8 posts tagged “war”

The greatest sin of the second Bush administration is poor communication with the people of the United States.  I understand why they have done such a poor job of it, but it is the greatest failing of George Bush's presidency.  The Main Stream press have continually worked to discredit him and have joined the Democratic party in undermining his credibility and have thought nothing of the damage to national security or the morale of our military in a war time effort.  In publishing military and national secrets during war, in seeking only the worst stories for the front page and spinning every event to make the US look as bad as possible in an international light, by burying positive news deep in the mid to back pages of the papers they are complicit in harming the reputation of the US and encouraging the enemies of freedom and Democracy.  David Horowitz is a great communicator and should be the Republican Party's spokesman on the war against Radical Islam.  He was giving a speech introducing his new book, "Party of Defeat" when he spoke these words:

The opposition party has full access to our secrets and our intelligence.  They conducted a campaign beginning in July 2003 to attack the United States and its commander in chief.  That is the position of the Democratic party.  That is a national disgrace.  We went into Iraq in March 2003, we liberated Baghdad in April 2003 with 139 casualties.  It was July (that's three months or so) after we liberated Baghdad.  We were winning the war.  But when the resistance was starting from the al Quaeda terrorists and the Baathist Fascists in Iraq and our young men and women were in harm's way that the Democratic party ran a national TV ad.  And the TV ad said "Read his lips, President Bush deceives the American people."  President Bush is a war criminal, that's what that was saying.  What change was there in American policy between April and July?  There was none.  The Democratic party, you'll remember, had a presidential primary at this time.  I can't think of anything lower than selling your country out.  Selling your young men and women who are on the battlefield out.  Selling the security of 300 million Americans out, because you wanted to win the Democratic presidential primary.  Now, let's look at a couple of these lies that the Democratic party has based their campaign against America, against the American people, against the Iraqi people, and against the war on terror.  The first is that Iraq is no threat, or was no threat.  Was Afghanistan a threat?  Afghanistan is a much poorer nation than Iraq.  Afghanistan has no oil.  Its got half the population.  Its virtually all tribal.  Baghdad was a pretty modern city.  Of course, that's the whole point of the Bush doctrine and of the war that we are fighting in Iraq.  That 9/11 told us that a weak and fragile and unstable nation, a very poor nation, if it supports terrorists, can strike the American mainland.  Something the Nazis never did, the Germans could not do.  Something the Japanese could never do.  Something no enemy in the last 150 years could do.  And that's why Saddam Hussein was a threat.  Because Saddam Hussein had put... after the Gulf war had put Alahu Ackbar into the flag as a calculated effort to join the forces of the Islamo-fascist crusade because they shared a common enemy.  America, the great Satan.  He had tried to assassinate the president of the United States, he had held international conferences for terrorists, he had hosted abu Habbas and abu Nedal, and Musab al Zachari, and Ansar al Islam.  All of this Saddam Hussein had done.  And so, if you look out at the world, with any modicum of responsibility on 9/11, you would see that Iraq was the next big threat to the United States.  I tried to lay out here, why Iraq should have been considered a threat, but you don't have to take my word for it.  You can go to Al Gore.  On February 2, 2002, Al Gore gave a speech.  Now this speech followed a speech... the state of the union that year by George Bush.  And that was the axis of evil speech.  And many Democrats were in a rage over the use of the term evil to describe Iraq even though the regime had murdered 300,000 Iraqis and put them in mass graves, even though it had dropped poison gas, a wmd, on an ethnic population (the Kurds) even though it had invaded two countries within recent memory, even though Saddam Hussein was in violation of the terms of the Gulf war truce, Al Gore gave a statesmen like speech and he defended Bush's use of the term evil because it was an accurate description of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.  And this is what he said about whether Iraq posed a threat.  Instead of saying it posed no threat and would cause us to be judged harshly by history, what he said was, and this is an exact quote, "Iraq is a virulent threat in a class by itself."  "a virulent threat in a class by itself, and the United States would be justified in going to the limit to take Saddam Hussein down."  That's what Al Gore said.  So this book I've written, "The Party of Defeat" is about a party that betrayed its own war.  that betrayed its own country, and that betrayed its men and women in the field.  Don't let anybody tell you that you can support the troops but not the war.  If you support the troops, you support their mission, because when you do what John Kerry did, and say, "Its the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" you send a demoralizing message to our troops and an encouraging message to our enemies.  On the WMD's, Saddam Hussein lost the Gulf war.  When he invaded Kuwait, the first George Bush organized an international coalition to stop him.  But actually, that coalition was a little too multi-lateral, because it included the Arabs and the Arabs said you cannot remove Saddam Hussein.   What ended the Gulf war was a truce.   It said Saddam Hussein can stay in power but these are the conditions.   And the conditions were UN resolution 687,  and UN resolution 689.  The Gulf war truce UN resolution 687 and 689 said "You will not build, you will not plan to build, you will not have programs to build weapons of mass destruction.  and you will allow UN inspectors onto Iraqi territory and freedom to go anywhere they want so they can determine that you're not doing it, because nobody in his right mind can trust you."  Those two UN resolutions which were followed by fourteen others, were there to keep Saddam from doing what he wanted to do, and what we know he wanted to do, which was to build weapons of mass destruction.  Saddam Hussein systematically violated these resolutions until a day came in 1998 when he actually threw the UN inspectors out.  Iraq was always on the U.S. government's mind.  Hillary Clinton in one of her statements said that she... not only did she vote for the war when she was defending her support for the war, not only did she support the war because of the intelligence that Bush gave her, but the intelligence she got from the Clinton administration.  Saddam Hussein was a threat.  Now, this is what George Bush did, he gave a speech identifying Iraq as a national threat, part of an axis of evil.  And then George Bush in September went to the United Nations and spoke to the general assembly and said, "There are 16 outstanding resolutions which are arms control agreements which are part of the UN truce with Saddam Hussein that kept him in power.  Either you will enforce your word, or you will be seen to be irrelevant."  Which the UN is.  "And we will do it for you."  That's what George Bush said.  And then he went to Congress and he got the authorization for the use of force.  So the very opposite of what the Democrats claim is the truth.  George Bush did not violate international law, he tried to enforce it and the Democrats didn't support him.  The Bush administration made a diplomatic mistake, which was to go back to the UN.  Once they had the resolution, they should have acted on it.  And Tony Blair begged the Bush administration to go to the UN again and get another resolution.  And unfortunately, the Bush administration listened to Colin Powell and did so.  And Colin Powell got what he deserved for this.  Because, what he did, go to the UN to sell the war.   And the way he sold it was to imply that Saddam had more weapons capability than he had.  And that's why people say its about WMD's.  No it isn't!!  It wasn't at all about the weapons of mass destruction.  It was about his potential to build those weapons and his programs to do so, and his intentions to do so.

