Dead Man Walking (on the right)

In case the feds are reading this: by "dead" I mean politically dead.

Victory II

The Comprehensive Immigration "Reform" bill has been killed (again). It was as I feared. George Bush and the grand bargainers in the Senate came back for more, with the same result as the last time.

For an excellent round-up of what just happened and what it all means check out this DailyPundit post.

Also, for those waffling Republicans who could not make up their minds on this bill and those other "Republicans" who supported the President in this boondoggle (Republicans In Name Only - or RINOs) see this DailyPundit post for an excellent graphic.

Victory!

The Shamnesty (immigration "reform" bill) is dead. It is a victory for democracy in the US. Lets hope it holds. The left and the RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) are like jihadis. They will keep coming back at it again and again.

This whole event reminds me of Europe. Mark Steyn has written (as has Rhod - a commenter over at DaisyCutter and occasionally here) that in Europe there is aristocratic political class that removes certain subjects from public discussion and deigns to know better then their commoner subjects. Rhod has written about how he is seeing it here in the US. In the past, his references to this phenomenon in the US rang hollow to me. This Shamnesty bill threw the existence of the phenomenon into clear relief - even enough for me to see it. As I wrote in my post below this one, the government (the elite) is forcing the public to negotiate with it (at the cost of 15-20 million new subjects) in order for the government to perform one of its fundamental duties. They say its for our own good and call it leadership. It is not leadership to demand something in order to get you to do something you already have to do. It is no more leadership than it would be an act of "leadership" to eliminate the military during a war. It is the abdication of leadership.

So, we have the elitist phenomenon here in the US as well. Yesterday, however, it was cast aside. Millions of others like me have also seen the ugly phenomenon (many are Democrats). Whether or not they recognize the elitism that it represents (not having had the benefit of Rhod's insight and wisdom) they know its stink and will begin howling more quickly and more violently the next time they catch its scent.

(BTW, the European "commonfolk" also managed to beat down the aristocrats when the commonfolk rejected the EU constitution.)

McCain should give his money back to his donors - he is destroyed.

Another great side-effect is that Lindsey Graham (R-SC) will not survive this overreach. South Carolina will not allow an elitist, tear-stained (see Michelle Malkin’s coverage for a hint), woman-named, terrorist-protecting RINO to represent it after the next election.

And the President…well what can you say…nearly everyone loathes him now, and it’s a good thing. He needs to be stuffed in a very small box for the rest of his administration. He has lost his mind (makes me wonder if he ever had one).

There was great irony in all of the events last night. Harry Reid, after years of demonizing and belittling the President, is forced to beg the President for help on this bill. A President brought low by opposition (and his increasing ineptitude) is powerless to help …the opposition! Thank god for the Democrats! Thank god the President is inept at this point (he fired up the opposition to the bill more than any Democrat could have)!

Think about it…these bizarre events…isn’t this some of the best proof that someone is looking out for us?

Thank god for Michelle Malkin, National Review, Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, DailyPundit for all of their efforts to draw attention to the bill.

Shame on the editors of the Wall Street Journal for their support of the Bill.

There are no pictures of Ted Kennedy smiling today.

It is a great day.

Prelegislation

Why have an immigration bill that contains a two step process consisting of: (1) increased immigration/border enforcement and probationary legal status for illegals; and, upon completing step one, (2) non-probationary residency and a path to citizenship for illegals? Why not just have one bill for immigration/border enforcement and then, when it has been executed, submit a bill for residency and a path to citizenship for illegals?

Why prelegislate the 2nd step? Here's why: the government wants to remove the decision from the public as to whether the first step has been completed. Normally the decision as to whether the first step had been met and whether it was time to move on to the second would be made by the public through the legislative process. Not here though.

Why remove the decision from the public? Here's why: to avoid the government having to do the first step.

