Joe Lieberman has the power...

...to fire Harry Reid.  I found this via Bill's Bytes:

Our country is divided today in a manner not seen since the Civil War. Rogue far-left fanatics, socialists and anarchists, and all those who despise and hate America and would wish it dissolved and replaced by a Marxist multi-culturalist commune of relativistic moral values where all depravities are permissible and the only allegiance is to one's self, and answering not to the will of the American people, but to a "Socialist, Secularist 'Internationale' World Order," have taken over the Democratic Party!

Perverting public opinion with an unrelenting campaign of propaganda in the face of public apathy and complacency, much as the Nazis did in the elections of 1933 in Germany that brought Adolf Hitler to power, the Democrats managed to marginally win elections in 2006 , in some cases winning local elections by merely a few hundreds or a few thousands of votes in constituencies of millions of people, and abrogate the reigns of power from the silent majority!

…………………………………………………………………………….

That is why I would like to take this opportunity to hold Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) to his word for the sake of our troops and the very survival of our nation. Thus I write the following open letter to Senator Joe Lieberman:

Dear Senator Lieberman,

In this most crucial time in our nation's history, and even as our troops lie in harm's way while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid does everything in his power not only to encourage Al-Qaeda and our enemies, telling them that "the war in Iraq is lost," but doing everything in his power to ensure and achieve said defeat at any cost - even at the expense of the blood of our Servicemen by denying them the very bullets with which to defend themselves - I besiege you Senator Lieberman to keep your word and switch sides and become a Republican, in the dire necessity of wresting power, and the Senate Majority Leadership, from Reid and his defeatist Democratic ilk.

Those of us concerned for Israel also realize, from the actions of Senator Reid, House Speaker Pelosi, Congressman Murtha, and their Democratic cohorts now in power in Congress, that it doesn't take a genius to extrapolate that they would leave Israel to its fate, were Israel to have need of us surrounded by a sea of hostile enemies as it is, with as much enthusiasm as they now work to achieve our defeat and for us to cut-and-run in Iraq, have tried to appease Syrian dictator Al-Assad in flagrant violation of established State Department and Administration policy, and keep making overtures of appeasement to a hostile Iran fueling the insurgency in Iraq and defiant of the world community in its dogged insistence on developing nuclear weapons!

All of us concerned about our troops and our achieving victory in Iraq, with the safety and survival not only of Israel but our own as well, and with the direction our country is taking under this present Democratic leadership - with the resulting dire consequences not only adversely affecting our nation's future, but verily the consequent course of history and the future of the world and Western Civilization - see it as imperative that we take the reigns of power from their hands... and only you can do it, Senator Lieberman!

I would like to remind you, that though you become a Republican out of the present exigencies we face as a nation, that at heart you will always be a Democrat in the proud tradition of FDR, Truman, and Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson, that it is the Democrats who repudiated you and made you run as an Independent in 2006 because you were not enough of a "leftist" and a "defeatist" for their tastes, and that it is this Democratic Party hijacked by the far-left, the peaceniks, anarchists, and other fringe groups, which has left you and betrayed you, much as it has America's traditional conservative Democrats!  (emphasis mine - Eric-Odessit)

America is at a crossroads, Senator Lieberman, it faces one of its darkest hours even as our troops in the battlefield are being used as "political pawns," at the risk of their safety and their lives, by such power mongering, unscrupulous, demagogues as Senator Reid, and or betrayed by Democratic leftist ideologues in Congress! The fate of our nation, of Israel, and of Western Civilization hangs on the balance. The Islamofacist terrorist enemy must be defeated in Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever it rears its ugly head of intolerance, oppression, and death, or we let it fester at our peril. It will come knocking at our door once again, much as it did on 9/11!

The time is now, Senator Lieberman! Fulfill your promise, and your commitment to our troops in the field, switch Parties now, become a Republican, end the impasse about the war funding, and wrest the Leadership of the Senate from infamous Harry Reid, the Democrats, and America's enemies!

Our future is in your hands!

Sincerely,

AR

I don't know which of the Hyscience posters signs "AR", but I could certainly sign this letter myself.  I wrote a while ago that Senator Lieberman would have to say: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party threw me out”.  Since the Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate decided to surrender, perhaps now would be a good time for Senator Lieberman to make good on his threat and change the leadership in the Senate.  Hyscience posted Senator Lieberman's contact information on their site.  I am repeating it here:

Washington, DC Office
706 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-4041 Voice
(202) 224-9750 Fax

Connecticut Office
One Constitution Plaza
7th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
(860) 549-8463 Voice
(800) 225-5605 In CT
(860) 549-8478 Fax

You can e-mail Senator Lieberman from his official website at: http://lieberman.senate.gov/

I intend to use this information over the coming weekend.  Please do the same.

Powered by Qumana

My thoughts on the Virginia Tech Massacre

It is too late now to treat it as some news now, but it is not too late for me to comment.  My heart goes out to the victims and their families.  Things like that did not affect me as much as now before I had kids.  But now I always think to myself: "What if my daughter was there?"  I also feel very sorry for the shooter's family.  Not only did they loose their their son and brother, but knowing that he was actually the evil monster that did this must be unbearable.