Now, if there is any doubt left that the Bush administration lied to the American public, to the Congress or to the UN or that we were justified in invading Iraq, or that we could afford to allow that tyrant to continue in his plans to help work destruction on the innocent people of America, please, tell me what it is.  More, if there is any doubt that the actions of the Democratic leadership is not traitorous in their actions against our national security and against our men and women in the field at war, please, inform me.  If there is any doubt that these actions expose the complicity of the American main stream press, please, tell me what doubts you can dredge up.  This is not patriotism to act this way, careless of the effects on our security or that of the troops, or their morale.  If the Democrats win this election with this for credibility, I am without hope for our nation and its future.  John McCain is a moderate.  He has worked across the aisle enough times to anger most Republicans and only got the nomination because the more conservative Republicans were split between the two more conservative candidates.  Barack Obama is a radical leftist and his voting record proves it.  He is unvetted and has zero accomplishments to point to, much less working with the opposition, so how can he fulfill his promises to be the agent of change and hope?  Hillary Clinton is running on her husband's experience.  She voted for the war before she promised to abandon the war.  This isn't flip flop, this is pandering to the base merely for the seat of power.  The Democrats are proven traitors and deserve nothing less than a trial for treasonous act against national security in a time of war.  We cannot afford to put into office any member of the party of defeat, and of enmity with the nation that grants that power voluntarily.  We have to have a Chief that isn't moved by every wisp of breeze of political winds.  We have to have a leader with the vision and the steadfast resolve to meet every challenge with the grace and assurance of having practiced what's right and good.  No promise of benefits is greater than the value of assured security to continue in our existence as a nation of freedom and democracy.  The only issue on the ticket this election has to be the security and continuance of our great culture.  Everything else pales in comparison.  Without that security, there are no human rights protection, no freedom of speech, no opportunity to succeed in business, no opportunity to live in peace and security, no opportunity to participate or not participate in the religion of your choice.  Do not reward the party of defeat this election year.  Don't even encourage them to speak until they get this one issue right.  National security is tantamount in politics.  Everything else is secondary.

