GINA COBB

Appeaser, Narcissist, Frontrunner, Fool

Mark Steyn:  Obama an appeaser? How dare you

Convicted Hizbullah Spy Walks Free -- Carter Judge Praises Her as National Hero

By DemocracyRules

Ouch.
Hold onto your hat. You may remember this Hizbullah spy who infiltrated both the FBI and the CIA.  The sentence is in.

A $750 fine (I kid you not), and the money quote: "[Judge] Cohn signed an order to deport Prouty but simultaneously signed a second order withholding the deportation.  She will be able to stay in the U.S. but not work or travel outside the country without special permission."

Very appropriate, given the Alice In Wonderland trial, that the sentence which simultaneously strips her of her citizenship and orders her deported, also stays the deportation order.  As a non-citizen convicted felon who has a bogus marriage and cannot leave the country, what, exactly is her status?  Permanent Illegal Resident? I presume at some point this judge was taught formal logic?  Maybe no?

In any case, he may have been too harsh.  All she did was commit treason.  He praised her other work as an 'intelligence' agent so much that in fairness he should have PAID her $750 out of his own pocket.

This case, and many others like it, make clear that the current legal system is not able to handle terrorists properly.  If McCain wants to close Gitmo, fine.  But the point missed by him and others is that in a War on Terror, there will be some people who should be detained as Prisoners of War until hostilities cease.  If McCain wants to write new law for this, fine.  But the current system is broken, and just closing Gitmo won't fix it. 

If Obama is elected, he may put McCain in Gitmo.

If it is any consolation, Canada is just as bad. Terrorists walk free, we suffer constant frivolous legal challenges from Islamists, we've lost track of 41,000 illegal immigrants, etc., etc., ad nauseum. 

Canada has anti-gang legislation, but apparently conspiring with other Islamists to blow up Parliament does not qualify one as a member of an illegal gang.  The Hell's Angels could all change their names to Omar, Abdul, and Muhammad.  Then they could get away with mass murder.

Pro Patria

Nota Bene: The opinions expressed here are those of DemocracyRules, and do not represent those of Gina Cobb or any other person.

Does Being Born Muslim Help Obama With Islamists? No, But a Spine Might

Would Barack Obama have an advantage in dealing with Islamists, since his father was Muslim and Obama was raised Muslim for part of his childhood?  The answer is a definite no.

First of all, there is no appeasing Islamists.  Their entire purpose is to foment as much murder and mayhem as possible, and steps toward appeasement merely encourage them.

Second, in the eyes of Islamists, Obama will be seen as something even worse than an infidel.  He will be seen as an apostate:

As the son of the Muslim father, Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion.

Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother's Christian background is irrelevant.

Of course, as most Americans understand it, Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.

His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is "irtidad" or "ridda," usually translated from the Arabic as "apostasy," but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim's family may choose to forgive).

With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings.  ....

It is true that the criminal codes in most Muslim countries do not mandate execution for apostasy (although a law doing exactly that is pending before Iran's Parliament and in two Malaysian states). But as a practical matter, in very few Islamic countries do the governments have sufficient authority to resist demands for the punishment of apostates at the hands of religious authorities.

For example, in Iran in 1994 the intervention of Pope John Paul II and others won a Christian convert a last-minute reprieve, but the man was abducted and killed shortly after his release. Likewise, in 2006 in Afghanistan, a Christian convert had to be declared insane to prevent his execution, and he was still forced to flee to Italy.

Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama - not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law - another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: It prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing. At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards.

More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Obama's conversion to Christianity once it became widely known - as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House. This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.

Does this mean that Obama should be denied the presidency on grounds that Islamists won't like him?  Of course not.  That would be mere appeasement, and appeasement is useless.

What this means as a practical matter is that Obama will not be able to use mere powers of persuasion to make progress in dealing  with Islamist regimes such as Iran and the Palestinian authority.  This isn't his failing; nobody can make progress merely by appeasing terrorists.  Those who think that our problem with Islamists is simply that we aren't being nice enough are living in a dream world.

As always, the only way the United States or other Western democracies can make progress in dealing with terrorism-sponsoring states is through overwhelming strength, common decency that fights only those battles that are necessary and builds alliances in the meantime, and consistency of purpose. 

Does Obama have the backbone it will take to act as a strong leader in the war on terror?  So far, he's shown no evidence of any backbone whatsoever.  Maybe that's a function of the fact that he's had a relatively comfortable life in relatively peaceful, prosperous times in American history.  Obama wasn't conscripted into the Army, thankfully, and didn't join voluntarily, and he's had no major challenges to overcome in life.  What will Obama do when he's in a pinch? Will he fight or cave in?

From what I know of Obama so far, he has very little fight in him.  In that regard, maybe his nomination battle with Hillary Clinton is doing Obama some good.  It's not the kind of battle in which human lives hang in the balance, but it may just be the toughest battle he's faced so far.

Update 1:  Ed Morrissey on the folly of Obama's proposal to talk with America's enemies:

Given the importance that Obama places on this approach to foreign policy — he seldom fails to mention it as an example of the “change” he’ll bring to Washington — one wonders why the media hasn’t pressed him on this rationalization. Obama isn’t merely saying that he’ll reinstitute diplomatic relations with Iran, which would emulate our relations with the Nazis and the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor. Obama wants to have meetings without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has publicly spoken of his desire to annihilate a key ally of the US, as well as Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and any number of thugs and tyrants. When did FDR, Truman, and Kennedy do that? Answer: never.

As I pointed out on Wednesday, even diplomatic contact didn’t help FDR with Japan and Germany. The Japanese used diplomatic negotiations as a stalling maneuver to get its Imperial Navy in place to destroy our Pacific Fleet in 1941. Our diplomatic relations with the Nazis only encouraged America Firsters and Nazi sympathizers like Charles Lindbergh to claim that Hitler had no animus towards the West and that he could be a bulwark against Bolshevism.

