1996 and 1998 declarations of war against the United States, while calling for the withdrawal of American forces from the Islamic holy land of Saudi Arabia went further in conveying that jihad was the way to the global Caliphate and that the establishment of the global Caliphate was the path to Allah. Truth be told, the freedom and liberty valued by the United States and the West is simply a hurdle that radical Islamists have to navigate on their journey toward religious fulfillment. The hatred for Western culture held by radical Islamists, for those that value freedom and liberty, is not exclusive to the United States, as is evidenced by the terrorist attacks in Europe, the South Pacific, Asia, Africa and elsewhere.

Today, the US government has identified 72 terrorist organizations, with thousands of operatives, existing and operating within the borders of the United States. These organizations include al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Abu Sayyaf, Islamic Jihad, Jamaat al Fuqra and the Muslim Brotherhood, to name but a few. They have literally set-up offices in Boston, Chicago, New York, Dallas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Tampa, Washington DC and over 38 other cities around the country. The recent conviction of officials from the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas, Texas – in which the Council on American Islamic Relations (a Saudi funded pro-Islamic lobbyist group) was named an unindicted co-conspirator – exposed the fact that many Islamic organizations disguised as “charities,” some with IRS 501c3 tax exempt status, are raising, laundering and funneling money back to the Middle East to support their terrorist organizations.

In our schools, the wrongfully accepted premise of separation of church and state is routinely violated on behalf of Islam under the guise of teaching tolerance. Some California schools even had the audacity to suggest that parents were outside of their authority when they complained about school children being made to be “Muslim for a day.” Would the schools mandate that students be “Catholic for a day” or “Jewish for a day” or “Protestant for a day” we could be certain that the American Civil Liberties Union would unleash all of its resources to stop said action.

CAIR, it has been found, routinely initiates lawsuits on behalf of Muslims in pursuit of preferential treatment. From cab drivers refusing to take fares that carry liquor, to prayer rooms and foot baths being constructed in public places using taxpayer monies, to receiving contractual obligations from private employers that agree to special treatment in the workplace, CAIR has facilitated the preferential treatment of the American Muslim in American society. Through it all, the voices coming from within the American Islamic community who decry such unwarranted preference are muted by the deafening silence of the majority of American Muslims who selfishly refuse to address not only the inequity of status that taxes the rest of American society in deference to their religion, but the violence perpetrated in the name of their religion.

To add to the complexity of the situation, the United States is experiencing a diminishing birthrate among our people. Conversely, the Muslim birthrate in the United States greatly surpasses the birthrate of Americans. Left to the singular device of reproduction the US population – as well as the world population – will be consumed by those who practice the Islamic religion through simple demographics in a few generations. By the sheer power of their numbers, Islamists, including those who wish to establish a global caliphate, will be able to inundate and monopolize any democracy on the face of the earth and no political maneuver, no procedural end-around and no amount of military might can overcome this inevitability.

Meanwhile, President Obama has adopted the strategy of extending an “open hand” of peaceful engagement to rulers and despots like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syria’s Bashar Assad and the Afghan Taliban – tyrants who routinely use the “fist” of totalitarianism and the ideology of radical Islam to not only attack the West but to destroy their own people. To date, this open hand has been met with indifference at best and indignation in the least.

Here at home, Attorney General Eric Holder, in one of the most transparent acts of political persecution, has chosen to investigate the Central Intelligence Agency for inappropriate behavior in the use of enhanced interrogation techniques when questioning radical Islamist terrorists captured on the field of battle. Newly released information has validated former Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion that these techniques garnered critical information that prevented additional attacks on American soil.

Further, both President Obama and Attorney General Holder – along with the Progressive Left – are doing everything in their power to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and to introduce terrorists into the US legal system, a system routinely manipulated by the ACLU and CAIR.

It can be argued successfully that the US government and the American people are not doing all we can to win the battle against radical Islamist aggression. In fact, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to argue that some within the inner workings of Washington DC actually champion the advancement of Islam in the United States.

On this, the eighth anniversary of the September 11th attacks, we need to rededicate ourselves to understanding the threat that radical Islam presents to We the People of the United States and to the people of the West. We need to take the time to read the Quran and the Hadith – in tandem – so as to realize, first-hand, the violent and oppressive tenets of the Islamic religion, the tenets embraced by radical and fundamentalist Islamists. We need to call on the American Muslim community to lead the charge against these violent and oppressive tenets, to confront the demons within their own religion and to bring about a reformation of their religion so it can exist peacefully with the many different people of the world.

Only when these things come to pass will we as a human race be able to face down and conquer the evils and barbarity of radical Islamists. Make no mistake, radical Islamists are at war with the world. They have said as much in the past and they continue to say as much today. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: Why do we refuse to listen to what they are saying?

From their graves, the 3,017 souls lost on September 11th, 2001 and the many lost in radical Islamist attacks around the world, beg for justice. It is our duty as human beings to hear them and to defeat radical Islam wherever it exists.

In memory of those lost on September 11, 2001.

“Gates followed up with a scathing letter to Curley [of AP] yesterday afternoon. The letter says Gates cannot imagine the pain Bernard’s family is feeling right now, and that Curley’s ‘lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put out this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple newspapers is appalling. The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right—but judgment and common decency.”

I thought a long time before writing about this matter, and was not pleasant to be around. The photo resonated with me, as we say. You see, long ago, in another pointless war, promoted by another conscienceless Secretary, I too was a Marine Lance Corporal of twenty-one years. I too got shot, though not nearly as badly as this kid, and spent a year at Bethesda Naval Hospital. At this point I am legally blind following my (I think) thirteenth trip to eye surgery as a result of an identical foreign policy.

Big deal. It happens. At this point I’m comfortable and doing fine. Don’t cry for me, Argentiana. The other kid is dead.

But that bothers me. And all of this perhaps gives me a certain insight into the matter that not all reporters have, nor all editors. It also makes me poisonously, bottle-throwing angry to think about another chilly professional bureaucrat, the Second Coming of McNamara, with less combat experience than Tinkerbell, sending kids to croak in weird places having nothing to do with the US.

But Gates. The words “decency” and “unconscionable” coming from him are fetid with hypocrisy. Gates was director of the CIA. “Intelligence” agencies are moral dirt, hated the world over for torture, murder, and destabilization of countries leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths. The KGB, Mossad, CIA, STASI, SAVAK—they’re all the same. A man who presides over torture and murder should not speak of decency. He has none.

Nor is it easy to believe that Gates feels the slightest sympathy for the dead kid or for his family. If you don’t want kids to die in Afghanistan, don’t send them there. He does. How sorry can he be?

Why then is he so angry at having the war photographed? Easy: Spin control. Spin is so very important in war these days. While America is only barely a democracy, still, if the public, the great sleeping acquiescent ignorant beast, ever gets really upset, the war ends. The Pentagon is acutely aware of this. It remembers its disaster in Asia. The generals of today learned nothing military from Vietnam—they are fighting the same kind of war as stupidly as before—but they learned something more important: Their most dangerous enemy is the America public. You. Me. Defeating the Taliban isn’t particularly important, or even desirable. (No war means fewer promotions and fewer contracts). But while the Taliban cannot possibly defeat the Pentagon, the American public can.

Photographs are death to a war, boys and girls. They can asphyxiate a war faster than roadside bombs can even dream. Gates does not want the sprawling somnolent inattentive beast, the public, to see what his wars really are.

In wars, there are many enlightening things to see. For example, the Marine with a third of his face and half a lung, going ku-kuk-kuk as red gunch rolls out of his mouth and he drowns in his blood. Ruined or dying teenagers whimpering the trinity of the badly wounded, Mother, wife, and water. The brain-shot guy jerking like an epileptic as he tries not to die. Ever see brain tissue from gunshot? I have. It makes a pink spew across the ground. Like strawberry chiffon.