     What makes America great is this; When Christianity goes astray, predominantly Christians in a democracy correct that church, that faith.  This is not the case in Islam in a theocracy.  It is up to predominantly Christians from democracies that correct Islamic, or Nazi, or Communist, or Christian or whatever banner evil pops its head up from under.  This is why America is great, this is why we honor Israel, Australia, and the U.K. and whoever chips into the fight against evil.  These are countries who self correct their own evils and face the threats evil perpetrates on others.  Imperialism charges against these free countries is not only false, it is astoundingly ignorant of history, even recent history to equate honorable people, nations, and religions with those who wreak havoc on the rest of the world.  It is profoundly arrogant and hypocritical for half of the free world to condemn these nations for our actions with military force to bring peace to their own regions and to answer attacks on their nations with overwhelming force.  The moral compass of anyone who equates our actions with those of people who attack innocent citizens using 14 year old children to carry bomb belts into our midst and blow themselves up in the hope of killing as many innocents as possible, has to be 180* out or missing altogether.  To compare Abu Graib or Guantanamo to people who saw off heads, who use piano wire to slice off the faces of children, to excuse any action on the basis of the desperation of the enemy is to lack reason and common sense.

     Dispatches is an English version of a video news magazine similar to 20/20.  These videos are one complete program revealing what is taught in many Muslim Mosques.  It is well worth watching all six of these videos.  As you watch them, keep in mind that the same funding and source of promotional material is being sent around the world, including to the mosques in the United States.  The same brand of Islam is paid for and promoted by the same people who are supporting these mosques in England.  No under cover operation has come to light on the U.S. mosques but they are sourced the same as those in England and around the world.  I cannot re-iterate this enough.  This is what is being taught inside mosques right here in the United States today.

http://www.usawakeup.org/

This link takes you to a must see video.  It depicts the facts of the world's struggle against Islamic jihad.  It also proposes what is likely unless America wakes up to the threat that has been attempting to control us for nearly 30 years.

In Christendom we have a saying.  Know Jesus, know peace..... no Jesus, no peace.  Radical Islam is, and always has proven just the opposite for its faith.  This study is historically and empirically supported.  

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to "the reasonable" Muslim demands for their        "religious rights," they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source  CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped  for their colorful uniqueness:

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris -- car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam -- Mohammed cartoons).

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, "The Haj"

It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.. www.frontline.org.za/books_videos/sti.htm

It is a shame on Islam that the house of war knows more peace than the house of peace where Muslim upon Muslim violence claims more Muslim lives and stifles economic success than all the Crusades and the military actions of the last century in Muslim lands, combined.  You are following liars, your media and your scholars and your clerics are propagating a massive conspiracy of hatred and blame on the West for the evils perpetrated on your people by your people.  Break the stranglehold of fundamentalism and Sharia and call into accountability your leaders and informers.  Some of you have access to the same information I do, and it is your responsibility to make the truth known to your people just as it is mine to my people.

These facts are opening the eyes of the peace activists and moderate factions in the West and their hatred and prejudice currently set squarely on the religions of the West will be redirected toward Islam and will be far greater than the so called 'crusaders' at work in Muslim majority lands today.  Lies from Western and Eastern political leaders, Islamic religious leaders, news agencies, and embedded Muslim scholars in our institutions of higher learning are being revealed with the advent of the internet where people can now have information within minutes of events.  The more 'in the news' violent Islam makes itself in current events, the more the public educates itself in the history of Islam and begin to shout down the ignorance of our so called tolerant and their sources of false information. 