Maybe Obama could ask the Czechs how well unconditional talks worked for them during Munich. Neville Chamberlain insisted on holding peace talks to avoid war in Czechoslovakia, which could have defended itself as long as it held the fortifications in the Sudetenland long enough for Britain and France to beat Germany from the rear. Instead, Chamberlain carved up Czechoslovakia without its permission, and six months afterward, Hitler swallowed the rest of it whole. FDR, meanwhile, remained steadfastly neutral diplomatically until 1939, when he began clandestine support for the UK.

Negotiations with tyrants almost always leads to appeasement, which only postpones war until the tyrant is strong enough to wage it most effectively. It results in many more deaths and far more destruction because it gives the initiative and the timing to the tyrants, while building their credibility at home. William Shirer noted that the Germans were astounded when Hitler repeatedly bluffed the West during the years from 1935 to 1939, figuring each bluff would be called and Hitler destroyed as a political force. By the time he rolled into Poland unopposed except by the outmatched Poles, who expected actual military assistance from Britain and France, Germans would follow Hitler anywhere, convinced of his invincibility.

That’s what Obama’s “new approach” to foreign policy promises. It’s Neville Chamberlain without the umbrella. It certainly isn’t FDR or Truman.

Update 2:  Jack Kelly adds:

Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961.

Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit.

"There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy's measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions," Mr. Abel wrote. "There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America's power. He questioned only the president's readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are 'too liberal to fight.'"

That view was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: "Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs," Mr. Reston wrote. "He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed."

It's worth noting that Kennedy then was vastly more experienced than Sen. Obama is now. A combat veteran of World War II, Jack Kennedy served 14 years in Congress before becoming president. Sen. Obama has no military and little work experience, and has been in Congress for less than four years.

Raytheon's New Bunker-Buster

By DemocracyRules

It's much more powerful than existing bunker-buster weapons.  The 1,000 lb demo version of this bomb went through about 19 feet of steel-reinforced concrete.  With Iran's rooster-strutting oligarchy, it may be useful to show them this bomb.  It could help them think again.

I also hope the U.S. tests one of these weapons on the lawn of the Syrian dictator Assad.  Not to, like, HURT HIM or anything, just to get him to think about his future.

Maybe just showing this video would help:

Pro Patria

Why I Call Obama a Communist

By DemocracyRules

I used to be patient about this.  First I called Obama and his minions "progressivist socialists" or "social democrats". 

Certainly from the very beginning it was clear that Obama was not a Liberal .  Liberalism began with philosophers like John Locke who advocated freedom, liberty, free markets, and people power through democracy.  Locke's early thoughts were expanded and elaborated by the Founding Fathers.  They began to put these ideas into practice.  John Stuart Mill continued and extended the ideas of Liberalism (e.g., "On Liberty").

I started out calling Obama a Socialist because he wanted forced economic leveling and intervention in free markets.  Obama has a long Socialist history.  The euphemism is "Social Justice". 

Communism is different from Socialism because Communism dispenses completely with free enterprise and democracy.  Communists abjure discourse and debate, the cornerstone of democracy.  Marx said it was useless, he told followers to seize control of the state by whatever means was expedient.  After that, discourse and debate could be eliminated, because the rest of the plan was clearly laid out by Marx.  The Communists' job was to implement Marx's plan, and there was no need to discuss anything.  Trotsky, the pro-democracy rival of Stalin, was murdered for his beliefs.

For John Stuart Mill, one of the key responsibilities of a democracy is to enable and encourage discourse and debate.  Otherwise there is a risk of developing a "dictatorship of the majority" which would ultimately destroy the state.

In addition to forced economic leveling and intervention in free markets, Obama and his minions reject discourse and debate.  Any criticism of Obama is called racism.  The Democrat party has almost completely lost any sense of democracy.  Victim-hood is used to overwhelm opponents.  Law-breaking is acceptable.  Unethical conduct is normal.  Character assassination is routine.  Obama beat Hillary by shouting down her supporters more effectively than Hillary could do the same to him. 

Now Obama will go after McCain.  All of Obama's critics, including all Republicans, will be labeled racist redneck religious fanatic crackers.

These are age-old Communist tactics. 

We call Sweden a Socialist country because they believe strongly in free debate and democracy.  Everyone can and does speak up. 

In contrast, Obama and his minions do not permit discourse and debate.  The entire left-wing in American politics, from Pink Whatever, to MoveOn.org, etc., abjure discourse and debate.  Instead they fight with everyone and each other.  They shout down dissent, suppress it, de-fund it, ban it from publication, declare it illegal, and sue dissenters. 

Their main target is free speech, but their ultimate goal is to surgically remove the Constitution.  When people joined the American Communist Party, they swore to destroy the U.S. Constitution.  This oath superseded any oath of allegiance to the U.S. that a Communist took.

Obama and his minions strive at every turn to impose their ideology on every member of the population.  Any different view is "not politically correct".  For them, democracy would just slow down the take-over of the American State.  Democracy must be removed.

That's why I call him a Communist.

Pro Patria

References:

Obama Mandingo?

Obama’s International Socialist Connections

The Communist Manifesto, Marx/Engels, 1848

Released Gitmo Detainee Commits Homicide Bombing in Iraq

Gee, maybe the United States has a point when it says that many of the remaining enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo should not be released.

Why, just three years ago, we got to hear how Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi wasn't an enemy combatant.  He was just a poor, misunderstood fellow.  So al-Ajmi was sent back to Kuwait and freed.  Guess what al-Ajmi did to celebrate?

Why, a homicide bombing in Iraq, of course!

Three years ago, Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti soldier who deserted to fight in Afghanistan alongside the Taliban, sat in a detention cell at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, while lawyers argued whether he was an "enemy combatant."