Gates does not want you to see this. You would puke, buy a bottle of bourbon, and take to the streets. He knows it. CBS could end these wars in a week if it aired what really happens. Gates cannot afford to let the dam break. PR is all. Thus Bush forbade the photographing of coffins coming home, and the CIA ferociously resists the publication of photographs of torture. Professional sadists do things to people that would make you gag.

Then there are the enlisted men. In these hobbyist wars, and to an extent even in peacetime, it is crucial to keep the enlisteds from thinking. In some three decades of covering the military, I saw this constantly. If I went to Afghanistan today as a correspondent, I could argue in private about the war with the colonel. If I suggested to the troops that they were being suckered, the colonel would go crazy. Next to keeping the public quiescent, keeping the troops (and potential recruits) bamboozled is vital. If a high-school kid saw what awaited, if he saw the cartilage glistening in wrecked joints, he wouldn’t sign.

Do I think that the press should publish such photos? Not yes but hell yes on afterburner. Every time an editor covers for the Pentagon, every time papers refuse to show the charred bodies still…slowly…moving, the dead children, the…never mind. The effect is to ensure that more kids will die the same way. And the press almost always does exactly this. We are a trade of whores and shills. Except that whores give value for money. The press kills our children.

Julie Jacobson sounds like that modern-day rarity, a reporter, as distinguished from a volunteer flack. Bless her. I used to wonder whether women could hack it as combat correspondents. I no longer do. (There are lots of them.) I used to refer to smarmy over-groomed bloodthirsty office warts as pussies, saying that they lacked balls. The anatomical reference no longer works. I note that Jacobson has more combat time than the aggregate for Bush II, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Obama, Biden, Gonzalez, Clinton, Perleman, Abrams, Kristol, Feith, Podhoretz, Krauthammer, George Will, Dershwitz, and Gates. These men, if the word is appropriate, killed that kid. Jacobson just caught them in the act.

More fun and frivolity available 24/7 at fredoneverything.net

Tyler Wigg-Stevenson, director of the Two Futures Project, offers a good example of the religiously driven argument in a thoughtful article published in Christianity Today. He concludes, “Those who … defend nuclear weaponry are forced to adopt a … celebratory triumphalism about massive, indiscriminate killing of civilians, contravening every principle of Christian just war theory.”

Wigg-Stevenson, along with the Obama administration, advocates a nuclear-free world. In his article, Mr. Wigg-Stevenson posits three reasons for totally eliminating nukes: First, nine nations currently possess approximately 20,000 nuclear weapons, and any use of them risks “sparking a chain reaction.” Second, the international situation since 1945 has changed: “We are now blessedly free of any global struggle—like World War II, or the Cold War—that would justify … such massive loss of life.” And third, today’s world is so economically interdependent that any nuclear war, even a limited one, might prove globally devastating.

At the risk of sounding “celebratoriously triumphant,” I, as both a historian and a Christian, laud the Truman administration for using atomic weapons to force Japan’s surrender. I also believe that the mere presence of nukes is not the problem.

Either way, regardless of the arguments, current arsenals can be reduced. Major powers each possessing 200 nuclear weapons should suffice to keep one another from going to war. The Obama administration should suggest that the United States, Russia, and the European Union share a common missile-defense system; one designed to prevent attacks by rogue nations like North Korea and Iran (soon to join the nuclear club), and protect against accidental release of nuclear missiles. To be sure, there are numerous ways to deliver nukes: aircraft, submarines, fishing boats, panel trucks, and donkey carts. An anti-missile shield, however, might keep the unintended from becoming the unthinkable.

Fat Man and Little Boy, the bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did not invent themselves and then attack Japan on their own. The necessities of war drove well-intended humans to invent and use them. In addition to ending World War II, nuclear weapons kept the Cold War cold. After 1950, the major industrial powers, those accounting for nearly 100 million wartime deaths between 1914 and 1945, risked their own annihilation by going to war. In the afterglow of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world’s major powers have enjoyed 64 years of relative peace and prosperity, eclipsing the previous record of 55 years, between the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 and the start of the Franco Prussian War in 1870.

Nuclear weapons aren’t the problem. People are. The beauty of nuclear weapons is that they put this doomed species at risk of an early demise. From a Christian perspective, war results from mankind’s innate depravity. Weapons, of whatever sort, are simply a means to an end. Some might date violence between humans to when Cain slew Able. That act was a symptom of our condition, one issuing from the tempting of Eve and Adam. Consequently, humanity gained access to god-like knowledge, without the Divine love and wisdom of God’s spiritual perfection.

Subsequently, humans turned the resources of a fallen earth into weaponry. Uranium and plutonium weapons, therefore, are the direct descendents of the Bronze Age.

Eliminating categories of weapons changes the how; not the why nor the result. Humans will continue to kill humans. Nuclear weapons killed far fewer people than other major weapons’ categories used in World War II. Furthermore, the advent of nuclear weapons changed the post-war strategic paradigm from one focused on preparing for war to one employing strategies of deterrence.

From a Christian perspective, the problem is not the weaponry; it’s not even the weapon wielders, because in many cases, they prevent wars. The problem is our human nature. For that the only answer, for the Christian, is Christ.

In the end, when the old order passes away, a redeemed humanity finally will see the end of war. It is not the curse of Cain that brought us death, it is the curse mankind brought upon himself through disobedience to God.

Dr. Earl Tilford, currently lives in Tuscaloosa, Alabama where he is writing a history of the University of Alabama in the 1960s. A retired Air Force intelligence officer, Dr. Tilford earned his PhD in American and European military history at George Washington University. From 1993 to 2001, he served as Director of Research at the U.S. Army’s Strategic Studies Institute. In 2001, he left Government service for a professorship at Grove City College, where he taught courses in military history, national security, and international and domestic terrorism and counter-terrorism.

According to testimony given to the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee by General Peter Pace, the former US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Hamas has joined Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda in the Triple Frontier Zone in Latin America where the borders of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay converge.

There the Islamic terror groups train recruits, gather intelligence on targets, launder money and sell drugs. There is evidence that these terrorists and narco-terrorists will soon migrate north into the United States. He cited terrorism reports indicating terrorist groups are active in Canada and Central-South America.

ATTACKS ON US SOVEREIGNTY

Border Patrol agents began to voice what many believed were legitimate concerns about “armed incursions” into the United States from Mexico-based assailants. They reported that heavily armed Mexican army units and federal police, called federales, had infiltrated US territory and fired upon them, in some cases. Mexican drug lords had put prices on the heads of American law-enforcement agents strung out along the border. Where was the outrage by our political leaders and the mainstream media over this blatant violation of our national sovereignty?

Last year I reported on armed Mexicans entering the US causing National Guard troops to retreat because they had limited, if any, rules of engagement. The federal government attempted to suppress the information of this incursion and violation of US sovereignty.

Many of our political leaders and most in the news media ignore these violent attacks on our national sovereignty while more and more Americans are saying, “This has got to stop!”

Some security experts had high hopes that President Bush would bring up the border security problem during his meeting with then Mexican President Vincente Fox. It never happened. Quite the opposite occurred. The two leaders discussed ways of relaxing immigration restrictions including a de facto amnesty program. Now with President Barack Obama and the Democrat Party in charge of two branches of government, observers believe even less will be done to secure our borders.

Putting aside terrorism, the lack of border security contributes to crime. In Los Angeles, a look at outstanding arrest warrants for homicide reveals that over 90% are for illegal aliens. Examination of all LA felony arrest warrants (murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.) shows that 65% are for illegal aliens. The Manhattan Institute estimates that 350 killers managed to escape back into Mexico and the Mexican government refuses to extradite to the US to stand trial. In another study, a sample group of 55,000 criminal aliens committed 700,000 criminal acts.

And our northern border with Canada has many law-enforcement leaders even more concerned. Canadian security experts concede that there are several radical Islamist groups active in their country. In fact, Hezbullah’s largest headquarters is located not in the Middle East but in Toronto. One Canadian intelligence officer claims that his country’s immigration policy is more lax than US policy and their politicos more liberal when it comes to refusing to restrict illegal aliens from entering Canada.