Now the dust settles a bit, and the whole story gets politicized even more than it was in the immediate aftermath.  It is all very predictable.  The Left screams for gun control.  Their ideal is to ban all guns.  In fact, as it turns out, the guns were (and still are) banned on Virginia Tech campus:

BLACKSBURG - Virginia Tech's recent action against a student caught carrying a gun to class could draw unwanted attention from groups already angry about firearms restrictions on public college campuses.

University officials confirmed that, earlier this semester, campus police approached a student found to be carrying a concealed handgun to class. The unnamed student was not charged with any crimes because he holds a state-issued permit allowing him to carry a concealed gun. But the student could face disciplinary action from the university for violating its policy prohibiting "unauthorized possession, storage or control" of firearms on campus.

Tech spokesman Larry Hincker declined to release the student's name or specifics of the incident, citing rules protecting student confidentiality. But Hincker said Tech's ban on guns dates back several decades.

Students who violate the school policy could be called before the university's internal judicial affairs system, which has wide discretion in handing down penalties ranging from a reprimand to expulsion.

"I think it's fair to say that we believe guns don't belong in the classroom," Hincker said. "In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear."

Here it is again, the ridiculous argument about guns somehow instilling fear in people.  But the ban on guns did not stop Cho from bringing guns on campus and killing a bunch of people.  The gun rights advocates logically point out that had some students who were already licensed to carry weapons been able to bring them to class, the number of victims would have been drastically reduced (via Pamela of Atlas Shrugs):

In reality, Virginia Tech was, as many bloggers put it, a "danger-free zone for armed criminals." The school was one of many to prohibit all guns on campus. Last year, legislation to allow exceptions for licensed and trained gun owners failed to pass the Virginia legislature.

Virginia Tech officials falsely believed their policy meant more security, not less. Its spokesman, Larry Hincker, described the school's anti-gun policy in 2005 by saying: "We believe guns don't belong in the classroom. In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear." He proudly noted that students who had tried to bring handguns onto school property had been promptly suspended.

John Lott, a gun-control scholar, says the problems with such laws is that good intentions aren't enough. "What counts is whether the laws ultimately save lives. Unfortunately, too many gun laws primarily disarm law-abiding citizens, not criminals." He notes that some 40 states now have some kind of law allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed firearms. In most of those states, between 2% and 6% of all adults have such permits, thus giving citizens in a community the size of a university the knowledge that someone other than the local police will have access to self-defense.

So, banning guns on campus was not much help:

Virginia Tech thus went out of its way to prevent what happened at a Pearl, Miss., high school in 1997, where assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a handgun from his car and apprehended a school shooter. Or what happened at Appalachian Law School, in Grundy, Va., in 2002, when a mass murder was stopped by two students with law-enforcement experience, one of whom retrieved his own gun from his vehicle. Or in Edinboro, Pa., a few days after the Pearl event, when a school attack ended after a nearby merchant used a shotgun to force the attacker to desist.

I understand that many people would argue that college students are not known for responsible behavior.  But it seems to me that people who were already qualified and licensed to carry guns should have been allowed to do so.  You see, as it turns out, police are not obligated to protect anybody.  They just have to catch the criminals after the crime has been committed.  I actually first realized this after I read an article on the site for "Jewish NRA".  I could not find it now, but go ahead and browse this site.  While you are there, look at this article (via Pamela of Atlas Shrugs).  This explains how to end school shootings.

It is pretty obvious that guns should not have been sold to Cho, a very disturbed individual with a couple of stalking complaints against him and referral to a mental health facility.  A good computerized data base would have prevented this.  That would be the gun control part.  But in case of a terrorist act or someone who just snapped there would be no previous data available.  Even if the guns are outlawed, people who intend to do harm will find a way, including obtaining guns illegally.  Armed citizens who are qualified to use firearms would be the only way to minimize the damage.

Powered by Qumana

New essay by Bill Wittle

Bill Wittle does not know me.  But he is the guy who inspired me to start writing articles for other blogs, which eventually resulted in this blog.  He has a new essay up.  Just go read it.  And read the rest of his stuff, while you are at it.

Powered by Qumana

A sane (and brave) Saudi journalist

I found (don't remember how) this from MEMRI:

Saudi Columnist: 'The Right of Return Is an Illusion'

In two recent articles in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa, Saudi columnist Yousef Nasser Al-Sweidan argued that the Palestinian refugees' right of return is an idea that cannot be implemented, and that the only solution is for the refugees to be naturalized in the countries where they currently reside.

The following are excerpts from the articles:

The Right of Return - An Idea that Cannot Be Implemented

In the first article, published March 5, 2007 and titled "On the Impossible [Idea] of the Right of Return," Al-Sweidan wrote: "...The slogan 'right of return'... which is brandished by Palestinian organizations, is perceived as one of the greatest difficulties and as the main obstacle to renewing and advancing the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians based on the Road Map and a two-state solution.