What is remarkable is that the first step is a requirement for a sovereign nation. It is something that our government has to do already. However, in what is one of the most extraordinary perversions of "democratic" government that I have ever heard of, we (the majority of the people- by all public polls) are being forced to negotiate with our government (by offering it 12 million new citizens) to obtain the performance of one of its fundamental duties. Not only that, but we are, as a result of the prelegislation, being required to accept the government's sole determination as to whether it has satisfied the first step. This determination would be made by the same government that has failed for decades to enforce its immigration laws or its borders. Don't fall for it!

Also, don't be fooled into thinking that the new law would be reversible after it is enacted. The drafters have been very smart. After enactment, all illegals would immediately be entitled to come forward and obtain probationary legal status. Imagine how hard it will be to revert 12 million legal residents back into illegal status - if they themselves have done nothing wrong in the interim.

Be Very Afraid

Ted Kennedy is happy.

Immigration "reform" is here.


"When Ted Kennedy is having a good time - bad things happen"

-Mary Jo Kopechne (1940 – 1969)

Those Marines

I sent an Email to Andrew Stuttaford in response to his postings in the Corner at National Review Online defending the behavior of the British Marines held hostage by the Iranians.

In particular, he wrote:

"Derb, via the Yorkshire Post, here's SAS veteran Andy McNab on the behavior of those captured marines:

[He said he believed they were] "just doing their best to get by...They are intelligent people, they understand the situation, they understand they are caught in the middle on a political situation."

McNab himself was captured and tortured by the Iraqis. I suspect that he knows what the correct procedures are."

My email to Andrew was as follows (I also sent him the picture from the post immediately below this one):

Take a look at the men on the right side of this picture.

Were they violating the “rules” by looking (appropriately) dour
but not broken? Do the rules require the servicepersons to make it look like they are having a good time and to thank their captors?

If the men on the right could look dour but unbroken – couldn’t the others? Do any of the smiley ones have the sort of ashen/drawn look of persons who have been tortured (aside from their normal English pallor)?

Which group displays more honor, resolution, seriousness? Which group would you fear more to meet in combat?

Don’t go great lengths to defend the giddy ones Andrew – they are not worth it. You would be better off and retain more credibility if you pointed out that not all of the Brits acted dishonorably.

The UK's Shame (update)

Make that "the three men on the right have honor".

Also, note the interesting editing of the picture in the post below by the MSM (MSNBC in this case - though it may have obtained the picture from AP). The picture was edited to only highlight the happy hostages. It helps to only show the happy people if the tag line is "No ill will".

Is suspect that there already is some ill will between the three men on the right and the shameless hams on the left.

The UK's Shame

I've never witnessed such appalling behavior from military men and women before. Thoughout this hostage-taking the British Marines have happily participated in the humiliation of their nation. The only one with honor that I can see in the picture is the dour-looking fellow on the right. Mr. Blair, the British military has become a liability to the United States in Iraq. Please send them home now.

Update: I was too harsh on the British Military here. In retrospect, It seems that much of this bad bahavior may have been the result of poor leadership on the captured unit. Our British brothers are doing a hell of a job on the war judging by reports from the likes of Michael Yon.

Talk about Overstatement

I sent the following email to the authors of a Newsweek Online Article entitled "Straying From the Script: A U.S. briefer overstates Iran's meddling in Iraq, setting off a Washington tempest", by Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball:

I think your subtitle to the article is an overstatement in itself. "A U.S. briefer overstates Iran's meddling in Iraq, setting off a Washington tempest."

After reading this article it became clear that the briefer did not overstate the "meddling" (I question whether such a cute term should be used in relation to the killing of our troops) by Iran in Iraq, just that he might have overstated whether there was proof that the "meddling" was expressly authorized by the highest authorities in Iran.

This story is not really newsworthy.

It is clear that the government is of one mind that the Iranian Quds Force is involved in the meddling. It is also well known that the Quds Force represents the elite special forces of the Iranian regime (like a mix of SEALs and CIA covert ops). If the government is correct about Quds Force involvement (your article casts no doubt on their assertion), then doesn't the burden shift to Iran to explain that its elite special forces were not acting on the orders of the highest levels of the government?