If these killers aren’t afraid to target or kill cops, then who in America is really safe from terrorists, murderers, rapists and other offenders; and anyone wishing to address the problem is labeled a racist or xenophobe. Americans can probably count on one hand the number of congressional leaders who will even debate the issues of illegal immigration or border security.

What sense does it make to inspect shipping containers in New York seaports while ignoring the vulnerabilities existing on our borders?

NUCLEAR SMUGGLING

In a previous column, I reported on how easily it was for undercover investigators to sneak radioactive material — to be used for “dirty bombs” into the US.

The undercovers were successful at both borders 100% of the time. Yet, the White House, Congress and the news media ignored the subsequent report from the Government Accountability Office about the undercover operation that proved we could not prevent weapons of mass destruction from being smuggled into the US.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is on his Middle East apology tour.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s the former blog editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Recently, the editors at Examiner.com appointed him as their Law Enforcement Examiner. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

If you wish to receive Kouri’s emailed law enforcement and intelligence reports, write to him at COPmagazine@aol.com. Simply write “Free Subscription” on the subject line.

It was for this reason that when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson postulated of the likelihood that disaster had befallen this nation since it had turned its back on God (read: embraced liberalism), the media immediately became hysterical, castigating both men for daring to engage in such a discussion.

While the substance of the specific connection proffered by Falwell and Robertson might not be provable among unbelievers, the events of the past week give cause to reconsider their basic premise. A country that is weak and chaotic within will be susceptible to enemies from without. And the absurdities of America’s present discourse indicate that the mindless confusion of the political left and its continuing decisions to put political interest above the well being of the country have permeated all levels of the government.

Consequently, America’s defenses are disintegrating and the probability of a strike from some evil adversary increases by the day. In light of the vehement post 9-11 liberal denials, and the unconscionable willingness of individuals such as Sandy Berger to erase crucial evidence in order to escape culpability, a clarion call sounded before the next terrorist incident might be more effective than finger pointing after the fact. Sadly, the twisted priorities among liberals necessitate such a course.

The left is currently outraged over an incident involving Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but not the fact that she has been caught flagrantly lying about her knowledge and tacit approval of the “waterboarding” of terrorists at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Rather, they are incensed that she was the butt of a bad joke made by CBS sportscaster David Feharty, who sought to highlight her treacherous undermining of the United States military.

Of course the Feharty incident required immediate action, and resulted in liberal calls for an apology, along with the customary demands for his removal from the airwaves. A bad joke, if told by somebody on the right and aimed at a prominent liberal Democrat, is certainly a matter of national importance necessitating instant contrition, penitence and blood atonement.

Meanwhile, the real issue of national consequence involving Nancy Pelosi, on the rare occasions when it is even mentioned, is handled with extreme delicacy by Democrat mouthpieces and their minions on the nightly news. Yet the significance of the affair, and more specifically the proof it represents of Pelosi’s effort to rewrite the record of past events for the specific purpose of gaining political advantage, is absolutely defining among those who care about national security and the ability to wage the still very real war on terror.

Pelosi misrepresented the facts, denying any knowledge of the intense interrogation of terrorist prisoners, thereby assuming the moral “high ground” on the issue. Her professed indignation, phony as is ever the case among liberals, was only intended to rally the liberal anti-war base among the electorate. In the process she undermined the mission of America’s military and intelligence gathering apparatus, while boosting the morale of Islamists throughout the world who regard all of America, including Pelosi and the people of her district, as their mortal enemies.

Pelosi is tap dancing now, having been caught in blatant fraud. Yet neither she nor those who joined in her duplicitous charade are receiving the universal condemnation they deserve. Ultimately, this lack of denunciation speaks volumes.

By their silence, all who refuse to decry her devious behavior identify themselves as collaborators in it. The legions of pious liberals, including Barack Obama, who castigated the Bush Administration over the whole interrogation controversy, now identify themselves as fellow accomplices in a seditious game in which the security of this nation is treated as purely secondary to the real goal, which is political advancement.

In the process, they have gravely undermined a critical effort to gain vital intelligence from America’s enemies. And if the nation’s weakened ability to gather such information means that terrorists can inflict more mayhem on our homeland, it will merely amount to “collateral damage.” War is Hell.

Were the Pelosi controversy the only incident of dangerous mishandling of the terror war effort, it would be bad enough. Sadly, much worse is occurring at even higher levels of the government. The Obama Administration continues to seek political mileage from its vilification of the Bush White House and its handling of the terror war.

The release of highly sensitive information regarding CIA interrogation procedures constituted an act of betrayal, not only of that organization, but also of the entire nation that has benefited from the intelligence gained from captive terrorists. This was another calculated decision by Obama, in which the possibility of a future terrorist incident was weighed against the political mileage he might gain by making his predecessors look bad on the nightly news. Again, the fate of innocent Americans has been relegated to a distant second-place behind the political opportunism the situation represents.

Recently, New Yorkers briefly relived the horror and fear that was visited on them in September of 2001, as Air Force One made some unannounced low altitude fly-bys of the Statue of Liberty and Ground Zero in order to shoot a few White House publicity photos. Perhaps the citizens of the Big Apple, along with the rest of the nation, ought to apply the episode as a grim reminder of what once was their fate at the hands of Islamists consumed with hatred and willing to stop at nothing to act on it.

The Washington circus being conducted by the Democrats over the past few weeks should be viewed against last week’s terrifying moments in New York, and the stark reality they recalled. The entire dispute over interrogation techniques, release of information, and the willingness of Democrats to thoroughly pervert the record of events revolves around people who, unlike the pilots of Air Force One and its chase planes, took aim at those buildings as a means of wreaking unimaginable havoc and slaughter on Americans on that terrible day.

Pelosi and Obama want to remake terrorists into sympathetic characters. America should demand something better from its leaders.

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets products exclusively made in America. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

To people like O’Leary, America’s security and nuclear secrets were only of secondary consequence, if even that. She believed that the differing security classifications would be injurious to the sensibilities of those employees with lesser security clearances. So she scrapped the system in preference to a single-color badge that did not identify the clearance level of its bearer. During this time, vital design plans of the W-88, America’s most sophisticated nuclear warhead, were leaked to China.

Meanwhile, Clinton crony Bernard Schwarz of Loral Space Systems was “legally” divulging rocket technology to the Chinese. Thus he ensured that if they intended to, they could build missiles capable of delivering those improved warheads to American soil. Bill Clinton defended the actions of Schwarz in ludicrous terms, claiming bogusly that the information would be utilized by the Chinese for “peaceful” purposes, such as the development of space launch vehicles.

Of course Clinton and his minions knew full well that this response was fraudulent to its core, and was only intended to placate media lapdogs who did not want the episode to look bad on the evening news. The answer might have assuaged the perennially ignorant, but every engineer with even an elementary grasp of rocketry knows that the technology necessary to put a satellite into orbit is identical to that needed to lob a warhead onto the next continent. Only the targeting information of the missile is different.

In fact, up until the development of the Saturn series of moon rockets, every major launch vehicle in America’s space fleet was an ICBM, modified to only the slightest degree. Yet on such a flimsy basis, America taught Communist China how to construct functional ballistic missiles by which they may someday wage nuclear war against us.

It is telling that, in the upheaval following North Korea’s launch of its own ballistic missile during this past weekend, dictator Kim Jong-Il attempted to defuse the provocative action by offering the identical claim, that the missile test was only intended to launch a satellite into orbit. Forget his past zeal to develop a functional nuclear bomb, or the possibility that he may in fact have succeeded in testing such a device. His reassurances of “peaceful” intentions should be sufficient to allay our fears until the other shoe (or something far worse) drops.