"It is patently obvious that uprooting the descendents of the refugees from their current homes in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and other countries, and returning them to Israel, to the West Bank, and to Gaza is a utopian ideal and [a recipe for] anarchy. More than that - it is an idea that cannot be implemented, not only because it will upset the demographic [balance] in a dangerous and destructive manner, and will have [far-reaching] political, economic and social ramifications in such a small and constrained geographical area, but [mainly] because the return [of the refugees] stands in blatant contradiction to Israel's right as a sovereign [state], while the Palestinian Authority lacks the infrastructure to absorb such a large number of immigrants as long as the peace process... is not at its peak..."

The Refugee Problem is the Result of Mistakes By the Host Countries

"Clearly, the refugee problem is mainly the result of cumulative mistakes made by the countries where [the refugees] live... such as Syria and Lebanon, which have isolated the refugees in poor and shabby camps lacking the most basic conditions for a dignified human existence. Instead of helping them to become fully integrated in their new society, they let them become victims of isolation and suffering... Later, the worst of all happened when Arab intelligence agencies used the Palestinian organizations as a tool for settling scores in internal Arab conflicts that probably have nothing to do with the Palestinians...

"The Israelis, on the other hand, were civilized and humane in their treatment of the thousands of Jewish refugees who had lost their property, homes and businesses in the Arab countries, and who were forced to emigrate to Israel after the 1948 war. The Israeli government received them, helped them, and provided them with all the conditions [they needed] to become integrated in their new society...

"The lies of the Syrian Ba'th regime, and its trading in slogans like 'right of return,' 'steadfastness,' 'resistance,' 'national struggle,' and all the other ridiculous [slogans], are evident from the fact that, to this day, dozens of Palestinian families [remain] stranded in the desert on the Syrian-Iraqi border, because the Syrian regime refuses to let them enter its horrifying Ba'th republic and return to the Yarmouk [refugee] camp.

"The Arab countries where the Palestinians live in refugee camps must pass the laws necessary to integrate the inhabitants of these camps into society. [In addition, they must] provide them with education and health services, and allow them freedom of occupation and movement and the right to own real estate, instead of [continuing] their policy of excluding [the refugees] and leaving the responsibility [of caring for them] to others, while marketing the impossible illusion of return [to Palestine]..."

The Refugees Don't Need Another 60 Years of Misery

In the second article, published March 16, 2007 and titled "Naturalization is the Solution," Al-Sweidan wrote: "There is no doubt that the Palestinian refugees in Syria and Lebanon - who have for many long years been fed by their Arab hosts on impossible dreams and on shiny promises that were soon broken - do not need another 60 years of misery, wretchedness and suffering... in order to figure out for the thousandth time that all the talk about the 'bridge of return' is [nothing but] nonsense and deceit - a fairytale that exists only in the old, worn-out demagogy of the Arab propaganda...

"In reality, there is no 'bridge [of return]'... except for the bridge that we now must pass... called the peace process and normalization of relations between the Arabs and Israel. Undoubtedly, the Arabs cannot continue to avoid the implementation [of the peace process], which brooks no further delay. [Any delay] will have a heavy price for the Arab societies in the present and in the future, considering the sharp strategic changes [occurring] in the Middle East. [These changes] demand an immediate and final solution to the Arab-Israeli conflicts, and [require] the two sides to direct their joint energies and efforts towards confronting the Iranian nuclear threat which imperils us all."

The Inevitable Solution is to Naturalize the Refugees in the Host Countries

"As the Middle East peace process gains momentum, and as the regional and international forces remain committed to the need to resolve this [conflict]... there is a growing necessity for a realistic, unavoidable and bold decision that will provide a just solution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees by naturalizing them in the host countries, such as Syria, Lebanon, and other countries.

"Even though this is a humanitarian [project], it requires intensive efforts on the legislative, economic, logistic, and administrative levels, in order to integrate the Palestinians organically into the social, economic and political fabric of the Arab societies...

"By every conceivable and accepted criterion, naturalizing the refugees [in the Arab countries] is the inevitable solution to [this] chronic humanitarian problem. The fact that [this solution] constitutes an important part of the overall peace process and of the historic reconciliation between the Arabs and the Israelis will help to reinforce [the naturalization process] and to perpetuate it."

I could not decide which part is a good part to excerpt, so here is the whole thing.  It is particularly remarkable that this journalist compares Israel favorably to the Arab countries and talks about the forgotten refugees: the Jews from the Arab countries.  There is a good reason why they are forgotten: they got integrated into Israel and no longer are refugees.

Powered by Qumana

New information on LGF post

Little Green Footballs posted this on Friday:

A candidate for the Green Party in Vancouver reveals the sick mentality of the Truther “movement,” as he stands by an editorial in which he took joy in the mass murder attacks of 9/11: Green candidate stands by remarks praising 9/11. (Hat tip: Joel.)

