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

A must-see speech by a Hollywood writer

LGF posted this speech by Evan Sayet, a former writer for Bill Maher.  It is rather long, about 45 minutes.  But it is very good and fun to listen to: the guy is a comedian, after all.  So, I desided to post it here.  Listen whenever you have time.

Powered by Qumana

The importance of the Home Front

I posted several times about my Protest Warrior activities in San Diego.  This particular article is an great reminder of why I consider it my duty to participate in the San Diego Chapter of Protest Warrior and why the only excuse for not being involved at all should be an actual combat deployment (yes, I really think that).

...Carl von Clausewitz is the father of modern strategic thought. His experience was in the Napoleonic Wars, at the dawn of the industrial revolution, but he did not discuss technology. He assumed that armies would acquire whatever weapons were available in pursuit of the traditional objective of war, "to compel our enemy to do our will." When determining the power of an adversary, he notes two "inseparable factors, viz, the total means at his disposal and the strength of his will." With 300 million people and a $14 trillion economy, U.S. means are unrivaled by any combination of enemies in the Middle East. The weakness is in America's will to mobilize adequate resources to sustain the kind of campaign needed to grind down a fanatical opponent. This is the weakness that the enemy has targeted with success. The high civilization of post-modern America seems unable to stand up to the ruthless exponents of Dark Age doctrines.

The eminent British military historian Jeremy Black reconfirms Clausewitz in his study War in the 21st Century, arguing that war "involves a constant– the willingness of organized groups to kill and, in particular, risk death." Material factors are "less important than its social, cultural and political context." In other words, the home front is the decisive theater of war (emphasis mine - Eric-Odessit). American forces that are superior in the overseas theaters of combat may be defeated, not by any failure of those who are there  risking death, but by the betrayal of those who are consumed by domestic luxuries and cannot bring themselves to think about the brutal realities of a dangerous world.

…………………………………………………………………………….

Today, the U.S. Congress is a quarrelsome place. Proposals to micro-manage the Iraq War show no consistent thought or grasp of strategy. Fight al-Qaeda, but no other foes. Support the troops, but don't let them win before they are pulled out at some arbitrary date. The only unifying themes are partisanship and political ambition. This is the behavior that doomed democratic Athens, and which will render all the marvelous new military technology useless.

Please read it all.  And please participate in our counter-protests in the future.

Powered by Qumana

Name-calling

Whenever I participate in countering the leftist demonstrations, I like to question the leftists about their beleifs.  I always try to show them that if they are truly liberal and consistent in their beliefs, then they should not be supporting what they support.  So, during last Saturday demonstration I gave one leftist lady a flier with this photograph on it:

I told her that I call this "Hezbo-Jugend", to which she replied: "Let's not call people names".  Of course, the obvious response to her admonition is another question: "What else would you call a bunch of kids in a Hezbollah summer camp, raising their right hands in Nazi salute?".  On the other hand, the leftists are never shy about calling people names.  Last Saturday I was called "a criminal", and one of our marines was called "a baby killer".  Dennis Prager, who I respect immensly, often says that, while the Right often considers those on the Left silly, uneducated and misguided, the Left often thinks of those on the Right as evil.  Perhaps this could be explained by the common misconception that Fascism and Nazism are on the Right.  But I am about to break with tradition of considering the Left stupid or misguided.  Burning US soldier in effigy is evil.  Supporting the people who train kids in the picture above is supporting the Nazis.  Advocating abandonment of the people of Iraq to monsters who use kids in suicide bombings is depraved indifference and evil.  Finally, attempting to force defeat on the United States is treasonous.

There.  I've said it.  The Left is evil, Nazi-sympathizing, indifferent and treasonous.  Try proving me wrong.

A question for opponents of the war effort

A couple of days ago Little Green Footballs linked to this:

Insurgents in Iraq detonated an explosives-rigged vehicle with two children in the back seat after US soldiers let it through a Baghdad checkpoint over the weekend, a senior US military official said Tuesday.

The vehicle was stopped at the checkpoint but was allowed through when soldiers saw the children in the back, said Major General Michael Barbero of the Pentagon's Joint Staff.

"Children in the back seat lowered suspicion. We let it move through. They parked the vehicle, and the adults ran out and detonated it with the children in the back," Barbero said.

The general said it was the first time he had seen a report of insurgents using children in suicide bombings. But he said Al-Qaeda in Iraq is changing tactics in response to the tighter controls around the city.

A US defense official said the incident occurred on Sunday in Baghdad's Adhamiyah district, a mixed neighborhood adjacent to Sadr City, which is predominantly Shiite.

After going through the checkpoint, the vehicle parked next to a market across the street from a school, said the official, who asked not to be identified.

"And the two adults were seen to get out of the vehicle, and run from the vehicle, and then followed by the detonation of the vehicle," the official said.

"It killed the two children inside as well as three other civilians in the vicinity. So, a total of five killed, seven injured," the official said.