Isn't there a presumption (respondeat superior) that the acts of the Quds Force were authorized at the highest levels?

Even if you take the position that there is not a presumption of authorization - how rational is it to expect that we would ever be able to get hard proof of such authorization?

Read it for yourself and see what you think. I think the authors are gleefully setting a standard of proof that could never be met and should never have to be met.

Coming for You?

Be careful Mr. Khameni. You don't want to draw these folks' attention.*


*I wish this were a credible threat. However, given recent congressional testimony by General Pace and Secretary of Defense Gates, and given public statements by the President and numerous other members of his administration, the threat of military action aginst Iran has been taken off of the table. As a result, our efforts to curtail their militant islamist activities and their development of nuclear weapons will not succeed.

Prediction

I predict that Bin Ladin or Zawahiri, or both, will be captured or killed within the next 6 months. Why? The general who ramped up the efforts to kill Zarqawi is on the hunt: Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McCrystal. My past posts "Task Force 145's Greatest Hits" and "the Big Hit" detail the extraordinarily aggressive raids by Gen. McChrystal's forces that led to the killing of Zarqawi in Iraq. This (This link is now dead. I think the article ran in the Washington Post. Another article on the subject is here) MSNBC report reveals this excellent development and further reveals that for High Value Targets, like Zawahiri and Bin Ladin, McChrystal's forces may strike in Pakistan. Both HVTs are believed to be in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Update: It is 2/13/07 and I am going to preemptively call myself wrong on this one. Given the peace agreements signed by the Pakistani government with the Taliban in the tribal areas of Pakistan and the complete collapse of of the Bush administration's will to fight the war on militant Islam, there is no chance that this prediction will come true.

Send Rope!

Three Jihadis hung themselves at Gitmo. There are something like 500 remaining detainees. I'm thinking six feet of rope for each x 500 for a total of 3000 feet of rope.

The Discount Rope Store sells 600 feet of 1/4" yellow poly 3 strand rope for $17.50. We will need five spools. So, it'll cost $87.50 for the rope and, say, $13.50 for shipping.

Mr. President I know how to "deal" with Gitmo and it'll only cost U.S. taxpayers $100.00. If the money is the problem I’d be happy to foot the bill.

The Big Hit

Today is a great day. Today the U.S. military, spearheaded by Task Force 145, killed the most dangerous terrorist we face. Give thanks to the President, Donald Rumsfeld, the aggressive leadership of Task Force 145, its unnamed warriors and to the entire U.S. military. Is there any doubt that had the skittish Democrats been in the White House this moment would never have come?

Below is a list of the latest TF 145 raids (taking up where my previous post left off), including the strike that killed Zarqawi and his deputy. Other high ranking Al Qaida in Iraq leaders may also have been killed in the strike or in follow-on raids (there are news reports of 17 simultaneous follow-on raids leading to a trove of intelligence). It is also possible that intelligence gathered from this strike and the follow-on raids could lead to Bin Ladin and/or Zawahiri. It is a long shot - but the next several weeks may be very interesting. Watch for more raids in Iraq and for predator (or Pakistani military) strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Here are the hits.

June 7. Coalition forces killed al-Qaida terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and one of his key lieutenants, spiritual advisor Sheik Abd-Al-Rahman at 6:15 p.m. in an air strike against an identified, isolated safe house.

June 2. Coalition forces killed wanted al-Qaida terrorist Hasayn Ali Muzabir and detained one other during a raid near Balad.

June 1. Iraqi forces conducted precision, near simultaneous raids on four separate targets in Baghdad early on June 1, killing an insurgent financier and capturing two cell leaders. The Iraqi Army forces, assisted by Coalition force advisers (I would guess that the advisors were elements of TF 145). One of the leaders also belonged to a kidnapping and assassination cell in the Doura region, and both were al-Qaida-trained operatives who fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan in the past.