Last week, a Dubai-based television channel reported that al-Ajmi was killed carrying out a homicide bombing in Mosul, Iraq.

While the report did not specify which attack Abdullah carried out, Iraqi officials reported that Mosul was hit on April 26 by three homicide attacks, killing seven people.

CBS News reported that al-Ajmi carried out an attack on Wednesday, April 30, according to an unconfirmed report posted on a jihadist Web site.

. . . .  Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, who was repatriated to Kuwait in November, 2005, was free on bail there awaiting trial on charges he helped to raise money for Al Qaeda.

U.S. counterterrorism analysts argued in a review of al-Ajmi's activities that he should not be released or returned to Kuwait based on the following:

— That he deserted from the Kuwaiti army to participate in a jihad in Afghanistan;

— The Taliban supplied him with arms, including grenades;

— He admitted fighting with the Taliban, including engaging in two or three firefights;

— He was captured by coalition forces in the Tora Bora region, an area once thought to be a hideout of Usama bin Laden;

— That upon his arrival at Guantanamo he demonstrated "aggressive" behavior; and,

— Based on a review of classified and unclassified documents, al-Ajmi was declared a threat to the United States and its allies.

Al-Ajmi denied all charges that he was an enemy combatant and a jihadist, and that documented statements were untrue.

He was repatriated to Kuwaiti authorities on Nov. 3, 2005.

Salem al-Ajmi said his cousin had a son after his return to Kuwait.

Reuters reported that Salem al-Ajmi said there were no indications his cousin planned to join Al Qaeda in Iraq, although he had become less sociable in the period leading up to his disappearance.

Isn't that lovely.

Here's an exchange from al-Ajmi's board hearing in 2005:

Board Member	Al Ajmi I believe that your dedication to your religion is genuine, what direction or path will that dedication take should you be released?
Al Ajmi	For peace.

Isn't it nice that we gave al-Ajmi a chance to strike a blow for peace?

North Korean Foreign Minister Visits China

By DemocracyRules
h/t AFP/Breitbart

The North Koreans are hoping to get away without consequences for collaborating with Syria/Iran to develop nukes.

Actually, only China can disarm NK peacefully.  They must depose 'Mr. Il'.  China is not likely to do that unless they are confronted directly, and with extreme unction.  They seem to like sticking it to the democracies by keeping the thorn of NK in our side.

Bush, Cheney, Gates and Condi need to act assertively and quickly, using the biggest economic stick they can think of.  This is not a time for the UN Security Council, that would bog down.  However, the G7 could act more quickly, and with much more muscle.  Together the G7 countries represent a very large proportion of the world economy, and are vital trading partners for China.

China makes a lot of goods for export to G7 countries, but the G7 could source many of these products from elsewhere.  India, the Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, even Vietnam could fill the void.  The G7 should not even threaten to bypass China.  We should just start planning how we're going to do it.  China will figure it out.

When asked where the main global threats are, Americans mention China and Iran, and I agree.  The arc of adversaries is becoming clearer.  China uses NK to harass the allied democracies by enabling NK to help Iran/Syria/Hizbulla/Hamas acquire nukes.  The bomb plans NK, Iran and Syria are using came from China, via Pakistan. 

China and Iran are connected through NK.

Pro Patria

Uh, Earth to State Department, Come in State...

By DemocracyRules

From US State Dept Daily Press briefing, April 25, 2008:

"MR. MCCORMACK:  We believe in the six-party talks, Goyal, yeah. We believe in the mechanism.  We believe in the process.  And as I’ve said before, we believe that it can lead to the goal that everybody shares, and that is a denuclearized Korean Peninsula and, ultimately, a better situation for the Korean people. But again, it’s a process that is based on performance in this mechanism.  We believe it’s a strong mechanism.  But it is also a mechanism, if there is not performance, that can deal with noncooperation."

Uh, Earth to State, Come in State... your telemetry is fading, we are no longer picking up life signs from your end... Uh, State,  your orbit around Uranus is destabilizing ... Come in State, we have garbled transmission at this end... sounded like you said, "six-party talks are working"... What's your brain function status, over...  The phrase "six-party talks are working" is from the boilerplate text we used to program your computer's chat-bot... We named it McCORMACK... Is anyone there?  Repeat, is anyone alive there?  Come in State... ....  ..... .... .... Earth to State, over.... .... ... ... .... (background hiss, static) .... .... Uh, State, we are getting a garbled transmission from you that keeps repeating , "We believe it’s a strong mechanism... we believe it’s a strong mechanism... we believe it’s a strong mechanism... we believe it’s a strong mechanism..." Is anyone alive there... State?.... .... State! CODE RED, repeat, CODE RED, you are about to crash into Uranus... over... [background static, transmission ends].

Syrian and North Korean Nukes -- Huge Implications

By DemocracyRules

The meetings in Washington are over, and the White House has made a statement.

“We have good reason to believe that the reactor, which was damaged beyond repair on Sept. 6 of last year was not intended for peaceful purposes... The Syrian regime must come clean before the world regarding its illicit nuclear activities," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino in a statement Thursday April 24.

Download Pentagon Video of intelligence findings here (thanks to Voice of America)

There are dozens of important implications of this disclosure, and I will stick to the main ones.  Let me begin with the ending. 

(1) If Iran or Syria get their hands on a nuclear bomb, they could give it to a terrorist group to detonate in Israel.  One simple plan is to load the bomb onto a boat or ship and sail it into Tel Aviv harbor.  A nuclear explosion there would kill roughly 100,000 Israelis. 

This ship-based strategy could also be done in any harbor in the world, from New York to Vladivostok.  Iran or Syria could disavow all knowledge and responsibility (e.g., "We don't know where Al Qaida got that bomb").  This would make retaliation almost impossible.