These revelations source anger and hatred toward beneficiaries of the lies which cause great personal and financial cost to the formerly ignorant West.  Brothers, fathers, and sons are dying needlessly, economic malaise for tax dollars and corporate profit results in funded Muslim aggression toward the rest of the world needlessly.  The end result will be a world wide movement to eradicate Islam and in that day, the farce of the 'house of peace' will pop and the resonance will be heard till the end of time just as the farce of Hitler's super race resounds to this day. 

I was talking to my neighbor tonight about politics and the value of human life.  She posited in so many words, that life is not worth suffering.  In her mind, war is so evil it would be better for humanity to stop having children, to discontinue the species. 

How can humanity be served by obliterating humanity?  The kid in this video illustrates my point.  Success and happiness in life is all about the attitude we approach it with and has very little to do with how much we suffer.  Happy people are found in all walks of life the same as unhappy people.  Many who suffer terrible setbacks are well adjusted, contributing members of society.  Others in the very same circumstances would rather not have been born and some few would go so far as to end their lives because of their suffering disabilities.

I would find my neighbor's opinion about the value of human life appalling if it weren't for the fact that literally half of our culture believes in some variant the same as she does.  That "Since we mercy kill animals that are suffering, why won't we offer the same 'service' to our loved ones?"  There are elements of this mindset who believe wholeheartedly that this kid should have been killed when he lost his sight at the age of two to prevent his 'suffering' through life sightless.  Granted, there are people suffering from terminal illnesses, in pain, and have no known chance of any recovery.  So why not just let them die as they want to?  I don't have all the answers to these terrible choices, but I do have huge concerns about 1. moving the line of decency. and 2. cutting short any opportunity to find that miracle cure for that person, or at least stabilizing their condition so that they don't continue to decline.  The first concern is the biggest because it is detrimental to all of society.  This week or this month or this decade, most of our culture would agree that a terminal illness is the point where we should draw that line.  I don't happen to agree but the majority would.

Taking the evidence of abortion.  For the sake of convenience, and personal choice, unborn babies are being killed every day and this practice is sponsored by the state.  Fifty years ago any mother and her 'doctor' would have been jailed by the state for the very same thing.  So if we move this line of holding hope till death, fifty years into the future, will the state sanction killing two year olds because their mother didn't want them to suffer through blindness, or for themselves to have to raise a blind child?  Will it be a viable choice for the parents of a mentally handicapped teenager?  What about retirees without pensions who can't pay for their health care?  What about homeless people?  When we take upon ourselves the authority of God and start moving the line of decency, there is no authority left to correct, to say this far and no farther.  No reason is required for abortions any longer because that line was moved by man.  It went from 'only in the first trimester,' to 'in the first and second trimester,' and now at birth, the babies' brains are being sucked out while only the head remains in the birth canal, and some are arguing that the option should remain open into the first year of life.  If we move the line on other issues (mercy killing) in the future, no reason will be required for someone to decide who lives and who dies.  Only that it falls within the parameters of what is best for.... who? the chooser?, the state?  (gay marriage) will we be marrying two men and a chicken?  two men and a six year old child?  two brothers and their sister?  a mother and her two sons?  We scoff at the idea now, but we were scoffing at the idea of infanticide in the 1950's and 60's.

This isn't new, neither is abortion new to humanity.  It was practiced as part of pagan religions during Biblical times and so was child sacrifice.  One of their gods was a bronze statue with his arms held out in front of him.  The statue was heated to glowing red and the mother or father would take their infant and set him or her in the arms of this glowing red statue and watch while their own child fried to death.  Hitler and his Nazi's took the mentally challenged and had them gassed or shot.  Other cultures killed the homeless.  Without God, the line, the standard of conduct is as malleable as air.  You can find some way to justify anything you want to do.  We've already justified the murder of unborn children in our 'sophisticated' culture.