May 28. Coalition Forces killed three and wounded one terrorist as they transported and attempted to emplace improvised explosive devices in the vicinity of Ramadi. The individuals have been linked to a weapons cache Coalition Forces located and destroyed in the area just south of Lake Thar Thar previously the same day.

May 28. Coalition forces detained one wanted terrorist and two suspects at approximately in the vicinity of Taji

May 28. Coalition forces captured seven terrorists and various bomb making materials while conducting multiple assaults in southern Ramadi.

May 26. Coalition forces continued to degrade al-Qaida in Iraq and associated foreign terrorists operations in the al Anbar region when the troops disrupted a gathering and captured six detainees in southern Ramadi

May 24. Coalition Forces detained three terrorists in the vicinity of Samarra during a raid targeting a known al-Qaida associate. The operation led to the capture of the known terrorist and two other male associates, all of whom were intoxicated.

May 23. While conducting multiple assaults along Southern Lake Thar Thar, Coalition Forces captured 10 suspected terrorists and destroyed two vehicles and one tent that was used as a terrorist safe house.

Task Force 145’s Greatest Hits

Since late March Task Force 145 has been set loose on Al Qaida in Iraq. Task force 145 is made up of Navy SEALs, U.S. Army Rangers, U.S. Army Delta Force, British SAS commandoes and British "Rangers". The force is finally being used the way it should have been from the beginning of the fight in Iraq. They are conducting lightning raids based on good information and, very importantly, are immediately conducting follow-on raids based on what they have found. In addition, based on the high numbers of killed and wounded terrorists in the raids, they are being conducted with overwhelming firepower and loosened rules of engagement (the lawyers are not running the show).

Some of this is being made possible by better intelligence. I suspect that some Sunni Tribes are dropping the dime on the Jihadis now that some Sunnis are playing a larger role in Iraqi politics. It also could be that the U.S. military is just doing a better job of reporting the raids than they did in the past. However, it appears that much of the increased tempo and effectiveness is due to aggressive leadership, starting with Donald Rumsfeld. This link leads to very interesting Military Times article describing TF 145 and the aggressive leadership.

Set forth below are snippets about the results of the raids. All of this information can be found at the Official Website of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNFI). Bill Roggio of the Counterterrorism Blog thinks that raids conducted by “Coalition Forces”, without more detailed description of the forces, are TF 145 raids. This position is supported by the fact that the TF 145 raids described in the Military Times article are described at MNFI as raids by “Coalition Forces.”

Lets hope the hits keep coming.

May 23. Coalition Forces killed four terrorists and detained two during operations east of Lake Thar Thar at approximately 5:30 p.m.

May 23. Coalition forces located and killed three al-Qaida associates in the vicinity of Yusifiyah at approximately 7:30 p.m.

May 17. Coalition Forces located and killed six terrorists, detained three and destroyed a safe house and multiple weapons caches in Ramadi during a search.

May 17. Acting on timely intelligence reports, Coalition Forces located and killed two al-Qaida in Baghdad.

May 14. Coalition Forces conducted a coordinated ground and air attack against an enemy safe haven in Yusifiyah, killing more than 25 terrorists, detaining four, destroying three safe houses and a vehicle loaded with weapons and ammunition.

May 13-14. Coalition Forces conducted a series of raids in the vicinity of Latifiyah, killing known terrorist Abu Mustafa and 15 other suspected al-Qaida associates and detaining eight suspects.

May 13. Coalition Forces initiated a raid at approximately 11 a.m. in the vicinity of Julaybah, killing three terrorists, detaining four and destroying enemy hide outs and weapons caches while in search of a wanted al-Qaida so-called Emir.

May 6. Ansar al-Islam member and chemical expert, Ali Wali, was killed at approximately 1 p.m. during a counterterrorist raid in the Mansur district of Baghdad.

May 5. Coalition forces detained five suspects and killed an unknown number of terrorists in a series of raids at approximately 6 p.m. in the vicinity of Samarra.