A federal Green party candidate in Vancouver-Kingsway is standing behind a controversial editorial he wrote more than four years ago in which he describes the falling of the World Trade Center twin towers as “beautiful.”

The editorial, entitled, A Revolting Confession, was first published on Nov. 28, 2002 in an alternative newspaper, The Republic of East Vancouver, which Kevin Potvin founded.

I have cousins in Vancouver, so I decided to ask them about this a$$hole.  Also, since I myself happen to be Jewish, any leftist creep who might be Jewish causes personal embarrassment to me. "Potvin" sounds Jewish, so I asked my cousins about that also. Here is my cousin Sveta's answer:

Hi Eric,
Kevin Potvin is not Jewish, he was born in a small town in Ontario and now lives in a bad section of Vancouver. He owns and operates an extremely left wing, biased by his own admission , newspaper that I never heard of until now. He wrote that insane article 4 or 5 years ago and nobody noticed except morons that read his rag. Now he is in the news because his article was reprinted in the mainstream Canadian magazine. He wants to run in the next federal election as a representative of a Green Party, a party that has no issues besides environment and has no representatives in the parliament. Thanks to that article , Green Party is now in the lime light and it makes all the 'tree huggers' very upset that this moron is speaking under their party banner. There are calls for him to leave the party and to issue 'deep apology'. But over all it is a very marginal news item and I don't think is worthy of anyone's attention.
Take care,
Sveta

So, I am happy to report that this idiot is sufficiently marginalized.  Good for our neighbors to the North.

Powered by Qumana

Disagreement between friends

Freedom Now, my friend and fellow member of the Sand Diego Chapter of Protest Warrior, disagreed with my posts on the British-Iranian crisis.  His comments are here and here.  Now, obviously, this is a disagreement between friends, people who share the same goals, like defeating Islamo-Fascism and defending Western Civilization.  This is what loyal opposition used to be about: arguing about the means to achieve common goals.  But I digress.  Back to my argument with my friend.  He does not think that the Brits surrendered to the Iranian demands.  He also thinks that mine and others' disappointment about the whole thing drives a wedge between us and Britain, undoubtedly one of our most loyal allies and the most significant ally at that.  I don't think that my criticism of the British rules of engagement and the Royal Navy personnel is enough to drive that wedge in.  So, I would like to ask my friend to explain why I am wrong on that point.  I would like also to ask my friend to explain why he does not think that the British Government surrendered to Iranian demands.  I suspect that the release of the Iranians we captured in Iraq is coming.  That would constitute our surrender along with the Brits.

Let me elaborate a bit on my own point.  What I lamented in my posts (and nothing changed since) is the attitude.  The attitude of not treating the war we are in like a real war.  This attitude is shared to a large extent by our own Government, by the Administration that both my friend and I support.  Instead of defining the enemy at least by ideology, the enemy is defined by merely tactics that he uses, i. e. War on Terror instead of War against Islamism.  Political Correctness runs amok.  The Government makes no effort to explain why we have to fight.  The explanation of the war, including the Iraqi theater, is left to the bloggers.  Believe it or not, propaganda is a vital part of the war effort.  And it is totally neglected.  The mainstream media plays the role of Axis Sally, and the Administration makes no effort to counter it.  No achievements, no heroic deeds are reported.  In my post I mentioned the BBC refusing to air a docudrama about a Victoria Cross winner in Iraq.  But our MSM is no better.  And apparently the British rules of engagement require asking for approval from London before firing on hostile forces.  We are losing the war of public opinion, and, if things don't change, we will lose the war itself.

Powered by Qumana

Curchill is crying

It might have been apparent from my numerous links to The Churchill Centre site that I am a great admirer of Sir Winston Churchill.  I consider him the greatest statesman of the 20th Century.  There are some others that come close.  Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher come to mind.  But Churchill led the Free World all alone at the time of great peril.  Some people say that America won World War 2, others say that Soviet Union won that war.  But without Churchill standing up to the Nazis there would not be the war to win.  People of Europe would basically have a choice between Stalin and Hitler: not a good choice to have.  Well, I found the photoshop below via Bill's Bites (originally posted here):

After seeing this picture I wanted to cry myself.  Basically the British rules of engagement were akin to a Spitfire or a Hurricane pilot observing German bombers approaching England, but being ordered not to shoot them down until the pilot makes sure that they actually intend to bomb, which would happen after the bombs start dropping.  Here is Austin Bay's analysis of the British surrender.  There is nothing to excerpt.  Just read it.  And here is Dennis Prager's article.  It is all very sad, really.

Powered by Qumana

Mainstream Media at its best

This is via LGF:

The producer of a tax-financed documentary on Islamic extremism claims his film has been dropped for political reasons from a television series that airs next week on more than 300 PBS stations nationwide.

Key portions of the documentary focus on Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser of Phoenix and his American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a non-profit organization of Muslim Americans who advocate patriotism, constitutional democracy and a separation of church and state.