Worse yet, Kim’s transparent ploy may succeed. The toothless response to his action by the rest of the world, and in particular the United States, sends an undeniable signal to him, along with every other aspiring tinhorn dictator on the planet, that the great nation states of the past order no longer possess the will to take real corrective action. And with Barack Obama’s disgraceful and embarrassing pandering to the Europeans and Muslims during his G-20 visit, he has made it clear that this nation no longer possesses its former resolve to prevent proliferation and aggression by such regimes. On the contrary, Obama publicly offered his regrets for decisive past actions that deterred and prevented the ascendancy of many dangerous aspiring tyrants during the past century.

According to the press, collegiality and even love now abounds among nations that excoriated the United States and its former President, George W. Bush, only months ago. In wonderful contrast, they extol America for its openness and professed willingness to sit down and talk with adversaries. At least that is the picture that Obama’s leftist cohorts want the general public to receive. Unfortunately, the truth is far less rosy. And the likelihood of a day of reckoning for all of this foolishness is far greater.

Despite media coverage that portrays Obama’s European visit as a resounding success, he was unable to garner any significant European commitment to the Afghanistan theater of the terror war. Empty words from the European leaders should apparently be a sufficient response to empty words from the chief of a watered down America.

In a manner reminiscent of the humiliations of the Carter years, America’s prestige has begun to plummet among the world community. Of course world leaders are quick to express their preference for the current situation. A diminished America represents less competition, both economically and diplomatically, to their own aims and aspirations.

Sadly, this situation is being heralded by the Obama Administration and the liberal media as a great gain for this nation. It is anything but. In a world of inherently hostile, and often barbaric entities that are constantly vying for power, American vulnerability is entirely likely to be perceived as a window of opportunity for those who would raise their own international standing by tearing this nation down, just as was the case among the militant Islamists during the last decade, culminating in the attacks of September 11.

Governing cannot be indefinitely conducted from a mindset that ignores ramifications and consequences. Though the backlash may not be immediate, in the face of a unilateral disarmament, and the substitution of resolve with passivity, it is inevitable. The Obama Administration, in its current governing and diplomatic mode, is reverting to a mentality that is even more myopic and dangerously shortsighted than that of the Clinton years. Obama’s sycophancy towards European leftists and Middle Eastern Muslims during his recent trip abroad cannot be construed as anything else.

The blindly idealistic intrigues of the Clinton Administration played well on the nightly news, at least until their awful consequences became apparent. Not having learned the painful lesson, America has embarked on that path once again.

Barack Obama and his fellow ideologues believe their Ivy League intellectualism is sufficient to build a bridge to the Seventh Century. But to the practitioners of a religion that only understands strength and force, this manner of pandering only represents weakness. As such it is essentially entreating the world for a repeat of the attacks on America.

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets products exclusively made in America. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

Folks, this is the kind of sickness we are facing with the world wide Jihadi assault on civilization. Here we have the heartwarming story of kindly grandma Um al-Mumenin. She’s just the local little old lady that all the kiddies love, that’s all. She bakes cookies, loves the kids and instructs all the local young ladies on the fine art of suicide bombing. Yep, she’s an all around community organizer, she is. But, before she takes up the important instruction of all those girls eager for martyrdom, she arranges to have them raped so that later when she recruits them they are mentally “prepared” to feel that suicide bombing is the only way to regain their lost “honor.”

Ain’t she just the cutest lil’ ol’ thing?

Samira Jassam, 51, was arrested by Iraqi police last week and confessed her part in organizing the rapes of more than 80 young Iraqi women that would later be gathered up and encouraged to become suicide bombers to “escape the shame” of having been raped.

In a video confession, she explained how she had mentally prepared the women for martyrdom operations, passed them on to terrorists who provided explosives, and then took the bombers to their targets.

This is the sort of corruption that liberals and Barack Obama do not understand. In order to further “Jihad” these people are willing not only to kill themselves and others, but to rape even their own women in order to destroy their mental balance so that they are more easily brainwashed to become suicide bombers.

Word has also come out of investigations into other Jihadi suicide bombings and like attempts that rape seems to be a favorite weapon of “persuasion” for would be suicide bombers of male and female gender alike.

The Sun is reporting that young male Jihadi recruits are being raped by older Jihadis to break down their mental barriers to killing themselves. The boys are sexually assaulted and then told that the only way to regain their “honor” is to blow themselves up taking unbelievers with them.

The intense social stigma and fear of more gay sex attacks leaves Muslims prepared to die.

The warped new tactic was revealed by a reformed Algerian militant. Abu Baçir El Assimi said: “The sexual act on young recruits aged between 16 to 19 was a means to urge them to commit suicide operations.”

A 22-year-old had suffered sexual injuries before being shot dead on a suicide mission in Tademaït, Algeria, three weeks ago. Samples taken from his body are being analysed in a bid to identify his torturer.

What sort of religion encourages the rape and death of its own children?

Democrats cannot conceive of this sort of corruption of the soul employed for religious control and power over a people. So, instead of facing reality, they bury their heads in the sand and pretend that the enemy is really “just like us,” after all. We cannot prosecute these sorts of people as if they were terrorists without potential for good deep down in the souls, goes the left’s thinking. Why, they are “just like us” aren’t they?

But, is there any western culture that has raped its own children, both mentally and physically, in order to turn them into automatons that will blow themselves up? Is there any such tradition in western history and culture?

So, while the Muslim world’s new friend, Barack Obama, makes his plans to abandon the war on terror and to treat all terrorists as if they are simple criminals, grandma Um al-Mumenin and her kind will be preparing more attacks for which Barack’s “laws” have no way even to address much less prevent.

I feel safer already.

Release Them and They Will Come… Right Back to al Qaeda. Now Even MORE Proof of Obama’s folly!

Obama has long said he wants to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He even made a play that he will do so by signing an executive order that says he will close the facility in one year’s time… or in one year he will address the closing of the place, which ever you believe he actually said in that order.

But even during the same week that the president has made this big show of fulfilling the campaign promise of closing Guantanamo, though he has not yet actually done so, we have seen several recently released terrorists that have appeared on videos admitting that they are back inside al Qaeda and ready to attack the west all over again.

Releasing these terrorists back into the world is simply a means of repatriating terrorists to their friends to return to their activities as terrorists as opposed to rehabilitating them away from such. The Economist reports that even the Saudis have been embarrassed to find that ex-Guantanamo detainees simply rejoin their terrorist buddies once released.

The Kingdom has had a program whereby ex-detainees are supposedly rehabilitated, given government “pensions” that pay their way for having been “rehabilitated.” Yet, the two recent detainees had quit the “rehabilitation” program and rejoined al Qaeda, mocking the program as they went.

Yet, to the chagrin of the Yemeni and Saudi governments, as well as of an Obama administration that wants Guantánamo closed, the two Saudis in the video happen to be graduates both of the tropical island jail and of a vaunted Saudi rehabilitation programme. The Saudi authorities had freed them last year. Reunited with their families, they had benefited, as had several hundred other repentant jihadists, from state pensions designed to ease a return to civilian life. But the pair vanished a few months ago. In the video they vilify the Saudi counselling programme as a trick, and vow to pursue jihad. Nasir al-Wahishi, the new “emir of the Arabian Peninsula”, a Yemeni, to whom they have sworn loyalty, was himself one of 23 al-Qaeda suspects who escaped from a prison in Sana’a, the Yemeni capital, in 2006.

It also looks like Yemen is back in the business of harboring and supporting terror training camps as al Qaeda has produced new videos showing new facilities in that chaotic region.

Interestingly, The Economist proves that George W. Bush’s efforts in Iraq hurt the terrorists badly. Saying that, “The group has suffered sharp setbacks in such places as Iraq, Lebanon and especially Saudi Arabia, where it has not mounted a serious attack since 2006,” The Economist shows that al Qaeda has been materially hurt in those areas. It cannot be denied that in each of the states that The Economist mention have seen intense efforts backed by George W. Bush’s policies that came down heavy on al Qaeda.

Bush’s policies have worked, but we seem to be on the verge of reversing them all with the new administration blundering into office. Obama seems poised to make us all more vulnerable and to look the other way as al Qaeda reconstitutes itself with the welcome support of Yemen.