Back to my neighbor's mindset on life and suffering.  All of life entails some measure of suffering.  Birth is probably one of the most traumatic experiences of life.  We struggle to learn to walk, falling often, and often experiencing pain in the process.  Since it is painful to start life, to achieve the most basic of abilities, should we all stop trying, suicide because suffering is involved.  Suffering is not pleasant, but it is one of the means by which we grow personally.  Death and failure is much worse than suffering.

This is just as true culturally, should we not resist evil people who want to kill us?  That would stop the war, that would stop our suffering, but it wouldn't stop the killing and the suffering of Muslims.  They stone people to death, they kill each other in tribal and feudal wars.

'End all suffering' is the most foolish idea to come down the pike and it has saturated our culture.  Of course there is suffering in life, and of course there is war.  There will be war until God comes to take us out of here.  Its in our nature.  We have to fight our nature to achieve civilization, to have a community, to even have a family.  It is in our nature to force our will on others.  It is only by the understanding of every individual in a community, that we fight our natures to compete against other communities for survival.  Through this achievement we have come to understand that cooperation is far more beneficial to everyone in a community than allowing our natures to rule us.  We've learned when communities cooperate with each other to withstand bigger communities wills, cooperating communities benefit.  The more people you have cooperating, the better the benefit.  Finally, there are still communities in the world that still operate from the mentality of the stone age and would rather kill us or force us into their failing community structure via their religion. 

We've come to regard this mindset as evil.  Evil is as evil does.  Killing and terrorizing to force your will on others is evil and that is exactly what the Islamo-Nazis are doing.  Western culture did not first enter the Middle East with the idea that we are going to militarily change their culture and force our ways on them.  We went over there as private citizens to do business in there culture.  We were so successful at business that their culture began to change by virtue of their own success in that business environment.  Some of them saw their own culture's change with successful trade as evil and violently opposed it.  Threatening their own into submission, threatening the business people until they abandoned their trade markets, killing all business within their culture, they forced their will on their countrymen.  Then, seeing all the other cultures growing and succeeding they decided all their failures were the fault of the West.  Now, the ignorant people of the West are siding with the stone age people, believing every lie they tell.  Our own media is an active party in the enemy's agenda to rule the world with this evil religion.  Their holy book instructs them to lie to the infidel if that will empower them.  I'm going to repost my article, "In Their Own Words" so you have easy access to the video of their most popular leaders speaking the truth about their intentions toward Western culture.  They literally want to rule the world with their stone age power structure based on this evil, murdering religion.

If that's offensive to your politically correct indoctrination, consider this.  In seven years and two wars, how many times have you heard moderate Muslims confess that global jihad is wrong?  How many people of that faith stood behind the one making the confession?  What percentage of the Muslim faith has spoken out against global jihad?  I can tell you, because I've been listening and watching.  If ten percent are actively involved with global jihad, not even 1/10 of one percent are saying a word against global jihad.  Most speakers for Islam are excusing the jihadi actions or at best calling them mis-guided and acting against Western influence because it is corrupting their culture.  I happen to agree that porn peddlers and homosexual activists are corrupting Muslims, they're corrupting Christians too.   But Muslims aren't attacking porn peddlers or homosexuals.  They name the corrupting influence as Christian Crusaders, hearkening back 700 years to a period of retaliation for Muslim invasion into Europe.  So the very things Christians are fighting in our own culture through reason and debate are the reasons this nation is being attacked by violent Muslims, not because of what Christians do or did.  The abortions, the gay agenda, the porn peddling and on, and on      So why does the Christian Right get the bad rap in this country?  Because the liberal left doesn't want to admit their own responsibility for the mess we're in.  They'd rather blame the military industrial complex, the oil industry, the stupid president who pulled off the biggest conspiracy ever by blowing up the World Trade Center, or Goldie Locks.  I'm not sure how Goldie fits in the grand scheme of things but somehow, she is just as legitimate a target for blame as George Bush and the Christian Coalition.

The left no longer desire to obtain reason.  The wisdom they seek is self serving.  If knowledge requires that they accept blame, then knowledge is wrong.  (revisionist history) If knowledge requires suffering and sacrifice to face threats, it isn't worth doing.  If knowledge is offensive, it is evil.  And if knowledge of decency limits their desires, they aren't wrong, the limits are wrong.