Martyn Burke says that the Public Broadcasting Service and project managers at station WETA in Washington, D.C., excluded his documentary, Islam vs. Islamists, from the series America at a Crossroads after he refused to fire two co-producers affiliated with a conservative think tank.

Just read this and the LGF post.

Powered by Qumana

Mothers of soldiers visit their congressman

I found this via Atlas Shrugs.  A bunch of mothers, whose kids are fighting the Islamo-Nazis in Iraq, visited their congressman and told him what they think of his vote to set the deadline for withdrawal.  Just watch it.  I doubt that these mothers really want their kids to be in combat.  I am sure they would prefer their kids be safe at home.  But they know that there is a job to be done, and their kids are doing it, while Democrats in Congress make their job harder and more dangerous.

Powered by Qumana

The Left really does support the new Nazis

I often say that the Left is Nazi-sympathizing.  But I used to think that they do that without completely realizing who they sympathize with.  But this is absolutely amazing.  It turns out, they know exactly who they support (via LGF):

...Kassass's evaluation of the situation in Egypt was echoed in the exchanges of Sadala Mazraani of the Lebanese Communist Party, and Ali Fayyad of Hizbullah. Mazraani admitted that during the civil war in Lebanon, Islamists and socialists were fighting each other, and argued that we should learn from the successes of the anti- fascist front of WWII, the nationalist revolution of the 1950s in Egypt and the non-aligned movement of the 1960s, when imperialism was on the defensive. He pointed out how Latin America is uniting with the Middle East against the common enemy, and said it was more a matter of coordinating movements that have recognized common goals. "The Lebanese Communist Party actively works with Hizbullah against the occupation and in elections, both trying to unite Lebanese society to fight Israel and Zionism."

Ali Fayyad of Hizbullah backed up Mazraani, though he complained that, "many socialists in Europe still refuse to work with us, calling us 'terrorist'". He admitted that Islamists are conservative and often don't want to work with the left, especially extremists like Al-Qaeda, which "will not work with anyone and will fail". Then there are the liberal Muslims who don't care about the war and occupation, lack a clear position on imperialism, and as a result, actually ally with it. "The differences of Hamas and Hizbullah with the left are minor -- family and social priorities -- and at the same time, the Islamic movement must apply democracy, which is really the same as shura. Democracy is a bridge to cross to a better world. We should avoid intolerance in governance, whether it's Islamic or not, and forcing religion upon people." He referred to Gramsci's argument about creating a common front at important historical junctures to induce historical change, after which the different groups can go their separate ways.What a lovely irony to have an Islamist quoting a Western communist theorist.

"By working with Islamic groups in an open way, the left can have a positive impact on Islamic movements, and vice versa."

The international left, as represented at the conference, emphasized practical ways to reach out to the broader Muslim community, as reflected in conference forums on such projects as twinning UK and Palestinian cities, countering the boycott of the Hamas government in Palestine with a boycott of Israel and Western firms that provide military equipment to Israel, countering Islamophobia -- in a word, citizens' diplomacy.

James Clark of the Canadian Peace Alliance described how the anti-war coalitions are now supportive of Muslims who find themselves targets of racial and religious profiling and no-fly lists, and that there is active work in the peace movement to counter Islamophobia, "which the governments use to fan the flames to generate support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are committed to defend all civil liberties. "On the wall of the prayer room at Ryerson University in Toronto, someone's spray painted 'Die Muslim'. The administration refused to condemn this as hate crime, so we organised a petition and a campaign to counter Islamophobia, and as a result, the head of the Islamic students' organization was elected president of the students' council. So you can use such incidents to educate and mobilize people." Clark vowed that the Canadian peace movement, inspired by the Arab resistance in Lebanon and Iraq, would work with Muslims to defeat imperialism.

Johannes Anderson of Denmark criticized the Danish left for not standing behind Muslims during the cartoon controversy, allowing a weak prime minister to emerge unscathed. "I've changed through the past years and grown through criticism. We should not be afraid of it. We fight for democracy in the Middle East and Europe against neo- liberalism which is taking away our rights everywhere."

I can't believe I just linked to Al-Ahram.  But here it is.  The Left now knowingly cooperates with Muslim Brotherhood, an organization with clear Nazi ties.

Powered by Qumana

Bernard Lewis's lecture

Here is the link to the lecture.  Just read it.  It is crucial for understanding who we are fighting and why.

Powered by Qumana

What happened to Britain?