Calling the people creatures who did this "monsters" is insulting to monsters.  But the news itself is a couple of days old, so it is not the point of this post.  The Left might be skeptical about this story: they never trust US Government or US Military.  But we know that this story is true because it is part of a pattern.  There was this, and this, and this.  There was this Hezbo-Jugend summer camp.  And then there was the story of a British Muslim couple who took their 6-months old baby on a suicide mission and intended to use their baby's bottle to bring the liquid explosives to the airplane.  Here is another link to that story.  So, I think we can conclude that the story of the terrorists using children in a suicide bombing is not an invention of American propaganda.

And now we come to the question that I wanted to ask the opponents of the war effort, which is the point of this post:

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

You say we should not have gone there in the first place.  Fine.  But does it mean that we should leave?  You say that if we have not gone there, thing like this one would not be happening over there.  It is arguable, but for the sake of this question I'll give you that.  Again, does it mean that we should leave?  I was always taught as a kid that if I break something, I have to fix it.  So, why doesn't it applies to Iraq?  Are you prepared to say that it is not our business?  You call yourselves "liberals" and claim to be compassionate.  So, please explain to me:

How is abandoning the people of Iraq to those monsters consistent with any sort of liberal ideology and compassion?

I'll wait patiently for answers.

More on last Saturday demonstrations

My fellow Protest Warrior John posted his report on last Saturday action here and here.  Meanwhile, my friend Smash is running 4-part series on the events in Washington, DC:

Part 1: The Radicals;

Part 2: Eagles Up!;

Part 3: Infiltration;

Part 4: The Tsunami of Stupid.

The stupid MSM managed to under-report the Gathering of Eagles, but they could not ignore it completely.  We need large numbers.  Large numbers are impossible to ignore.  When will people on my side, presumably normal people, wake up and get off their collective butt?  It seems that in San Diego so-called supporters of the troops and their mission for the most part limit their activity to bitching about "liberals" to their friends who agree with them anyway.  Yes, I am pretty pissed that there were only about a dozen of us countering the moonbats.  Between Free Republic and Protest Warrior it should have been more.

Protest Warrior action in San Diego

Yesterday was a Saturday and a day of big leftist demonstrations all over the country.  Ever since the start of combat in Iraqi theater of the war against Islamo-Fascism the leftists mark the anniversary of the start of the hostilities on the Saturday closest to March 19, the date on which the current hostilities started.  In Washington, DC, the Left was countered by the Gathering of Eagles, a counter-demonstration organized by a group of Vietnam War veterans in order to protect the Vietnam War Memorial from the violent and destructive representatives of the Left.  Needless to say, Vietnam veterans were not the only ones there.  Protest Warriors and Move America Forward also showed up in force.  They apparently had a great success in DC: preliminary estimates are that there were about 30 thousands people on the side of Freedom and that they out-numbered the Left by a ratio of 3 to 1.

The leftists here in San Diego have also come out to play, and the San Diego Chapter of Protest Warrior was ready to oblige them with a counter-rally.  Unfortunately, here in San Diego attendance by our side still leaves a lot to be desired, so we were out-numbered, as usual.  There was maybe about a dozen of us total, including some marines who served multiple tours in Iraq.  Nevertheless we got some news coverage by Channel 8.  Channel 10 also covered us, but they were horribly biased: when our marines were attacked by the leftists, they made it look like it was marines' fault and they were being arrested by police.  In fact, as Channel 8 correctly reported, police had to drive the marines to the destination of the demonstration in order to protect them.  The guy who attacked the marines was on a bicycle, wearing a Palestinian scarf over his face.  As a side note, when he rode by me, I called him "Nazi".  He heard it and, I am sure, was shocked: he did not expect that.  But he rode on.  Channel 10 still has a video on their site.

We had a visitor from Hell:

He was passing out yummy yellow cake cupcakes.  Here is a close-up of the left-overs:

There are some people who still think that there were no links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.  This picture proves otherwise:

Looks like Osama supports Obama for 08.  In al seriousness, even the 9/11 Commission Report admitted that there were links between the two.  It was one of our marines dressed up as Osama bin Laden.

John interviewed Saddam:

Hopefully he will post the audio on the San Diego Chapter of Protest Warrior web site.  Our marines engaged in a spirited debate with the leftists:

While the marines were presenting arguments based on facts and experience, the leftists resorted to calling them brainwashed idiots, demonstrating their "support for the troops".  I actually got to talk to a guy who was reasonable.  He acknowledged that he did not have a solution for the situation in Iraq and that just pulling out would not be a good idea.  When I suggested that more troops might be needed, he agreed that it would be a solution, but insisted that there were no more troops available.

Finally, here are some more pictures of our marines, who, while on a break from combat, enter the battle of public opinion:

I can't even begin to express my gratitude to these guys.

In conclusion, I have to say that we were successful, despite pretty low turnout.  We got the news coverage, and the leftists got pretty pissed off because of that.  We had some fun and we got into the leftists' faces and rattled their cages.  I have to say that comparing them to Nazis and calling them "Nazi sympathizers" is effective at this point because they don't expect that, and it bothers them.  Over all, it was a good operation.  I just wish there were more of us.

Why I wasn't posting for a while

It's been almost 2 weeks since my post about Christina Aguilera.  The reason is because I ended up in charge of organizing a Protest Warrior action by San Diego Chapter on March 17.