(2) We already know that Syria is a close ally of Iran.  They are known to be sharing weapons and technology.  For example Iran has purchased anti-aircraft weapons from Russia that were later installed in Syria.  Syria has a very large and active chem-bio weapons program, and we should expect that they share their technology with Iran. Iran and Syria are also intimately connected to Hizbulla in Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine.  Iran also collaborates with and Al Qaida from time to time.

(3) We now know that North Korea is actively cooperating to make nuclear bombs with this Syria-Iran-Hizbullah-Hamas axis.  As I pointed out in a previous post, there is no peaceful use for the plutonium they are making.

(4) Related question: What, exactly is the nature of the cooperation that is flowering between Iran and Chavez?

(5) Some time ago, a terrorist was caught smuggling a plutonium bomb mechanism into Israel (see my earlier post about how to make a plutonium bomb).  The mechanism the Israelis found was not loaded with plutonium, but clearly someone out there is making these bomb mechanisms, and they aren't smuggling them into Israel to make Sherbet.

(6) There is no certainty that this was the only plutonium reactor that is under Iranian-Syrian control.  "Observation satellites have allegedly located in Syria at least 2 other sites similar to the one destroyed..."  Since the bombing, Syria has built a new structure on the site.

(7) Iran apparently has two viable routes to make nuclear weapons.  Uranium bombs made from their centrifuge processes, and plutonium bombs made with North Korean help.  Iran has already been caught with plans for making uranium bombs.  ("Oh, those... we don't know how we got those, they may have been in a package of other paper we acquired..." Iran said.)

(8) The US strategy to disarm North Korea is clearly not working, and must be made to work ASAP.  This probably means that enormous pressure must be put on China to remove Kim Il.  This will probably lead to eyeball-to-eyeball confrontations with China. 

(9) A military buildup is also likely in South Korea.  Seoul, South Korea is a very large city, and it's very vulnerable to artillery barrages from North Korea.   'Mr. Il' will know that the democracies are now gunning for him, and he will get touchy.

(10) Israel could be in imminent danger.  North Korea has an almost identical facility to the Syrian plutonium reactor.  That means they have been making plutonium.  They had enough plutonium to test a nuclear bomb.  With their reactor they probably have more plutonium, and it is now clear that they are willing to share.

(11) Cheney recently completed a junket to the Middle East for undisclosed reasons.  The Bush administration has already begun plans to attack Iran, but they are deeply ambivalent.  "US augments naval-air might as Gates warns against new war."

(12) New meaning for the NIE report.  In January 2008, Bush said,  "Let me remind you what the NIE actually said... It said that as far as the intelligence community could tell, at one time the Iranians had a military -- covert military program that was suspended in 2003 because of international pressure.  My attitude is that a non-transparent country, a country which has yet to disclose what it was up to, can easily restart a program."

New interpretation: Iran did not stop their nuclear program in 2003, they moved part of it to Syria.

Pro Patria

 

Hillary Obliterates Foreign Policy

By DemocracyRules

Obliterate:   1a: to remove utterly from recognition or memory  b: to remove from existence : destroy utterly all trace, indication, or significance of. [Webster's]

_________________________________

Hillary recently said she would obliterate Iran if they nuke Israel.  This comment displays profound ignorance of Iranian culture, US military capability, the meaning of genocide, and the sensitive nature of foreign policy.  Hillary also seems to know very little about nuclear warfare.  A 60-year-old should know better.

If Israel is nuked:

(1) Israel will respond appropriately.  They have the capability and do not need US help.  (2) Obliterating Iran means killing all Iranians, and destroying all built structure, including all cities.   Killing everyone in Iran is not necessary, not practical, and would be called genocide. 

The mullahs of the Iranian government would be the initiators of an attack on Israel.  The appropriate strategic response to this would be to remove the Iranian government and completely disable Iran's capability of them being able to do it again.  That's all that's needed.   

Only complete removal of the Iranian leadership would ensure success.  A nuclear response may not be the best way to do that. Nuclear weapons would kill millions of Iranians and most of the built structure in the main cities, but the leaders would probably be hiding underground, and the surface would be radioactive for weeks.   Before they are attacked, Iran may hide nukes in Syria, Western Afghanistan, Eastern Iraq, or even Lebanon.  Bunker-busting bombs, smart weapons, and special forces killing Iranian leaders may be the most effective strategic approach. 

The Pentagon has already got most of the details of this worked out, and so has the Israeli ministry of defense.  Even Israel, which of course would be very damaged by any nuclear attack, would not set out to obliterate all of Iran.  They just need to make sure Iran does not do it again.

Iran has 70 million people, and about 80% oppose the government.  For example the people of Bam do not need to be obliterated at all.  They suffered a major earthquake a while ago and their city is still in terrible shape.  Many are still hungry and lack proper shelter.  They are far from Tehran, unable to even vote for their own government, and they should not be held responsible for the actions of a few mullahs in Tehran.  If the people of Bam are left alive, they are not very likely to attack anyone, let alone Israel, which is far from Bam.

As I have pointed out before on Gina Cobb, most Iranians are real people, not monsters.  Hillary does not seem to know that.  Iranians mainly want the same things we want.  They want to eat properly and have a safe place to sleep.   They want  some kind of education, to get married, and to have kids. They want to have jobs, to support themselves and their families, so their kids can have good lives. They are fully capable of love, and they want to be loved.

When democracies fight wars, we kill only those people we have to kill.  Then we stop.  To go on after that is genocide.

Obliterating Iran is dangerously silly talk, and it should not be coming from a presidential candidate, ever.

 

Two Years Ago Today on GINA COBB: Israel and Palestinians Equally Wrong? Not Unless Premeditated Murder Is the Same as Negligence

Originally published on April 21, 2006:  Israel and Palestinians Equally Wrong? Not Unless Premeditated Murder Is the Same as Negligence

Another homicide bombing in Israel this week.  It happened at a Tel Aviv restaurant.  At least eight are dead; at last 60 are wounded.  The victims included men, women and children.  All were civilian noncombatants.  They were not caught in the line of fire in a battle between militants.  They were peacefully going about their business when they were deliberately killed and maimed.  Children saw their mother killed. 