May 2. Coalition forces killed ten terrorists, three of them wearing suicide vests, and wounded one at approximately 1:30 a.m. at a safe house located approximately 40 kilometers southwest of Balad.

April 29. At approximately 6 p.m., Coalition forces killed two al-Qaida terrorists who were involved in foreign fighter facilitation in the vicinity of Taji.

April 28. Coalition forces killed the al-Qaida “Emir” of Samarra, Hamadi ‘Abd al-Tahki al-Nissani. Based on intelligence reports, they tracked the wanted terrorist and two others to a location north of Samarra. The ground troops also killed the other two armed terrorists inside the house.

April 25. Coalition forces killed 12 terrorists during a raid in Yusifiyah at a safe house associated with foreign terrorists.

April 16. At approximately 2:15 a.m. Coalition forces raided a safe house in Yusifiyah, killing five terrorists and detaining five while searching for a wanted al Qaeda associate.

April 13. Based on actionable intelligence, Coalition forces raided a house in Baghdad at approximately 10:00 p.m., killing one man and detaining three suspects during a search for al Qaeda terrorists.

April 13. Coalition Forces raided a safe house at 4:20 a.m., approximately 50 kilometers northwest of Balad, capturing two and killing two terrorists. One of the terrorists killed was wearing a suicide vest.

April 9. In search of locations for bomb making and storage, Coalition forces killed eight terrorists during a raid April 9 approximately 22 kilometers northwest of Baghdad in the vicinity of Hamaniyah.

April 5. Coalition Forces raided several buildings in Yusifiyah capturing nine terrorists and killing one in a location known for enemy activity and safe houses.

April 1. Three suspected terrorists were captured and three others killed during a Coalition Forces operation in Al Amiriyah, Al Anbar Province, today.

March 27. Coalition and Iraqi forces killed a wanted terrorist, Rafid Ibrahim Fattah aka Abu Umar al Kurdi, during an early morning raid in the vicinity of Abu Ghraib.

March 22. Four al-Qaida in Iraq terrorists were killed when they engaged Coalition Forces during a raid approximately eight miles south of Samarra.

Fox News Failure

Here is the body of e-mail I sent to Fox News Sunday regarding their March 26, 2006 panel discussion on Immigration Reform. I thought the discussion was disappointing.

I was very disappointed by the panel discussion on immigration this Sunday. I suspect it was disappointing because Brit Hume was not there. He has a distinct skill for bringing structure to the discussion.

None of the panelists gave a clear and structured analysis of the issues. The discussion just devolved into the usual “some politicians are bad because they are against immigration and other politicians are courageous because they are standing up for immigration and immigrants” banter. None of the panelists explained that the issue here is controlled immigration v. uncontrolled immigration. After 9/11, is suspect most Americans are strongly in favor of controlling immigration more than we have in the past. It is reasonable to think that we should know who we are letting in this country.

That does not mean they are anti-immigration. We can erect a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and still allow the same number of immigrants. We would just have to change the immigration statute to raise the number of Mexicans allowed to immigrate into the U.S. That is a political debate that I think we should have.

It is actually absurd to create a program of amnesty for illegal immigrants before we control immigration. If we did, we would create an even greater incentive for immigrants to cross into the US illegally so that they can participate in the program thereby worsening uncontrolled immigration.

I challenge you to ask you panelists to defend uncontrolled immigration vs. controlled immigration. I suspect they cannot – because there is nothing we can get from uncontrolled immigration that we cannot get from controlled immigration - except perhaps a greater security threat.

Uncontrolled immigration also harms controlled immigration. We limit legal immigration too much because there is a perception by the public that there are already too many illegal immigrants in this country. As a result, we miss the opportunity to allow more of the best and brightest in the world to come here legally (from Mexico and other countries) so that we can allow “?” to sneak across the border and tarnish his/her first involvement in this country with a violation of this country’s laws.