I did not comment on the British sailors and marines taken hostage (or should we call them POWs?) while they were still held, because there was a lot of questions about the whole thing.  Now things are clearing up.  During their press conference it became pretty clear why they did not fight back.  Basically by the time they knew beyond any doubt that the Iranians had hostile intents, they were already surrounded, outgunned and outnumbered.  Normally in war people surrender in such circumstances, so the Brits can't be blamed for surrendering.  What they did afterwards is another story.  But first about how they were taken.  The rules of engagement are faulty.  If the Brits opened up on the Iranians while they were approaching, none of this would have happened.  According to some people I asked, our guys would have done exactly that.  HMS Cornwall could have sunk them all, but they were ordered not to shoot.  And by the time the British boarding party was surrounded, they could not without killing their own guys.  But then the Brits just went along with the Iranians.  It seems to me that the reason for that is the attitude displayed by one of the released sailors during their press conference.  He said: "Iranians are not our enemies.  We are not at war with Iran".  That attitude made an act of war into a misunderstanding, so they did whatever they could to get out of this situation.  And if this required humiliating their country, so be it.  Could you imagine Royal Marines defending Port Stanley saying: "Argentineans are not our enemies.  We are not at war with Argentina" after Argentinean troops landed on Falkland Islands?  But evidently people still don't understand that we are at war and don't understand the nature of the enemy.  So they participate in the disgraceful TV appearances (via LGF).  Then they sell their story for big bucks.  I am not even adding my own comments to this: there is nothing to add to LGF's post.  Someone might say that I should not be judging them: I am not in this situation and don't know what I would do.  True, but at least I know who the enemy is.  Therefore, I at least can hope that should I be in this situation, I might be strong enough to just give my name, rank and serial number.  At least I know what I should strive for.

The problem does not affect just those sailors.  It affects the whole country of (formerly) Great Britain.  This is also via LGF:

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Government backed study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history 'as a vehicle for promoting political correctness'.

The study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills, looked into 'emotive and controversial' history teaching in primary and secondary schools.

It found some teachers are dropping courses covering the Holocaust at the earliest opportunity over fears Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic and anti-Israel reactions in class.

The researchers gave the example of a secondary school in an unnamed northern city, which dropped the Holocaust as a subject for GCSE coursework.

The report said teachers feared confronting 'anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils'.

So, the teachers are afraid and quite ready to sacrifice the historical truth on the altar of political correctness.  Meanwhile, the BBC (no, I am not linking to it) does this (also via LGF):

Amid the deaths and the grim daily struggle bravely borne by Britain's forces in southern Iraq, one tale of heroism stands out.

Private Johnson Beharry's courage in rescuing an ambushed foot patrol then, in a second act, saving his vehicle's crew despite his own terrible injuries earned him a Victoria Cross.

For the BBC, however, his story is "too positive" about the conflict.

The corporation has cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.

The BBC's retreat from the project, which had the working title Victoria Cross, has sparked accusations of cowardice and will reignite the debate about the broadcaster's alleged lack of patriotism.

"The BBC has behaved in a cowardly fashion by pulling the plug on the project altogether," said a source close to the project. "It began to have second thoughts last year as the war in Iraq deteriorated. It felt it couldn't show anything with a degree of positivity about the conflict.

"It needed to tell stories about Iraq which reflected the fact that some members of the audience didn't approve of what was going on. Obviously a story about Johnson Beharry could never do that. You couldn't have a scene where he suddenly turned around and denounced the war because he just wouldn't do that.

Below in that Telegraph article is the description of exactly what he did:

He was cited for "valour of the highest order" after he drove a Warrior tracked armoured vehicle through heavy enemy fire in May 2004 to come to the rescue of a foot patrol that had been caught in a series of ambushes. The 30-ton Warrior was hit by multiple rocket-propelled grenades, causing damage and resulting in the loss of radio communications. Pte Beharry drove through the ambush, taking his own injured crew and leading five other Warriors to safety. He then extracted his wounded colleagues from the vehicle, all the time exposed to further enemy fire.

The following month, Pte Beharry was again driving the lead Warrior vehicle of his platoon through al-Amarah when his vehicle was ambushed. A rocket-propelled grenade hit the vehicle and Pte Beharry received serious head injuries. Other rockets hit the vehicle incapacitating his commander and injuring several of the crew.Despite his very serious injuries, Pte Beharry then took control of his vehicle and drove it out of the ambush area before losing consciousness. He required brain surgery for his head injuries and he was still recovering when he received the VC from the Queen in June last year.

So, the British teachers are scared to teach historical truth, while BBC, which used to be the voice of Freedom 65 years ago, effectively spitting on The Few.  I am afraid "we shall never surrender..." will never again be heard in Britain.  Churchill must be turning in his grave.

Powered by Qumana

My friend's brother...

...is a US Army officer.  He has just got back from Iraq, and my friend invited me to join him and his brother for lunch last Thursday.  I am going to try to re-cap what I've learned.