The bomber and the persons who planned the killings and built the bomb knew they would kill innocent men, women and children who were minding their own business.  They are happy about the resulting deaths, injuries, tears, and funerals.  They passed out pastries to celebrate.  They announced that 70 more such attacks are coming.

And the world shrugs its shoulders.

It's not our concern, right?

Last time I checked, we don't live in Israel.  Not most of us, anyway.

And last time I checked, most of us aren't even Jewish.

So it's their problem.  Not ours.

Besides, there's violence on both sides.  It's a cycle of violence.

But maybe we should review what's really going on, just to be sure.

Here's what we know about the violence caused by the Palestinians:

1.  The Palestinians strap bombs filled with shrapnel to themselves.  The bombers intend to be killed.  The shrapnel is soaked in rat poison to ensure hemorrhaging in the victims.  The Palestinian attacks often also include further bombs targeting rescue workers who come to aid the victims.

In attacks planned in advance, the Palestinians routinely and deliberately take these bombs into the middle of crowds of people who are civilian noncombatants minding their own business -- eating at a restaurant, attending a celebration, or riding a bus.  The targets selected are men, women and children. 

They are not killed because they happen to be too close to another target.  They are the target.

Percentage of persons intended to be killed:  100% (the bomber and everyone at the scene, including rescue workers)

Target:  100% civilian noncombatants

Planning and premeditation of deaths of civilian targets:  100%

2.  The perpetrators of these attacks are celebrated and glorified by the Palestinians, and the Palestinians announce that more such attacks will be coming.

Let's compare this to what Israel does:

1.   The Israelis do not routinely and deliberately plan in advance to kill not only their own soldiers, but also crowds of innocent noncombatant civilians who are eating at a restaurants, riding buses, etc.  Although critics of Israel point to examples of civilian Palestinian deaths, those examples almost always involve civilians accidentally or unavoidably caught in the line of fire (collateral damage of war) or civilians who were deliberately involving themselves in the conflict by throwing rocks, staying in the way, etc. 

2.  Some of the accidental Palestinian deaths are the direct result of the Palestinians' own prior attacks on innocent civilians.  For example, the Palestinians use an ambulance to sneak a homicide bomb into a crowd of innocent people, and then complain when the next ambulance is not waved through a checkpoint as usual and the patient in the ambulance suffers as a result.  These same Palestinians use every act of self-defense on Israel's part -- even something as harmless as building a wall to keep out homicide bombers -- as an excuse for more attacks on Israel. 

But what about civilian Palestinians killed by Israelis, like a girl killed this week in an Israeli strike?  Israel has indeed caused some civilian deaths by accident or perhaps even by negligence or gross negligence, but it does not routinely plan to kill noncombatant civilian Palestinians as its goal.  Israel does not deliberately target noncombatant men, women, or children for death.  The Palestinians do.

3. On the rare occasions when an isolated Israeli recklessly or deliberately kills innocent, noncombatant civilian Palestinians (such attacks are very few and far between), those who carry out such acts are not celebrated and glorified by most Israelis, and most Israelis do not brag that more such attacks on noncombatant civilians will be forthcoming.  This is the exact opposite of what occurs when a Palestinian does the same thing or worse.

The distinction is not difficult to make, if you really think about it.

Even a dog understands the difference between being tripped over and being deliberately kicked. 

Everyone on earth understands the difference between accidentally hitting a child with a car and deliberately planning to run over a child with a car and carrying out that very plan.  One is a horrible accident or at most negligence or even gross negligence; the other is first-degree, premeditated murder.

No sane civilized society treats the driver who accidentally kills a child the same as it treats a serial murderer. 

No reasonable person thinks that if the police accidentally take a civilian life while chasing a suspect, it is fair game for the police to be slaughtered in response -- or, worse yet, that it's fair game for the family of the victim to stand in the crowded town square and spray bullets in every direction to "get even." Yet that is exactly what Palestinians argue every day to justify their campaign of slaughtering innocent civilians.

When Israel starts detonating bombs in crowds of Palestinians who are just eating at restaurants -- not accidentally while pursing a military target, but routinely, as their entire goal -- then critics of Israel can legitimately say that there is moral equivalency between the Palestinians and Israel. Until then, there is no comparison.

Why does it matter?

It matters, first of all, from the standpoint of simple human justice and mercy.  We don't treat accidental or negligent killing and premeditated murder the same way because it would be wrong to do so.

Second, until you are clear about the difference between right and wrong, you can't figure out how to solve any problem.

If the troubles in the Middle East seem to be endless, perhaps part of the reason for that is the endless excuses being made for those who are willing to commit acts that are genuinely evil.

One of those excuses is poverty.  Nonsense.  In no courtroom on earth is being poor a defense to a charge of premeditated murder.  In fact, being willing to support premeditated murder is a good way to ensure that your society stays lawless and poor. 

Saying that there is a "cycle of violence" in the Middle East is like saying that there is a "cycle of violence" between criminal gangs and police.  The solution is not for the police to turn over the city to the gangs and go home.  That would only ensure that the violence continues.

Make sure you're clear in your own mind about what moral standards you believe in.  Do you believe that involuntary manslaughter is the same as premeditated murder? 

If you accidentally kill a person while driving your car -- as a few unlucky people have -- are you on the same moral plane as the Unibomber, the BTK killer, or any other serial killer?

Even if your driving was not as careful as it should have been, you are not even remotely in the same ballpark as a serial killer.  You did not intend to take someone's life.  You are filled with regret; the serial killer is filled with glee.  And while you, out of your sincere regret, will go to great lengths in the future to make sure that it never happens again, out of the serial killer's glee will grow the plans for his next killing.