Another Checkpoint Charlie

Below is the body of an email I sent to the Afghan Embassy related to a case in Afghanistan where a man is at risk of being put to death for converting from Islam to Christianity.

Please lift all threats of death or other punishment by your courts against Mr. Abdul Rahman for converting to Christianity. At a state department briefing today we were told that the Afghan constitution provides freedom of religion. Freedom of religion must include a freedom to change beliefs – regardless of what Sharia Law provides.

It appears that the threatened punishment could be the result of a fundamentalist Judge who may be ignoring the constitution in favor of Sharia Law. In the U.S., a judge can be removed for refusing to uphold the supreme law of the land. I recommend the government remove this judge if he does not uphold the constitution.

Please realize how appalling this case is to the Christian majority in the United States. One of your courts is threatening to kill a man simply because he shares the same beliefs as the majority of Americans. Further, this case could become a blight on Islam, which is at risk of being perceived in this country as another totalitarian foe like the Soviet Union. We were sickened when the Soviet's puppet East German government shot its citizens who attempted to leave their country – now we are witnessing militant members of Islam seeking to kill those members who attempt to leave it.

Afghanistan has received the benevolence of the United States. I fear that will not last if Mr. Abdul Rahman is punished for his religious beliefs.

Tom Fox II

In an earlier post after Tom Fox was abducted I wrote that I had met him. On Saturday, I saw the news that he had been tortured and killed by his captors. The thought of someone torturing this kind, pacifist, soft-spoken (and naive) man makes me sick. Only someone inhuman could have done that to Mr. Fox. In some ways torturing and killing him was like torturing and killing a child (for a thoughtful discussion of his death and different ways of looking at its meaning see the Belmont Club post entitled "Crushed and Broken on the Virgin Soul" and the related comments). His torture and murder convinces me more than ever that the primary solution to our struggle with militant Islam is a military one. They must be hunted and killed to the last. Forgiveness for their immortal souls is something that can be applied after their death.

As an aside, I suspect the reason he has killed first was that he was American and he had been a Marine. He had been in the Marine Band for 20 years - if I recall correctly. He never served in a combat unit because he was a conscientious objector. I deliberately left that fact out of my earlier post because I had not seen it mentioned in any of the media coverage (prior to his murder) and I did not want to take the chance that his captors might learn of his service and kill him for it.

The Ports

I have not posted on this, in part because I have been busy at work and in part because I have been mulling it over. After much vacillating, I think that allowing the UAE-owned company to acquire the rights to run the ports is a mistake.

I have tried to distill the issue into as simple a question as possible. Does this deal enhance the security of the United States? Clearly, transferring the operation from a British company to an Arab-Muslim company in the middle of a war against militant Islam would not increase the security of the United States, all other things being equal. The administration’s whole argument is that it does not harm the security of the United States. I think that argument misses the point. Since 9/11 Americans have demanded greater security. The insecurity of our ports has been a recurring theme. This transfer goes directly against the wishes of the great majority of Americans.

The President urges us to trust him on this. I do trust this President most than I trust most politicians. But, that trust is not blind.

The President has been flippant about a number of important domestic security issues since 9/11. First, he has done nothing to try to eliminate illegal immigration. If AQ terrorists want to get into this country, they can simply walk across the border with Mexico. All of the government’s watch lists are rendered meaningless by this gaping hole on our southern border. Second, the President too often hidden behind the mantra that Islam is a “religion of peace” despite the overwhelming evidence that many adherents do not think it is a religion of peace or act like it (thus the concept of Jihad). Too much of that “ROP” talk makes one wonder if he really believes it. If he does, then his judgment cannot be trusted. Third, the President has left Norman Minetta in charge of the FAA, and has resisted discriminating on the basis of religion or country of origin for security purposes on airlines (IMHO it would be constitutional given that the government has a compelling interest in protecting the U.S. from terrorism, that most terrorism is perpetrated by Islamic militants, and that some countries of origin have a strong correlation with whether you are Muslim or not). The President might take some heat for such a policy and might have to get Congress to change some laws – but that is why we elected him: to do the tough things that are needed to increase our security – even if they violate political correctness. As its stands, the TSA has to treat an elderly white woman that same way it does a young man named Mohammed. That does not make sense.