What will Obama do? Will he crack down on these new terrorist training camps in Yemen? Will he really close Guantanamo and release over 100 Yemeni and Saudi jihadists so that they can rejoin al Qaeda? Will he pull troops out of Iraq and give a Qaeda the breathing space it needs to revitalize there?

What will Obama do, indeed?

Terrorists, murders, oppressors and Islamofascists understandably were not very fond of George W. Bush. Neither were the fellow travelers of the aforementioned lowest rung of the human ladder in Europe, those in the offices of the ACLU and the Democratic Party fond of our late president. This is well understood. But what does the ascension of Barack Hussein Obama mean to them? More importantly, what will what it means to them mean for us?

We have been told by our sycophantic Old Media establishment that Obama is a gift to the world, “our” gift to the world. We are told that he is the one we are waiting for. The L.A. Times, for instance, featured a purportedly heart warming, post inaugural story of three complaining immigrants to the US that seem to imagine that Obama’s presidency will bring them a new era. One complained that we didn’t let him into the U.S. soon enough from the terror producing country of Pakistan. One said we are hated in the world, but Obama lifts that veil. Another whined that working here was no longer a key to success because the country is a failure compared to what it was for immigrants 30 years ago. All three are Muslims.

They, each of them, appear to imagine that Obama will somehow make things different for them. But, what could Obama do that is so different from what Bush did? For that answer we might turn to a recent op ed by Dr Ikram Azam in the Pakistan Observer.

What Azam’s basic point boils down to is that these people expect Obama to begin healing the world by “respecting his Islamic-Muslim paternal origins, roots and mornings.” Azam expects Obama to recognize “realistically that Islam is the Perennial Peace Paradigm.” In other words what these people believe is that Obama will create a new Muslim power base in the United States or, at the very least, rely on Islam to guide his presidency. Azam couched much of his rhetoric in appeals to “democracy” and “consensual government,” but with the long tradition of double speak, or takiyah, that Muslim writers constantly couch their missives to the world in, it is a bit hard to separate his desire for Obama to act the good Muslim and at the same time believe he really wants to help foster democratic government at home or even work with our own abroad. But, even if Azam can be taken at his word that he does, indeed, want peace on a mutually determined basis in keeping with both Islam and western culture, his is a lonely voice. In any case, it is hard to ignore his assumptions that Obama will be driven by some underlying Islamic premise.

To fulfill an early campaign promise to the extremists of the American left that supported his candidacy, Obama made a show of signing an executive order — one that he can easily revoke at any time — to next year close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama has made no provisions at all to place these terrorists and murderers anywhere else and since January 22, when Obama signed the order, speculation has been rampant about where these evil men shall end up.

Within in a day of Obama’s acquiescence to those of his constituents unconcerned over terrorist attacks on American soil (or anywhere else for that matter), news that two of those already released from the facility at Guantanamo Bay have again returned to their terrorist brethren and taken up roles as leaders of al Qaeda. Former detainees Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri and another have since turned up on new al Qaeda videos once again spouting their Islamofascist hatespeak. This singular fact of the reappearance of former detainees renewing their association with al Qaeda would rather speak to the efficacy of Guantanamo Bay as opposed to its illegitimacy.

Another recent story, also reported within days of Obama’s signing of the order to close Guantanamo, bespeaks an ill wind for the alternate idea that Obama and his supporters have used to undergird their own concepts about what to do with terrorists and those accused of terrorism. Namely, treating their crimes as average criminal actions that should be dealt with by our civilian judicial system.

In 1973 a terrorist named Khalid Duhham al-Jawary built three powerful car bombs and placed them around New York City. Fortunately, his plot failed and he was captured, tried under our criminal justice system, and imprisoned. But, now his 30-year sentence is up and the officials in New York will be compelled to release him with time served.

Now, whether this particular man is still dangerous and filled with hate for America or not, the basic point that we can take from this story is that he is being released as if he is now ready to reenter society, his debt paid like any other criminal. And this is the same fate that might befall any number of terrorists that would be prosecuted by our criminal justice system. We may find safety from these evil men for a time, but by virtue of our own system we will have to release them right back to their terrorist activities at some point.

In other words, Obama’s plan to treat terrorism in the same way we’d treat bank robbery or jaywalking is not an effective means of truly stopping terrorism.

And this gets us back to what Muslims seem to expect of an Obama administration and what, at least at this point, it seems he is poised to give them. And that would be a far, far less strenuous focus on stopping Islamofascist terror. They certainly expect him to give their desires, ideals and policies a wink and a nod and a friendly ear.

This will surely put America in danger.

And that is just what they hope Obama will facilitate.

The report states that the military used white phosphorous bombs in civilian areas, with at least twenty phosphorous shells fired by a reserve paratroops brigade into a densely packed area of Beit Lahiya. The United Nations head quarters and a hospital in Gaza City were also bombed with white phosphorus.

“We saw streets and alleyways littered with evidence of the use of white phosphorus, including still burning wedges and the remnants of the shells and canisters fired by the Israeli army,” said Christopher Cobb-Smith, with Amnesty International who is also an expert in the field of weapons.

An official for the IDF said that two types of phosphorus weapons were used in the offensive. One contained little phosphorous and was primarily used as a smoke bomb and is fired from 155mm shells. The other type of bomb, made in 81mm and 120mm shells, are fired from mortar guns. These shells used a computer guidance system and Israel says that the system failed when the UN and hospital were hit. Phosphorus burns when it comes in contact with oxygen, and can cause serious injuries to humans if they are hit with it. Doctors in Gaza say that dozens of civilians have been treated for burns related to the use of the weapons.

The Israeli military had claimed that they had never used the bomb during the offensive, despite the existence of photographic and video evidence. The use of the white phosphorous bombs against civilian buildings is illegal under Protocol 3 of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, agreed in 1980. However, Israel, which signed the treaty in 1995, is not party to Protocol 3. Israel claims they were following international law when using the weapons. 200 of the bombs were used, 180 of which were used on farmland and orchards, where militants were launching rockets into southern Israel. The other 20 were used in residential areas, but the IDF says they were fired in areas that rockets were being fired from. Nearly 10,000 rockets have been fired into southern Israel from the Strip between 2001 and January of 2009.

Nearly 1,300 Palestinians, the majority being civilians, died and nearly 500 were injured during the three-week offensive. Israel says that 13 of their soldiers were also killed.

• Israeli military confirms the use of white phosphorus bombs on the Gaza Strip
• Israel announces ceasefire in Gaza Strip; rocket fire into Israel continues
• Main UN compound in Gaza shelled with ‘white phosphorus
• Human Rights Watch: Israel used white phosphorus on densely populated areas in Gaza

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

I reminded him that it was a qualified no I gave him. Of course every American wants his president to be successful on every count that will benefit the country. No true American wants to see a monumental, destructive, Carteresque failure in the White House. My liberal co-worker is correct on that count. No one wants the next Buchanan, who, Nero-like, fiddled while Washington D.C. and the country burned. We want them all to be Reagans, Washingtons and Lincolns.

But, that is just it, isn’t it? We want them to do what is best for the country. That is what we mean by “success.” And, when you get right down to it, opinions vary of what “best” means. I do want Obama to be successful on what would be best for this country, absolutely. Unfortunately, there is little that he campaigned on that would be good for this country.

Now, let’s look at the very phrase this is all predicated upon. “I want Barack Obama to succeed.” Or, similarly, “I don’t want Obama to fail.” Both being the same premise. But, let’s face it, the devil is always in the details, isn’t it? What does “fail” or “succeed” even mean? Do I want Barack Obama to succeed in turning this country into a weaker, more communist copy of France? Hardly. But if he did succeed at that, it would be a success of a sort — especially should that have been his goal.

But I don’t want that sort of success.

Conversely, when I asked my liberal friend if he wanted Obama to “succeed” in a way that made him an even more conservative copy of Ronald Reagan, he nearly chocked to death trying to get a decided and vociferous “no” out of his own mouth.

He wouldn’t want that sort of success.