Israelis openly lament the deaths of any innocent Palestinian civilians, and takes pains to avoid such innocent deaths whenever humanly possible.  Palestinians take open glee in the death of any innocent Israeli civilian. 

It's not asking too much to expect all sane, decent human beings on earth to be willing to take sides against routine, premeditated mass murder of noncombatant civilians.

Please have the moral clarity, the courage, and the common decency to take sides.

If you can't be bothered to challenge the pure evil of premeditated serial mass murder before it reaches out and harms you and your loved ones personally, then what good are you to the world?

Let your decency show.  Be willing, once in a while, to give credit to people who are struggling albeit imperfectly to do the right thing and protect their own safety without killing innocent people.  Be willing once in a while to acknowledge basic decency when you see it. 

Go out on a limb once in a while and have the courage to condemn what is clearly wrong.  Use the word "evil" once in a blue moon.  Not every day.  Not for little things, like your political opponents.  Once in a while, use the world "evil" when it really fits. 

"Evil" is the only word to describe what the Palestinians routinely do, and then gloat over.  If deliberate, premeditated murder of innocent men, women and children who were minding their own business and not anywhere near any line of fire is not pure evil, then what is?

If terrorism isn't evil, then you might as well throw the word away and hope that you're never on the receving end of what you chose not to condemn.

___________________________________

Want to read more?  Click a link:

• Terrorism Update
• Israel
• Humor
• Main Page

Another homicide bombing in Israel this week.  It happened at a Tel Aviv restaurant.  At least eight are dead; at last 60 are wounded.  The victims included men, women and children.  All were civilian noncombatants.  They were not caught in the line of fire in a battle between militants.  They were peacefully going about their business when they were deliberately killed and maimed.  Children saw their mother killed. 

The bomber and the persons who planned the killings and built the bomb knew they would kill innocent men, women and children who were minding their own business.  They are happy about the resulting deaths, injuries, tears, and funerals.  They passed out pastries to celebrate.  They announced that 70 more such attacks are coming.

And the world shrugs its shoulders.

It's not our concern, right?

Last time I checked, we don't live in Israel.  Not most of us, anyway.

And last time I checked, most of us aren't even Jewish.

So it's their problem.  Not ours.

Besides, there's violence on both sides.  It's a cycle of violence.

But maybe we should review what's really going on, just to be sure.

Here's what we know about the violence caused by the Palestinians:

1.  The Palestinians strap bombs filled with shrapnel to themselves.  The bombers intend to be killed.  The shrapnel is soaked in rat poison to ensure hemorrhaging in the victims.  The Palestinian attacks often also include further bombs targeting rescue workers who come to aid the victims.

In attacks planned in advance, the Palestinians routinely and deliberately take these bombs into the middle of crowds of people who are civilian noncombatants minding their own business -- eating at a restaurant, attending a celebration, or riding a bus.  The targets selected are men, women and children. 

They are not killed because they happen to be too close to another target.  They are the target.

Percentage of persons intended to be killed:  100% (the bomber and everyone at the scene, including rescue workers)

Target:  100% civilian noncombatants

Planning and premeditation of deaths of civilian targets:  100%

2.  The perpetrators of these attacks are celebrated and glorified by the Palestinians, and the Palestinians announce that more such attacks will be coming.

Let's compare this to what Israel does:

1.   The Israelis do not routinely and deliberately plan in advance to kill not only their own soldiers, but also crowds of innocent noncombatant civilians who are eating at a restaurants, riding buses, etc.  Although critics of Israel point to examples of civilian Palestinian deaths, those examples almost always involve civilians accidentally or unavoidably caught in the line of fire (collateral damage of war) or civilians who were deliberately involving themselves in the conflict by throwing rocks, staying in the way, etc. 

2.  Some of the accidental Palestinian deaths are the direct result of the Palestinians' own prior attacks on innocent civilians.  For example, the Palestinians use an ambulance to sneak a homicide bomb into a crowd of innocent people, and then complain when the next ambulance is not waved through a checkpoint as usual and the patient in the ambulance suffers as a result.  These same Palestinians use every act of self-defense on Israel's part -- even something as harmless as building a wall to keep out homicide bombers -- as an excuse for more attacks on Israel. 

But what about civilian Palestinians killed by Israelis, like a girl killed this week in an Israeli strike?  Israel has indeed caused some civilian deaths by accident or perhaps even by negligence or gross negligence, but it does not routinely plan to kill noncombatant civilian Palestinians as its goal.  Israel does not deliberately target noncombatant men, women, or children for death.  The Palestinians do.

3. On the rare occasions when an isolated Israeli recklessly or deliberately kills innocent, noncombatant civilian Palestinians (such attacks are very few and far between), those who carry out such acts are not celebrated and glorified by most Israelis, and most Israelis do not brag that more such attacks on noncombatant civilians will be forthcoming.  This is the exact opposite of what occurs when a Palestinian does the same thing or worse.

The distinction is not difficult to make, if you really think about it.

Even a dog understands the difference between being tripped over and being deliberately kicked. 

Everyone on earth understands the difference between accidentally hitting a child with a car and deliberately planning to run over a child with a car and carrying out that very plan.  One is a horrible accident or at most negligence or even gross negligence; the other is first-degree, premeditated murder.

No sane civilized society treats the driver who accidentally kills a child the same as it treats a serial murderer. 

No reasonable person thinks that if the police accidentally take a civilian life while chasing a suspect, it is fair game for the police to be slaughtered in response -- or, worse yet, that it's fair game for the family of the victim to stand in the crowded town square and spray bullets in every direction to "get even." Yet that is exactly what Palestinians argue every day to justify their campaign of slaughtering innocent civilians.