The President has weakened my trust in him somewhat by avoiding tough action on some of the domestic security issues. I think he thinks that to deny the UAE would be another kind of politically incorrect discrimination. I do not trust him to make the right choice and discriminate against the UAE where our vital security is at issue.

The President also argues that the UAE is a good “ally” in the war on militant Islam, and we cannot deny this opportunity to an ally. But we are also told that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are allies in the war. Do we want one of their government-owned companies running our ports? How could we deny a Saudi company if we allow the UAE company? The fact that the administration failed to put a knife in this deal quietly and that a public denial would embarrass the UAE is not sufficient reason to take any risk with our security.

Finally, the President argues that we will not be able to win over other moderate Arab/Muslim allies if we deny UAE this port deal. I light of the Mohammed cartoon riots, and the endless Muslim violence against other religions around the world, I look at this from the other side. How are we ever going to convince the moderate Muslims to openly confront and suppress their militant co-religionists if they never pay any price for their tolerance (support?) of the militants? To put it another way, if they can get everything they want from us, regardless of how the militants behave – why on earth would they confront the militants?

Indeed, some of the militancy seems to be paying nice dividends for the “moderates”. The moderates are benefiting from the fact that their religion cannot be criticized in public media anymore. Further, the President of the United States is bending over backward to make sure a deal goes though for the UAE because he is concerned that moderate governments will help us in the fight against the militants if it does not go through. What ever happened to requiring them to fight the militants simply because they are militants, rather than doing it because it’s good for business? To put it another way, if there were no Islamic militants would Bush have been so concerned about scuttling this deal?

I believe many of the Muslim “moderates” are mostly more patient extremists. They have the same goals but believe in achieving them less openly (or at least waiting until they are stronger). In this sense, they are free loading on the militant’s behavior. They are taking all of the benefits of the fear created by the militants to incrementally achieve their goals. I think we need to get wise this tact and force them to fear the consequences of crossing us more than they fear confronting the militants. Denying the port deal would be one small step in the right direction and would not reduce our security.

Update: Troubling - Saudi company runs 9 U.S. ports. Those port deals should be terminated.

Wannabe Jihadi

This weekend (2/4/06), I came across an interesting post (among many) at the Jawa Report. In it, one of the Jawa contributors provided the contents of an email he received from a person in Turkey. I'll call him Wannabe Jihadi. Wannabi Jihadi was mad about the whole Muhammed cartoon thing and wrote the following threatening email to the Jawa contributor:

I'd like to let you know a Turkish saying reads as "a dog which was destined to be dead soon, urinates on a wall of a mosque! You blasphemous Westerners all are very like that dog in the saying!

The Jawa Report contributor provided the email address so that Jawa readers could send loving responses to Wannabe. The threat made me angry. I wrote the following response to Wannabe.

I read your threatening message about a dog “urinating on the side of a mosque” at Hyscience.

I’m sure you find that these images of Mohammed are offensive. No one likes to see their religion denigrated. I certainly do not like seeing Christ being pissed on in “art” (as has happened here in the U.S.). I can certainly understand protesting it (though it may be unwise as it draws attention to the blasphemy that might otherwise go unnoticed) or boycotting the persons who produced it. But, to threaten to kill the persons who produce it and to threaten to kill all of their countrymen and all Europeans and all of the West – is plainly evil.

It is also pathetic. People who overreact to every perceived offence are not people who are confident of their position. They are people who are afraid the images will resonate because there is some truth to them.