So, the game-saying of wanting Obama to “succeed” is a meaningless exercise. On one hand every American wants the new president to succeed. But at what? That is the key question. We, each of us, want Obama to succeed at what we think is good for the country. So, right off the top the question itself is trope or even tripe.

Now we arrive at where I stand on Obama’s relative “success.” I did not vote for the man. I do not support his socialist ideas. I stand four-square against his votes for infanticide, his votes to gut the Constitutional right to self-protection, his vague ideas of nationalizing various industries, his intention to enlarge government to unheard of proportions and his softening on terror producing countries. And since these are the things his entire life’s career point to as probable goals to “succeed” upon during his presidency… well, I want him to fail. And I want him to do so spectacularly. If Barack Obama is but a Trojan Horse for communism to push its nose under and into the tent, I want him to fail in the attempt.

Simply put I want these ideas to fail miserably because success for them would mean the destruction of this country. So, wishing Obama to succeed would be hoping for the destruction of my country if success means the accomplishments of goals like I mention above.

Needless to say, if he should accomplish the opposite of my laundry list of evils above, well, that sort of success I would heartily welcome.

The upshot is, we as conservatives and Republicans should want Barack Obama to fail if he is to strive for the wrong things. It’s not unAmerican, or even relatively impolite to say so, either.

This is all not to say that Republicans and conservatives should treat Barack Obama in like manner as the ignorati of the lunatic left have treated George W. Bush. We should give Obama a fair hearing, agree when it’s appropriate, disagree when it isn’t and fight tooth and nail when we know we are right. We should eschew the sort of DailyKos, Huffington Post or DemocraticUnderground style of hate so prevalent with the left. But we should not go wobbly. Principled and firm opposition is called for, as always, cooler heads should prevail.

But, we should not wish Obama “success” just for the sake of success. Nor should we let our guard down in some foolish bid to force the left to appreciate us for our civility. Civility is a reward in and of itself. It isn’t a gift to the enemy.

So, here’s hoping great failure for Obama on all the things he should fail on and success with those things that are right and good for the United States of America.

Last Thursday, Barack Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, Eric Holder, admitted during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing that he supported renewing the part of the Patriot Act that allows for the FBI to seek records from businesses, libraries and bookstores as the policing agency investigates suspects in this country. For years we’ve seen news agencies and opinionists rail against the expanded power of the FBI to search such records. But, now with Obama’s AG announcing in his confirmation hearing that he agrees that the FBI should have this power, all anti-Bush administration voices are silent on the matter that had them so exercised for 6 years.

Since 2002 the debate has raged about the efficacy and Constitutionality of the Patriot Act with the power of the FBI to search bookstore and library records coming in for special condemnation. Even as the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the law, right to privacy groups, the media and anti-Bushies have pointed to this particular policy and cried Orwell or worse.

USA Today talked about the situation in 2002. Not unexpectedly, the American Library Association has been worriedly writing of this business for years. Some librarians have even forced the FBI to jump through hoops to seize computers during investigations. And, of course, the ACLU has fought the provisions, too.

Over the years many challenges to the library and bookstore search power have been made and thus far the law has withstood the onslaught. As a result, the Bush administration has been accused of indulging any manner of imperialist, unconstitutional, Orwellian motives.

Holder publicly announces his support for the hated library search provision yet we are met with silence from the very people that made Bush out to be the most evil man in history for his support of the same power. This is the sort of news that would have made its way around the Internet at least 10 times by now if it were a Bush administration official saying so. Yes, now we get silence.

Where is the condemnation of Eric Holder on this issue? Where is the ACLU to demand Obama ditch Holder? Where are the many Huffington Posters and DailyKossacks railing against this junior Orwell, Holder?

The newspapers are strangely silent, though I did see this reported in the San Francisco Chronicle. Olbermann and Matthews, still nursing their tingles, seem to have turned away from this story. Maddow and the DailyKos seem to have lost their voices over it.

It makes one wonder if their conviction is informed by courage and principle or convenience? Are they only to rail against an FBI that intrudes into bookstore and library records when it is Bush’s FBI? Are they suddenly not so worried about their claims of invasion of privacy and unconstitutionality when they feel the FBI is about to become their FBI?

And where are the multi part stories from the Old Media? Where are the stern voices and grave concerns of The New York Times or the L.A. Times that Eric Holder and Barack Obama are about to continue the Bush outrages against the average American’s privacy?

It is, of course, highly doubtful that such stories will materialize. After all, the Old Media are fully prepared to give Barack Obama a pass on the same sorts of things that they claimed made Bush into Bushhitler and Vice President Cheney into the Dark Prince, Darth Cheney.

In the real world is it spelled H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y. In the Democratic Party we call it business as usual.

(Photo credit UPI.com)

Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General, expressed “strong protest and outrage” to the Israeli Government over the attack. “The number of casualties has reached an unbearable point,” said Ban.

Ehud Olmert responded by saying that there were Palestinian fighters in the compound, launching mortars at Israeli troops.

“We do not want such incidents to take place and I am sorry for it but I don’t know if you know, but Hamas fired from the UNRWA site. This is a sad incident and I apologise for it,” Olmert said.

A previous accusation was made against the UN after another UN building housing refugees was hit by Israeli tank shells a week ago. According to UNRWA official Christopher Gunness, the accusation was later retracted by the Israeli government.

Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defence Minister, said it was “a grave mistake”.

Along with UNRWA headquarters, a Palestinian hospital was set ablaze, and a media headquarters housing the Reuters news agency and other Palestinian reporters was also hit wounding two cameramen. Around 500 people were sheltering in the Al-Quds hospital when it was bombed by Israel and hospital officials say they were hit with white phosphorus, a substance which sparks fires which cannot be put out by water and which causes serious burns and respiratory problems to anyone who comes in contact with it.

Adnan Abu Hasna, a spokesman for UNRWA, said fires were still raging hours after the attack and “tens of millions of dollars worth of aid” had been destroyed.

Christopher Gunness issued a statement on the attacks saying, “There have been three hits on the UNRWA headquarters, the UNRWA compound in Gaza, including, I’m told by [UNRWA head] John Ging, white phosphorus. Three of our staff members have been injured. The workshop in our compound is in flames, and nearby are loaded fuel tankers. So the situation is extremely dangerous and extremely serious. We have been on the phone to the Israeli authorities, asking them to call off their fire from around the compound of a neutral international organization. We have not had the answer we want.” UNRWA reports that the fire at the compound will destroy tons of medical and food aid.

United Nations Children’s Fund joined the Red Cross in speaking out against the violence today, saying the deaths of children in Gaza were unacceptable.

• Main UN compound in Gaza shelled with ‘white phosphorus’
• “UN headquarters in Gaza hit by Israeli ‘white phosphorus’ shells“. The Times, January 15, 2008
• “UN chief leads protests as Israel hits Gaza hospitals“. Agence France-Presse, January 15, 2009
• “UNICEF: Children bearing brunt of Gaza war“. CNN, January 15, 2009

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

Yesterday, Ehud Olmert the Israeli Prime Minister said that Hamas will face an “iron fist” if they do not agree to Israel’s terms of a cease fire and stop fighting.

“Anything else will be met with the Israeli people’s iron fist. We will continue to strike with full strength, with full force until there is quiet and rearmament stops,” said Olmert to reporters while standing within the zone where Hamas rockets are capable of striking. Throughout the night on a live video feed courtesy of the Palestinian news agency Ramattan, bombs were dropped and explosions could be seen and heard rocking the Strip.

Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas responded in a videotaped message aired on local news agencies in Gaza saying, that he would work to get a ceasefire to try and get the borders between Egypt and Palestine, but also that “Gaza will not break, our victory over the Zionists is near. We confirm our intention to continue to work to stop the terrorists’ war against our people, end the siege completely.”