My friend introduced me by saying: "Eric counters the leftist demonstrations", to which his brother replied with a question: "Protest Warrior?"  Needless to say, I was pleased that he knew about us.  My friend's brother was in Ramadi.  I asked him about the attitude of the locals toward Americans.  He replied that initially, when his unit just got there, everybody hated them, but now it is different.  It's not really surprising: after all, Ramadi is in the Sunni Triangle.  But then, they started fixing infrastructure, providing security and generally improving people's lives, while relentlessly pursuing the bad guys, and things started to change.  Now things are relatively quiet.  The local police are very effective.  They are former insurgents for the most part, but, as he put it, "they are joining the winning team".  In contrast, the Iraqi army units in Ramadi are not very effective: they are mostly Shias from the South and are not trusted by the locals.  We asked if there was a lot of fighting.  He said that initially it was pretty bad: the insurgents were mounting coordinated attacks daily, in several places around the city, in large numbers attacking fixed American positions.  To some extent it must have made thing easier: it was essentially conventional warfare.  It does not happen any longer.  The insurgents might take pot shots at our guys, but that's about it.  The locals inform on them: they are tired of fighting.  And, as I've said before, many insurgents switch sides and join the police.  People are still afraid to show too much friendliness toward our guys: "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is still there.  But the locals do cooperate with the authorities.  We asked whether the insurgents were locals or foreigners for the most part.  He said that the insurgents were mostly locals, but the suicide bombers are mostly foreigners from all over the Muslim world.  Out of curiosity I asked whether there were any Chechens fighting our guys.  He said that he hasn't seen any, but he heard of them.  He also said that some formerly hot places like Tal Afar are completely pacified, while Ramadi is almost pacified.  We asked what our guys do if somebody starts shooting at them from some building.  He said that usually our guys shoot back and call for a couple of tanks.  If the bad guys are still shooting by the time the tanks arrive, the tanks eliminate them.  If after a couple of shots from tank cannon the bad guys are still there, they call for an air strike.  I asked if the bad guys hide behind the civilians.  He said that they perhaps would, but the buildings used by the bad guys are all empty: the locals don't want to be there and simply abandon those places.  I asked him whether General Petraeus, the new commander in Iraq, is any good.  He said that while he does not know personally, he's heard good things about him.  However, he did mentioned that Petraeus has a bit of MacArthur complex: he always has a bunch of reporters following him.  I replied to it that MacArthur did get a job done.  Besides, some good PR would not hurt right now.

Here is the bottom line that I got out of it.  The new tactics is basically creating a sharp contrast: cooperate with or at least do not resist the authorities, and your life will be really nice.  Join the insurgency, and you won't have a life.  And this is working, as it should.  People for the most part do not want to fight anybody.  They just want to be left alone.  Whoever gives the people a chance at peaceful life will ultimately win.  Thus, they will not be on our side if we just abandon  them to "Al Qaeda in Iraq".  We just need to be patient.  Any artificial deadline will preclude us from succeeding: why would anybody join us knowing that we will just leave by a certain date?  We will go home, but the locals will have to live there.  So, their survival requires them to be on the other side.  That is why we cannot leave by any deadline.  Furthermore, we will need bases there.  Just like we kept bases in Germany in order to confront the Soviets, we will bases in Iraq to project power against the crazy mullahs in Iran.

Powered by Qumana

I am about to forgive Germany, ...

...thanks to their Chancellor Angela Merkel.  I don't really hold any grudges against individual Germans, but I am still angry at Germany as a country and at certain German institutions for what they did over 60 years ago.  Well, I am about to re-consider my anger.  This is via LGF:

Palestinian Authority officials have accused German Chancellor Angela Merkel of "offending the Palestinians' feelings" during her visit earlier this week to Ramallah, where she met with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

The accusations, the first of their kind against a European leader, were made by top PA officials only hours after Merkel and her entourage left Ramallah on Monday.

"She did everything to provoke the Palestinians during her visit," said one official. "She showed no understanding for the plight of our people. On the other hand, she appeared to be very biased toward Israel."

The official claimed that while Merkel refused to meet with families of Palestinian prisoners held in Israel, she focused during her talks with Abbas on the need to release kidnapped IDF Cpl. Gilad Schalit, who has been held in the Gaza Strip since last June. In addition, he noted, Merkel met with the families of missing IDF soldiers during her visit to Jerusalem.

At the joint press conference with Abbas, Merkel refused to answer a question about the Palestinian prisoners in Israel, the official added. "She appeared to be obsessed with the case of Gilad Schalit," he said. "But she refused to even acknowledge the fact that we have more than 10,000 prisoners in Israel."

…………………………………………………………………………….

"We were hoping to show her the wall that Israel built around Bethlehem, but she refused to go there," he said. "President Abbas was hoping to draw parallels between Israel's wall and the Berlin Wall. He wanted to remind Merkel of the days when she lived in East Berlin."

The Palestinian Arabs forgot that Merkel knows exactly what was the purpose of the Berlin Wall: to keep people from escaping to freedom, rather than to keep terrorists out.  I guess, her experience in East Germany really makes her appreciate Western Democracy.

Powered by Qumana

Response to a troll - updated

Update - 4/3/2007

TikiLoungeLizard has responded here and engaged in a debate. So it is official: he/she is not a troll. I apologize for making the wrong assumption.

Two days ago I had one more achievement as a blogger: I had several polite, but hostile, comments on my blog, posted by the same person. Well, technically the term "troll" is a bit premature for this particular commenter: this person still might to engage in a debate. So, let's try to determine whether we are dealing with a troll, shall we? I will reply to his/her comments in this post, and we'll se how the debate will proceed.