In case you did not know, the leftists are organizing big demonstrations all over the country on March 17.  San Diego is no exception.  For details on their plans go to http://www.sdcpj.org/. Here is their flier.
Are you ready to be counted? We need to counter the defeatist message with our own demonstration in support of Victory. We have to make it obvious to the media, to our friends and foes alike, that there are Americans who do not support defeat and surrender. This Global War has a mission for everybody. Those of us, who do not carry guns as members of American or Allied Armed Forces, have to participate in the battle of public opinion.
The details of the operation will follow. For now just mark your calendars and prepare to be there roughly from 1pm to 4pm.
If you are in San Diego and planning to participate, sign up to San Diego Chapter of Protest Warrior message board at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SDPW/, as well as San Diego Chapter of Protest Warrior at www.protestwarrior.com.
You can also e-mail us at sandiegopw@gmail.com or leave comments on the San Diego Chapter of Protest Warrior blog.  You can also just show up in front of the NBC building on Broadway at 12:30pm next Saturday, March 17, 2007.

If you are in San Diego, I hope to see you there.

What is Victory?

My Canadian cousin left a comment on my post about my lonely Protest Warrior action.  While she agrees with the notion that our forces have to stay in Iraq because Iraq cannot be surrendered to Iranian Islamo-Fascists, she still asks: "What is Victory?"  Indeed, there will be no surrender documents signed in Rheims, Karlshorst or on a battleship.  By now it is very widely accepted by friends and foes alike that a Western-style democracy in Iraq is very unlikely in the near future, if ever.  What we have in Iraq is insurgency.  Thus, our forces are conducting a counter-insurgency campaign.  A victory in a counter-insurgency campaign is achieved when the insurgency stops.  Unsuccessful counter-insurgency campaigns in recent history are most often associated with American war in Vietnam and the Soviet war in Afghanistan.  But there was number of successful counter-insurgency operations.  Examples are:

Russian Caucasian War of 1817-1864;

The Anglo-Boer War;

The Philippine-American War (note some anti-American slant of Wikipedia);

Soviet suppression of the Baltic countries;

Soviet suppression of Ukrainian nationalists.

There were more, but this is enough for now.  These campaigns were conducted by democracies, an empire and a dictatorship.  So, there are quite a few differences between these campaigns.  But here is what they have in common:

1. Lack of outside support for the insurgency;

2. Willingness of the government forces to take and inflict casualties;

3. Patience of the government to conduct counter-insurgency operations for many years.

I doubt that the Soviet successes are good examples for us: I don't think we would ever follow in Stalin's footsteps.  Thus, perhaps the best example for us is the Philippines, now the loyal ally of the United States.  A lady who is a dental assistant in my dentist's office told me stories her grandmother told her (she is a Filipino).  Her grandma told her that during World War 2, whenever there was a battle between American and Japanese Navies nearby, the local Filipino fishermen would always rescue the Americans from damaged ships, but finish off the Japanese.  Filipinos fought shoulder-to-shoulder with Americans against the Japanese.  Manuel Quezon, the first President of the Philippines, did participate in the anti-American insurgency in the early 20th century.  Apparently, he used to say: "Damn the Americans! Why don't they tyrannize us more?".  At the time he apparently was complaining about the difficulty of getting people to fight against the Americans (despite anti-American slant of Wikipedia).  So, I think that a counter-insurgency campaign that turned insurgents into loyal allies could be considered successful.  For reference I would recommend The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power by Max Boot and Small Wars Manual by United States Marine Corps.

So, what could be defined as victory in Iraq?  Simple: when the insurgency is over, there will be victory.  We will have to establish presence in Iraq in order to contain and, if necessary, fight against the Iranian Nazis.  It will probably take many years to pacify Iraq.  We just have to have the patience and political will to wait the insurgency out.  We also have to ensure that there is no outside support for the insurgency.  It might take some diplomatic or military action to do so.  But the most important thing is patience.  Without it we will lose simply because we will quit.

Boogie Woogie

I was never a fan of Christina Aguilera. Not because I had anything against her, but because I was not into modern American pop music. Maybe I am simply too old for this. But today I became a fan.

Apparently this song is based on "Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy" by the Andrews Sisters. Click here to listen.

If I weren't told that Aguilera's "Candyman" is based on the "Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy", I would have never recognized the melody, even though it is one of my (and my 6-years old daughter's) favorite Andrews Sisters songs. But then, as the Russian saying goes, a bear must have stepped on my ear when I was little, so no wonder I can't recognize a tune. Nevertheless, Aguilera's song is clearly a tribute to the Andrews Sisters, to American Armed Forces and to American resolve against ruthless enemies. Note the big American Flag in the video with "V for Victory" on it. Note also Rosie the Riveter in the video.

And while we are on the subject of the Andrews Sisters, listen to my favorite of their songs. I'd like to think that they recorded this translated into English originally Yiddish song, made popular by the Barry Sisters, in order to piss off the Nazis. But it was recorded before World War 2, so maybe it is just wishful thinking.