The war entered its 17 day and as of 7:31 a.m. (EET) in Gaza, bombs could still be heard going off around the Strip. Sporadic machine gun fire can also be heard. At approximately 8:05 a.m in Palestine, in a sudden halt to the large scale airstrikes that were occurring regularly overnight, the daily cease fire began in preparation to allow aid into Gaza. Relief trucks could be seen waiting at the Israel-Gaza border, awaiting orders to enter the Strip.

The death toll from the war passed 900 with thousands more injured. Because of the large number of casualties, the United Nation Human Rights Council has launched an investigation into possible war crimes. The counsel passed a resolution which condemned the Israeli operation and occupation of Gaza calling it a “massive violations of human rights.”

• Heavy fighting continues on the Gaza Strip
• LIVE in Gaza Ramattan (Link opens default player)
• LIVE feed of humanitarian aid relief at Israel-Gaza border Direct Broadcast Kerem Shalom

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

The rights group is calling on Israel not to use these devices in crowded areas of Gaza. Marc Garlasco, a senior military analyst for the group, said, “What we’re saying is the use of white phosphorous in densely populated areas like a refugee camp is showing that the Israelis are not taking all feasible precautions. It’s just an unnecessary risk to the civilian population, not only in the potential for wounds but also for burning homes and infrastructure.”

On Friday and Saturday Mr. Garlasco observed the shelling from a 155mm artillery unit from a ridge only about a mile from the Gaza border. A 155mm shell contains 116 wafers doused in phosphorous that can be spread over a large area. The phosphorous self-ignites when it comes into contact with air.

In Nasser Hospital, in the city of Khan Younis, in the southern part of the Gaza Strip, several burn patients were treated. Haitham Tahseen said he was sitting outside his home with his family in the morning when something exploded above them. “Suddenly, I saw bombs coming with white smoke. It looked very red and it had white smoke. That’s the first time I’ve seen such a thing.” His burned face was covered with medical cream. His cousin was more severely burned and wrapped with thick white bandages. Youssef Abu Rish, Nasser Hospital chief doctor, couldn’t say what sort of substance caused them but the burns were not from contact with fire.

Avital Leibovich, Israeli military spokeswoman, said the army was “using its munitions in accordance with international law,” but refused to say whether Israel was using phosphorous. Under laws of warfare, white phosphorous, which is not considered a chemical weapon, is permissible for creating smoke screens and illuminating battlefields at night.

The Red Cross (ICRC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) in Jerusalem have not commented, saying it is too early to do so.

• wikinews
• “Rights Group: Israel Used Incendiary Bombs“. CBS News, January 13, 2009
• Mel Frykberg “MIDEAST: Israelis Rain ‘Phosphorous Bombs’ Over Gaza“. Inter Press Service, January 13, 2009
• Amira Hass “News in Brief; Human Rights Watch: IDF bombs in Gaza violate int?l law“. Haaretz, January 13, 2009
• Jason Keyser “Rights group: Israel uses incendiary bombs in Gaza“. guardian.co.uk, January 13, 2009

Creative Commons Attribution 2.5

In general, what makes the Palestinian/Israeli conflict so dangerous is that half the world, (three billion people (Jews, Christians & Muslims)) are emotionally, historically and religiously attached to the land known as Israel/Palestine. This fact was demonstrated in the last few days as demonstrations erupted in more than 95 countries around the world.

Moreover, due to the affordability of satellite TV, in even the most underdeveloped countries, billions of interested people are exposed to 24 hour graphic coverage of this latest battle in Gaza. Western News stations like BBC and CNN no longer have a monopoly on reporting news. Many Middle Eastern TV stations have surpassed the reach of BBC, CNN and other western media.

As to graphic images, dozens of news stations like Aljazeera have been broadcasting live and prerecorded graphic images of Palestinian babies blown up into pieces by the Israeli military. One particular gruesome scene that was played over and over again was that of a three year old little girl with her heart protruding out of her body after a bomb fell on her house. Another station, Al Alam, repeated the scene of four dead babies who were placed next to each other in the same refrigerator of a morgue because of the large number of dead in Gaza. The graphic and often emotional coverage of this latest battle is inspiring the fury of the masses which in turn are putting enormous pressure on their governments to join the fight on the side of the Palestinians. This conflict is much more dangerous than most people realize.

For example, Egypt is receiving so much negative media coverage for not opening its border with Gaza that People throughout the Arab and Muslim world started calling for the overthrow of the Egyptian government and demonstrators attacked Egyptian embassies in several countries. The pressure on Egypt is so intense and ruthless that a shaken Egyptian president was forced to hold two press conferences to explain his government’s position and to distance Egypt from Israel. Similarly, the friendly nation of Jordan came under so much pressure for not breaking diplomatic relations with Israel that King Abdullah held a publicity stunt in which he was seen donating blood for the people of Gaza and for the first time in recent memory he referred to Israel as the Enemy. Even the Saudi government was not immune from attacks and calls for the overthrow of the Saudi government. Media outlets repeated scenes of demonstrators burning the effigy of the King of Saudi Arabia with the Israeli flag wrapped around him for hundreds of millions of people to see. Saudi Arabia is perceived as a secret ally of Israel in the desire to destroy HAMAS and the refusal of the Saudi government to allow demonstrations against Israel only reinforced this belief. Whatever the truth, the Saudi government was so shaken by the attacks against it and the constant portrayal of the Saudi King rapped in the Israeli flag that the official Saudi media began publicizing Saudi efforts to raise money for the people of Gaza.

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is becoming extremely dangerous and can only be described as a ticking NUCLEAR BOMB. Currently, only Israel has nuclear weapons in the Middle East. But Iran may also go nuclear and if that happens the Arabs will try to do the same. Without a doubt, there is no conflict on earth that has the same global impact as the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Because of the potential for global instability, the entire world must do all it can to bring peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. The question is can this conflict be solved after many wars failed to end the conflict? The answer is YES but time is running out.

Currently, there are four proposals to the Israel/Palestinian conflict and three have been attempted and failed. The first is that the Israelis and Palestinians continue fighting until one submits to the other, a plan that has been tried and failed. The second is a plan where both people separate by creating two separate countries. This plan is referred to as the two state solution and all attempts to implement it have failed. The third is to divide the Palestinian territories and place them under the control of Egypt and Jordan. This solution has been tried (1948-1967) and also failed because it did not address the core of the conflict. The fourth solution is based on integration of both Israelis and Palestinians in one nation and is the only solution that has proven successful.

For the last 20 years the world has focused on the two state (two country) solution which has clearly failed. However, contrary to unanimous belief, neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis are to blame for the failure of the two state solution. The two state solution failed because the concept of creating two separate countries by dividing Israel/Palestine was and still is a difficult pill to swallow for Israelis & Palestinians. It is a fact that Israelis and Palestinians have religious, historical and emotional attachments to every square inch of the land that includes Israel and Palestine and neither side is eager to embrace permanent separation or “amputation” as described by Israeli novelist Amos Oz. Consequently, it is highly unlikely that permanent separation will lead to permanent peace.

In light of the above facts some may think that a solution is impossible. NOT TRUE. The Palestinian/Israeli conflict can be solved as long as both sides give up the notion that they deserve exclusive control and rule over Israel/Palestine.

In light of the attachments that both parties have for the same territory, the solution cannot be in separating but in finding a formula for living together. Many Israelis and Palestinians agree that Israel/Palestine is indivisible. Thus, the solution lies in uniting Israelis and Palestinians in one country while guaranteeing both sides equality and absolute security. What is being proposed here is the creation of two sovereign states similar to New York and New Jersey, joined together in a confederation to form one country.

To illustrate further, after occupying the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, Israel could have annexed those territories into Israel by providing the Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. Israel did not do this and instead chose to treat the West Bank and Gaza as part of Israel without granting the Palestinians citizenship, equality or political participation. Legally, Palestinians were and continue to have the same status as American blacks in the 19th century. Israel did not integrate the Palestinians into Israel because Israelis were afraid that the Palestinians may one day outnumber the Jews and vote Israel out of existence. While this is a legitimate concern, Jews and Israelis who fear equality for Palestinians assume that granting the Palestinians equality would lead to the destruction of Israel. This is a false assumption.