The comments were posted here, here (twice) and here. This commenter signs as TikiLoungeLizard, so this is the name I will use in addressing this person.

The first post (chronologically) where the comment appeared was the one about Protest Warrior action in San Diego. I mentioned links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda found by 9/11 Commission, and TikiLoungeLizard commented that Bin Laden was not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The short answer to this is here,, but I will also write this here for clarity. I have the report. Guess what? The links are there. They are listed on page 66 of my edition. That page also used to be available in the on-line edition of the report in Chapter 2. For reasons that I fail to understand this particular page seems to have been removed. But here is the scan of that page 66 from my copy. See for yourself. Note that whatever new evidence that you might claim disproving the links (there are none, but let's just clear this up for the sake of argument) is not an excuse to remove anything from the original report. If there would be any new evidence, that evidence should be added to the original. But anyway, here is the answer regarding the Hussien-Al Qaeda links.

The next post where TikiLoungeLizard's comment appeared was the one about name-calling. It is interesting that TikiLoungeLizard skipped the post in between, where I ask opponents of the war effort a question. So I'll go ahead and repeat this question for TikiLoungeLizard personally:

Are you prepared to abandon the people of Iraq to the perverted monsters who use children in suicide bombings?

Now we can deal with the comment. First of all, the lady I mentioned in my post did not indicate any support for Hezbollah. She just objected calling the kids in the photograph "Hezbo-Jugend". So, TikiLoungeLizard, what else would you call these kids? You say further that you don't support Hezbollah, nor Zionism. So, what's wrong with Zionism? The Left supports all the so-called national liberation movements. Even if they are Nazi in nature. So, the Left supports all the national liberation movements, except one: national liberation movement of the Jewish people, otherwise known as Zionism. If you will claim that "Jewish" means "practicing Judaism", you will be wrong. Jewish, or Jew, is an ethnic, rather than religious, definition. Religion defines Serbs, Croats and Bosnian Muslims much more than Jews: those people all speak the same language and have very close, if not the same, culture, and differ only by their religions. Jews, on the other hand, have and always had a distinct language and a distinct culture. The Left always seems to encourage multiculturalism, encourage preserving ethnic identities. So, why are you so eager to deny me my ethnic identity? For the record, I don't support multiculturalism: I think that we are all Americans, and the language of this country is English. But as assimilated as I am, I still can't change the fact that I am a Jew from the former Soviet Union. That is a big part of my personality, so please leave that to me.

Interestingly enough, there was a time when the Left supported Israel. That was before the late 1960s, when United States started actively supporting Israel, and the Left became the collective agent of influence for the Soviet Union, the 2nd (after Mao) most deadly dictatorship in the history of mankind, regime very similar to the Nazi regime. How do I know it was similar? Read this, this and this. My grandpa told me many times that after signing of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the Soviet newspapers were praising friendship between two socialist countries. I can't provide any links to what my late grandfather told me, but I can link to what grandpa remembered in June of 1945. Note that a military alliance between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was a real possibility. Are you still proud to be on the Left?

There is only one reason for your opposition to Zionism: anti-Semitism. Martin Luther King said: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews, You are talking anti-Semitism." Note that I deliberately provide the link that disputes that he wrote some letter on the subject. So, you are an anti-Semite. And if you know some self-hating suicidal Jews that agree with you, that does not change that fact.

Now on to your 2 comments on the Home Front post. It really pisses me off, when people talk about "exit strategy". What was the "exit strategy" in World War 2? The best answer to the question of "exit strategy" was given by a former Democrat Joe Lieberman:

“In war, there are two exit strategies. One is called victory. The other is called defeat and America has too much on the line in Iraq to accept defeat.”

As for the airline security, you will be the first to scream if real security measures are implemented. Besides, it is said that the authorities trying to prevent a terrorist attack have to be right 100% of the time, while the terrorists have to succeed only once. So it is more productive to fight them at the source, rather than implementing security measures (although, they would not hurt). Perhaps the war in Iraq drains enough Al Qaeda resources away from their operatives in the US, so they weren't able to mount a successful attack since 9/11.

In your second comment you refer to Hermann Goering as a general. You are the first one to do that. You see, usually people refer to him by his wartime rank (Reichsmarschall) or by his position (chief of the Luftwaffe). But those would people who know the history of World War 2. I suspect that this history is not your strong point. Otherwise you would not be on the Left. However, your quote is there in that Wikipedia link. But you see, I don't need to be told that I am being attacked: I already was attacked. My cousin worked right next to the World Trade Center. I know people who escaped. My cousin knew people who did not. My relatives and friends are being bombed in Israel. The nut in Iran denies that members of my and my wife's families were murdered, while promising to do it again. So, don't pull the Nazis on me. It is you who support the modern incarnation of Nazis, even if you don't realize that. Because by opposing the war against the Nazis you support them. So, what I called the Left in my Name-Calling post still stands. The Left is evil, Nazi-sympathizing, indifferent to human suffering and treasonous. I should add "anti-Semitic" and "ignorant" to it.

Powered by Qumana