In the West we do not bluster. We do not because a person who blusters and does not follow though is a person who will be ignored thereafter. In the Mideast (and apparently Turkey – despite its desires to join the West) this logical rule of society does not seem to apply. Al Qaida threatens imminent attack on the U.S. for years and does not produce – and yet you still put faith (an hope) in their pronouncements. Baghdad Bob says the Americans have not entered Baghdad and despite the American tanks in the background Arabs keep believing him until they see Saddam’s statue fall.

Your threats are bluster. You and your people are no more capable of killing all of the persons posting the images of Mohammed than I am of causing and eclipse of the sun at my command. On the other hand - the West (heck, the U.S. alone if you provoke us enough) is capable of almost effortlessly doing anything we want to you middle easterners any time we want and there is nothing you can do to stop it (except perhaps beg). So understand your enemy well enough to at least create some credibility by stopping the hollow threats.

I received a response that made little sense, but claimed that Islam is the only "total" religion (by which I think he intended to to boast that it was totalitarian - there you go Jihadi - way to lead with your strong point) and that the West was not civilized (and killing people for the slightest offense is Wannabi?).

And Like That (Poof!) - It is Gone

Europe could learn a valuable lesson from the Mohammed cartoon controversy. They have labored to maintain goodwill with the Muslim masses. They have distanced themselves from the Great Satan and poured scorn on the Little Satan (Israel). They have tiptoed lightly so as not to offend the sensitive sensibilities of the Muslims amongst them. All this was done so that the Muslims would like them. Then a few small private EU newspapers printed cartoons of Muhammad (see above) that offended the extraordinarily thin-skinned Muslims (who are conversely unfazed by the demonically murderous acts of their coreligionists) and in an instant the "like" evaporated. Muslims in the Middle East are now chanting "death to Denmark!" and "death to France!" In Briton, extreme Islamists have issued a fatwa calling for the murder of all persons publishing the likeness of Mohammed. Middle Eastern leaders are issuing statements that the publication of the pictures will result in more terrorism - a kind of pre-justification for the inevitable violence that will result if Europe does not snuff-out free speech with respect to Islam.

On the other hand, papers in the United States have published some of the images and many popular blogs have reprinted the images (and added new creations a great deal more offensive then the originals) yet the Muslim anger over the images is directed at the EU nations. Why? Because “like” doesn’t last. Its based on whimsy. Respect and fear last.

As I said in my post “Liked or Respected?” below:

“We should seek instead to be respected and, to some extent, feared. Respect (and fear) lasts; feelings of affinity don’t. For an example of how quickly “like” changes to “dislike” recall how quickly the world began to turn on the US when we invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, one action that no one can doubt was absolutely essential and justified.”

The United States is more respected and feared than the EU nations because we have shown a willingness to dole out pain to those who threaten us and to take casualties to see our will done.

The EU has invested all of its efforts in seeking the approval of very volatile people. Despite all their efforts, the Muslims have had another capricious mood swing. Now all their efforts to date are for naught. The Muslims have determined (correctly) that the European desire to appease is not based on a deep embrace of Islam – but instead based on a fear of Islam. They have turned on the weak ones they do not respect or fear.

And in all their efforts to appease the Europeans lost the respect of and weakened their relationship with a powerful friend (the U.S.).

The Europeans face a clear an unavoidable choice. Do they learn the lesson and seek to be respected (and perhaps somewhat feared) by the Muslim masses by, in the least, rejecting all pressure to muzzle criticism of Islam. Or, do they fail the test (again) and accommodate their new master’s wishes – and set the precedent for future failure to come. I wish them the best. They are on their own now.

The addition of the cartoons to this site is not intended to show support for the creation of offensive images. I can imagine that it does hurt a Muslim to see the images as it hurts Christians to see degrading images of Christ. The world could do with a lot less offense. But, it is important that people be able to criticise all religions (an all things) without fear of loss of liberty or life. It is even more important that no religion be protected from criticism more than any other. To allow such a thing would be to begin to establish a world religion. I think that is the goal of Islamists and it must be resisted.

Muslims must learn to tolerate the criticism if they wish to coexist with the western world. If they do not wish to coexist....