The world has produced many successful formulas for different people living together and sharing power and a formula can be found in this case. An example of a formula is the creation of a confederation of Israel/Palestine based on the principles of free trade and the free movement of labor and people. As to the national government, Israel and Palestine can each contribute 50% to the national parliament, a formula that would guarantee security, and eliminate political dilution from demographic changes and make certain that extremist become marginalized.

The above formula is an example that gives Palestinians and Israelis most of what they want while allowing both people to be independent and secure. Moreover, with this solution, Jerusalem becomes a non-issue and borders become less relevant.

As proof that integration can work, consider that Israel has one million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship who are often referred to as “Israeli Arabs.” It is important to note that they are not participating in violence. This is because Palestinians who are citizens of Israel have civil and political rights while the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have nothing.

Without a doubt most readers of this article will think that the author is naïve, idealistic, stupid, Zionists or trying to destroy Israel. We understand your beliefs. However, please ask yourself if Israel destroys Hamas or Islamic Jihad will there be peace between Israelis and Palestinians? Consider that Hamas was created in 1987. Before HAMAS was created, Israel fought five major wars and numerous other battles. Moreover, before HAMAS there were the PLO, Fatah, PFLP, PFLP-GC, 15 May Organization, Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades, Al-’Asifah, Arab Liberation Front, Force 17, Black Hand , Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – Special Command, Popular Resistance Committees, Popular Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Black September, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Doghmush, Omar Ben al-Khatib Warriors, Palestinian Liberation Army, Palestinian Popular Struggle Front, Palestinian fedayeen, Swords of Truth, Rejectionist Front, among other organizations. Today most of the above organizations have been destroyed or just vanished. However, the conflict has not ended as the above organizations have been replaced by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Holy Jihad Brigades, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Army of Islam, As-Sa’iqa, Tanzim, Al-Quds Brigades, among others. The point here is that even if Israel destroys HAMAS, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians would not be solved and it would only be a matter of time before a new group forms to replace HAMAS. Israelis and Palestinians must realize that what they have done for the last 70 years will never bring peace to either Palestine or Israel under the best of circumstances. Under the worst of circumstances this conflict may lead to an all out nuclear war where millions will die and this is no longer an exaggeration.

To summarize, Israel and its neighbors have fought numerous wars and no side has given up on their fundamental claims. For the last 20 years, both sides have tried to separate by creating two separate countries but this approach has failed because all sides have attachments to Israel and Palestine. The only solution that has a record of success is integration as demonstrated by the Palestinians who are citizens of Israel. If peace is not found then the day may soon come when the governments of the Middle East maybe overthrown by people who want to directly intervene on behalf of the Palestinians. If an uprising erupts throughout the Middle East then nuclear war may soon follow. Therefore, the choices are between total annihilation or equality for Palestinians and security for Israel. There are no other choices.

Kamal Nawash is the president of the Free Muslims Coalition.

Speaking of Israel is Speaking of the Middle East: Leette Eaton- White

I gave you my personal perspective of the current situation in Israel in a very pro-Israel way in my last article for HipHopRepublican.com. Now I will continue my Pro-Israel lean but now I am going to give more reasons why I feel this way. Get ready because we will enter into politics, and this article will pretty much sum up my opinion of the Middle East and our involvement there. There are several reasons that only the enemies of Israel can bring peace, and there are several why that will never happen and I am going to tell you how we are compromised by trying to deal with Israel’s enemies in the fashion we have for the whole of the 20^th century.

Number one: All of Israel’s enemies only want Israel and all Jews to not exist. Yes its really that simple. They want the state of Israel gone and the Jews gone with it. You can’t negotiate with that mentality. The USA and Israel have been trying desperately to negotiate for the sake of appearance and it has never and will never work in the long term. PERIOD. END OF STORY!

Number two: We try to make good with various nations in the Middle East because of oil. We need oil, as our economy depends on it for various reasons and so, because the democrats have been blocking pro-drilling legislation in this country for about 35 years, we do our absolute best to play nice with those in the Middle East. There of course is a simple solution: we need to drill here where we have plenty of oil. Some estimates say we might have three times as much oil under American land and off American shores than the whole of Saudi Arabia, the number one exporter of oil in the world. We may have three times as much oil than Saudi Arabia!? Is that what you said Leette? Yep folks, that is what I said. The USA could be self sufficient in oil usage and the number one exporter in the world if only the Dems would allow us to drill where the vast amounts of oil are. And not only would our economy rebound but we would stop entangling ourselves in the dangerous game of dealing with enemies of Israel within the Middle East. PS: There are environmentally sound ways to drill for oil; that should silence any envirowackos.

Number three: The Plight of the Palestinians. Now no one in their right mind would dare say that the Palestinian people don’t suffer. They do. But they are not proactive in ending their own suffering. One way they could do that is by not democratically electing terrorist groups to lead them! Hello folks, if you don’t want people to be hostile to you stop electing people who want to commit genocide. DUH! If the suffering Palestinians really wanted prosperity and peace they wouldn’t have terrorists speak for them. The fact that they elect terrorist means they support the terrorism and the sanction the actions of said terrorists. They make it really hard to support their cause when they make moves like that. Who wants to help a “victim” that insists on fighting dirty?

Number four: Tactics of Hamas. Now this is really important. So often Islamic terrorists use their own homes and places of worship which makes seeking them out incredibly difficult and it compromises the safety of civilians. So when Israel strikes against Hamas often “innocent people” get a bomb in face too. And guess what… tough truth warning… that is the fault of Hamas; and further than that, its what they want. They want Israel to look as bad as possible. And nothing makes people angrier than hearing about children in the line of fire. The problem with these terrorist groups it that they hate the enemy more than they love their families. And that is apparent by the fact that they choose to hide behind the people they claim to be protecting. The tactics of the USA and Israel are very different. “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.”G.K.Chesterton. Very true indeed.

Number five: The Vast Terrorist Network Conspiracy. Simply put, all Islamic Terrorist groups have one thing in common: the destruction of Israel. They want nothing more than to obliterate it. So when possible they band together and help each other in their jihadist genocidal cause. Iran has flat out said they are helping to instigate in the ongoing conflict in Israel, including providing suicide bombers. They have about 70,000 Iranian student volunteers. WOW. They really hate Israel. That is impressive. 70,000 sent to kill, not to protect. This says a lot about their version of integrity folks. And lets be clear, any state that sponsors terrorism is an enemy of this country. And most of the middle east implicitly supports such action against Israel, some countries are just smarter, or more covert, about taking action or making moves against Israel and (by extension or directly) the US. Don’t forget this nifty little fact, the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia- a country we rely on for oil. Note how we try not to ruffle their feathers, even though we know about the social involvement in The Vast Terrorist Network Conspiracy. After all we are blocked from getting our own oil. That’s a sad sorry state to be in; at the whims of terrorism and its means of profit.

Number six: World Opinion. We for some reason seem to have an investment about what other countries think of us. So we try in vain to do what everyone else wants us to do. But as my mom used to say to me, “Just ‘cause everyone else is doing it doesn’t mean you should”. The international community is obsessed with documents and treaties and bureaucratic bull. The UN wants to play nice with every serious threat instead of taking the threats on and its own corruption compounds its dangerously ineffective approach to world issues. Trying to impress leaders that do that is wrong and stupid. Yep I said STUPID. We put ourselves and others at risk by trying to negotiate with those who are hell bent on not negotiating. It doesn’t matter what everybody else thinks. The issues we face shouldn’t be about being popular. We should be more concerned with doing what is right.

Now as I said before and in my last article Israel’s enemies have the responsibility to end the violence. The problem is they don’t have the desire. Like my aunt says, “If Israel laid down its weapons, they would be destroyed. If Israel’s enemies laid down their weapons, there would be peace.”

]]> http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/01/07/speaking-of-israel-is-to-speak-of-the-middle-east/feed/ 0