When Israel starts detonating bombs in crowds of Palestinians who are just eating at restaurants -- not accidentally while pursing a military target, but routinely, as their entire goal -- then critics of Israel can legitimately say that there is moral equivalency between the Palestinians and Israel. Until then, there is no comparison.

Why does it matter?

It matters, first of all, from the standpoint of simple human justice and mercy.  We don't treat accidental or negligent killing and premeditated murder the same way because it would be wrong to do so.

Second, until you are clear about the difference between right and wrong, you can't figure out how to solve any problem.

If the troubles in the Middle East seem to be endless, perhaps part of the reason for that is the endless excuses being made for those who are willing to commit acts that are genuinely evil.

One of those excuses is poverty.  Nonsense.  In no courtroom on earth is being poor a defense to a charge of premeditated murder.  In fact, being willing to support premeditated murder is a good way to ensure that your society stays lawless and poor. 

Saying that there is a "cycle of violence" in the Middle East is like saying that there is a "cycle of violence" between criminal gangs and police.  The solution is not for the police to turn over the city to the gangs and go home.  That would only ensure that the violence continues.

Make sure you're clear in your own mind about what moral standards you believe in.  Do you believe that involuntary manslaughter is the same as premeditated murder? 

If you accidentally kill a person while driving your car -- as a few unlucky people have -- are you on the same moral plane as the Unibomber, the BTK killer, or any other serial killer?

Even if your driving was not as careful as it should have been, you are not even remotely in the same ballpark as a serial killer.  You did not intend to take someone's life.  You are filled with regret; the serial killer is filled with glee.  And while you, out of your sincere regret, will go to great lengths in the future to make sure that it never happens again, out of the serial killer's glee will grow the plans for his next killing.

Israelis openly lament the deaths of any innocent Palestinian civilians, and takes pains to avoid such innocent deaths whenever humanly possible.  Palestinians take open glee in the death of any innocent Israeli civilian. 

It's not asking too much to expect all sane, decent human beings on earth to be willing to take sides against routine, premeditated mass murder of noncombatant civilians.

Please have the moral clarity, the courage, and the common decency to take sides.

If you can't be bothered to challenge the pure evil of premeditated serial mass murder before it reaches out and harms you and your loved ones personally, then what good are you to the world?

Let your decency show.  Be willing, once in a while, to give credit to people who are struggling albeit imperfectly to do the right thing and protect their own safety without killing innocent people.  Be willing once in a while to acknowledge basic decency when you see it. 

Go out on a limb once in a while and have the courage to condemn what is clearly wrong.  Use the word "evil" once in a blue moon.  Not every day.  Not for little things, like your political opponents.  Once in a while, use the world "evil" when it really fits. 

"Evil" is the only word to describe what the Palestinians routinely do, and then gloat over.  If deliberate, premeditated murder of innocent men, women and children who were minding their own business and not anywhere near any line of fire is not pure evil, then what is?

If terrorism isn't evil, then you might as well throw the word away and hope that you're never on the receving end of what you chose not to condemn.

___________________________________

Want to read more?  Click a link:

• Terrorism Update
• Israel
• Humor
• Main Page

All Eyes on Terrorism

Kathryn Jean Lopez has definitely piqued my interest in Willful Blindness by Andy McCarthy with this post at National Review Online:

Just read the book! I cannot stress enough how important a book Andy McCarthy's Willful Blindness is. He's brutally honest about the threat we face, and our failures in combating it (including being hard on himself where he believes there are lessons to be learned). We have a Q&A up on it today (Sean Hannity did a great interview with him yesterday; Mark Levin has him on his radio show tonight); here's just a piece of it:

Lopez: You argue that “international terrorism is not the type of national challenge the criminal justice system is designed to address.” You say that “trials in the criminal justice system don’t work for terrorism. They work for terrorists.” So how do we deal with terrorism and terrorists, realistically, ASAP?

McCarthy: Well, I am not against using the criminal justice system as a component in a comprehensive government response to the jihadist threat. I object to its being the centerpiece of a national counterterrorism strategy, as it was until 9/11, because as a national security matter, that’s counterproductive — it endangers us more than it helps. But when people are arrested in the United States plotting terrorism, and we can prosecute them without having to provide mounds of discovery and testimony describing our intelligence about, say, al-Qaeda or Iran's Republican Guards Corps, then those are cases we should do. And since the best analyses indicate the jihadist threat is more atomized now — i.e., that the ideology is so widely available by the Internet and other means that cells are often forming without the mediating influence of an established terrorist organization — that means we should be able to do criminal cases against such cells without having to compromise our intelligence and our methods and sources for obtaining it.

A national-security strategy to combat Islamic militancy, however, has to have a strong military component. There is simply no substitute for killing and capturing jihadists. We haven’t been hit again since 9/11 because we have often killed and captured more terrorists in a day in Afghanistan or Iraq than we did in the eight years between the time the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993 and its destruction in 2001.

We also have to be realistic about the ideology at the root of this challenge. When we are not chanting the “religion of peace” mantra, we are encouraging Islamic reformers. Of course, nothing needs reform unless it is problematic in the first place. Islam is, to put it mildly, problematic. We don’t need to insult Muslims gratuitously, and we shouldn’t. Neither, however, do we need to pretend we think Islam is a net-positive.

Behind the operatives doing the killing are legions of sympathizers pushing soft jihad — pushing for Islamicization of our culture, court recognition of Islamic legal principles, sharia-compliant financial arrangements, sensitivity-training for our law enforcement and intelligence officers (who are now taught that jihad is the inner struggle to become a better person despite its undeniable history as a military struggle), special access to government agencies for dubious Islamic interest groups, extraordinary limits on free speech in order to suppress information about connections between Muslims and savagery, etc. In their own way, these creeping developments are more insidious for our way of life — with its separation of the religious and political realms — than the bombings, suicide hijackings, riots-on-demand and other less subtle forms of intimidation.

This all needs to be discouraged, and that can’t be done by only applying law enforcement or the military. You have to apply pressure diplomatically, by immigration restrictions, by an aggressive Treasury that tracks and seizes funds. It has to be comprehensive, and it has to start from the premise that, while we hope Islam reforms itself (something we can’t do for Islam), we make no apologies for the fact that we are not an Islamic society and have no intention of becoming one.

What's worrisome, in light of McCarthy's remarks, is that John McCain supports closing Guantanamo.  It's a somewhat understandable outgrowth of his POW past and his annoying prediliction toward centrism, but it also would likely require the U.S. either to release enemy combatant terrorists or try them (with mandatory disclosure of evidence to the defense -- and to the enemy -- based on the ordinary application of U.S. constitutional law).  That, as McCarthy points out, is dangerous to our national security.  And McCain is the most conservative of the three current presidential candidates (barely).

I am also with McCarthy on his point that, "We don’t need to insult Muslims gratuitously, and we shouldn’t. Neither, however, do we need to pretend we think Islam is a net-positive."  I agree that gratuitous insults of Muslims are not helpful.  That is why I questioned publication of the Mohammed cartoons to the extent that it was intended simply to violate the Islamic convention against depicting Mohammed.  I have never seen any point in poking Muslims in the eye.  It wouldn't even be a good strategy if every Muslim on earth was an enemy of the West -- and not all Muslims are.  Going out of the way to Inflame people against your country or your cause is just foolish.  If you're going to come down hard, do it, but don't taunt without taking action. 

Meanwhile, it's impossible to miss the fact that this tree of Islam is currently bearing large quantities of bad fruit.  The tree will be pruned to the extent that it demands to be pruned, by continuing to bear bad fruit.  How much of the tree is left standing at the end of the pruning process is largely up to Muslims.

One Year Ago Today on GINA COBB: Why Closing Guantanamo Is an Extremely Bad Idea

Originally published on March 27, 2007: Why Closing Guantanamo Is an Extremely Bad Idea

"Closing Guantanamo would in no way pacify the critics.  It would simply multiply exponentially the costs, difficulties and burdens of defending America in the war on terror, and it would pave the way for virulent terrorists to be released to fight America again."

Islamophobia and the Muslims

By DemocracyRules

Khaleej Times (khaleejtimes.com) is one of my favorite Middle East news sources.  They are a bunch of vicious antisemitic hate-mongers, but as Muslim News sources go, they’re pretty good.  Now they have published an editorial about the recent meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference countries (OIC).  It was an interesting meeting, mostly because it helps underscore the point that yes, Muslim leaders really are that stupid. 

Obama could never be a Muslim leader, he’s not dumb enough.

The OIC chose Dakar, Senegal as their meeting place to commemorate the place of the mud brick in Islamic history.  The average Senegalese is now raking in $5 per day.  There is also cause for celebration as Senegal slowly begins to emerge from the 8th century.  Unfortunately, they are now moving into the 7th century.  Dakar could have a flourishing white slave trade if only some more whites would go there.  Raiding Europe to get white slaves has become passé in recent centuries.

The main thing the OIC agreed upon is that they hate Israel for taking the land back that was theirs in the first place.  Very enlightened, I’m glad the Islamic leaders went to Dakar and hashed that out.   It was very rude of the Jews to claim Israel before Islam was invented.  Those greedy Hebrews grabbed the Holy Land before anyone else even knew the place was Holy.

The OIC is also terribly worried about Islamophobia.  “Perpetrators of terrorism and violence have been generally accepted as the face of modern Islam, though nothing could be farther from the truth,” Khaleej solemnly opines.  Truly, Islamic leaders seem to have no idea where “Islamophobia” is coming from.  Perhaps from Mars. The solution seems to be to hate Islamophobes, a novel idea, to their way of thinking.  Hate and ignorance has worked wonders for them so far. 

To me, the problem begins with the label “Islamophobia”.  Perhaps a more accurate label would be “Common sense to fear people who want to blow you up -ia”, or “Not liking religions which encourage killing us -ia”.  Of course, Islamists strutting around world capitals carrying signs saying “Behead All Those Who Oppose Islam” could not have anything to do with  “Islamophobia”.  The problem, Khaleej Times explains, is that the West is not tolerant enough.  As far as I can tell, the bathrooms at the OIC conference did not feature toilet paper with Koranic verses printed on them.  They use squat toilets and hoses anyway.

There are a wealth of scholars and experts who could inform these OIC Muslim leaders what the problems is.  My choice would be an Iranian feminist like Asieh, who opposes stonings and honor killings.  Or perhaps Parvin Ardalan, the Iranian feminist who just won the Swedish Olaf Palme Prize, to promote peace and disarmament and combat racism and xenophobia.  She was unable to accept the prize in person because she was ahem, ‘otherwise detained’.

In the speech delivered in Sweden by her sister, Parvan Ardalan says, “I dedicate this award to all the women of my country, to my mother, to the mothers of prisoners of conscience, and to all the other mothers of my land, who while enduring, have taught us how to resist discrimination, so that we too can pass on these teachings to our children and to future generations.” 

OIC: read the speech, it wouldn't kill ya.

Palestinians Celebrate Murder, Racing Toward Their Own Destruction

Palestinians have a death wish, on more than one level.

Michael Goodwin writes ("Palestinian Celebration of Murder Dooms Hope for Peace"):

The pictures from Jerusalem were horrifying: Dead and injured students being wheeled out of a Jewish religious school after an Arab gunman went on a rampage. Other images were disturbing in a different way: These were the pictures of Palestinians celebrating the massacre.

One Year Ago Today on GINA COBB: Democrats Want to Bring Terrorists to America

Originally published on March 7, 2007:  Democrats Want to Bring Terrorists to America