Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for the ‘terrorism’ Category

THE TAVIS SMILEY THING – CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS

Posted by Andrew Roman on June 1, 2010

Tavis Smiley

Ask a liberal this question: If a black man commits a crime, is he, by default, doing so in the name of his blackness? Assuming the criminal did not specifically designate the crime as such, is it fair, or accurate, to say it was a “black” crime, perpetrated in the name of being black?

If a woman commits a crime, is she, by default, doing so in the name of her sex? By virtue of the fact that she is a woman, does it mean that the wrongs she does are automatically assumed to be enacted in the name of her genetalia?

On both counts, it would be a ridiculous assumption … unless evidence supports the claim.

If, for instance, person A (a black man) walks into a convenience store, blows five people away and shouts, “I dole out this justice in the name of my black skin!” can one reasonably assume that the crime was committed in the name of his blackness? Certainly, in his mind, it was … hence, the proclaimation. And what if it is discovered through subsequent investigation that he possessed anti-white literature and posted frequently at militant black-power websites and blogs? Would it then be safe to assume he did so in the name of his blackness?

And what if, person B (a black man) walks into a convenience store, blows five people away and says absolutely nothing about skin color and makes no overt references to the melanin in his skin? Can one conclude the crime was also committed in the name of his skin color? And if ensuing investigations reveal a person who did not involve himself in racially charged activities and did not post at black power blogs, should we still infer he did what he did in the name of being black?

What does the evidence show?

(On a side note, I am vehemently opposed to hate-crime legislation and all the silly post-it-note classifications that liberals attach to crimes. The action is either a crime or it isn’t. The mother of a slain daughter will not feel any better knowing that her baby was murdered by a non-bigot. It’s a matter of values.)

In this country, the overwhelming vast majority of people are Christian.

Does that mean that crimes committed in this country by Christians are necessarily to be considered Christian crimes, even when perpetrator has made no mention of faith and has not referenced his or her faith in the undertaking of the act?

PBS’s Tavis Smiley, an intelligent man by all accounts – and a card-carrying, hard-core liberal – seems to be a tad confused on the matter.

During a recent television interview with Ayann Hirsi-Ali, a Somalian-born Dutch activist and politician who is openly critical of Islam, Smiley broke out his trusted “moral equivelancy” card in discussing the dangers and threats Americans face on a daily basis from radical Christians.

The exchange went like this:

AYANN HIRSI-ALI: The people who were engaged in terrorist activities look like you and me. They look like everyone else here. Major Nidal Hasan, the military guy who, in November, shot thirteen of his colleagues and injured thirty-two – he’s going to be on trial pretty soon, I think this week – (and) the young man, Faisal Shahzad, in Times square, who tried to blow innocent people that he doesn’t know up, these guys are acting on conviction. Somehow, the idea got into their minds that to kill other people is a great thing to do and that they would be rewarded in the heaeafter.

SMILEY: But Christians do that every single day in this country.

AYANN HIRSI-ALI: Do they blow people up-

SMILEY: Yes, Christians, every day – people walk into post offices, they walk into schools … That’s what Columbine was. I mean, I could do this all day long. There are so many more examples of Christians — and I happen to be a Christian, that’s back to this notion of your idealizing Christianity in my mind, to my read — there are so many more examples, Ayaan, of Christians who do that than you could ever give me examples of Muslims who have done that inside this country in which you live and work.

One can only find themselves detached from reality in this way if they are on the left. It is because of Smiley’s leftism that he can say such a thing … and absolutely believe it. (See Attorney General Eric Holder’s unwillingness to admit that radical Islam could be – I say, could be –  a factor in recent domestic terrorist attacks and attempted attacks: “I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion.”)

To begin with, since the beginning of 2006, there have been two post office shootings in the United States, both of which occurred that year.

As horrible as these crimes were, neither of them – nor any of the nearly 40 post office incidents that have occured since 1986 in the United States – were done in the name of Jesus Christ.

School shootings, such as the murderous rampage at Columbine High School, were also not undertaken in the name of Jesus. Rather, these were perpetrated by those who wholly rejected the Christian faith.

The threat of terrorism that exists to the American people by Christians who do so in the name of Jesus Christ is nonexistent. The number of terrorist attacks that have taken place on American soil – or anywhere for that matter – in the name of Christianity is equally quantifiable.

John at the Verum Serum blog writes:

But even if a church-goer gets angry and shoots his landlord today, that’s not at all what Hirsi-Ali was talking about. She’s talking about religiously motivated violence. And when you get to this category, you can bring up the murder of Dr. Tiller, Dr. Slepian and Dr. Britton. Those murders are arguably religiously motivated. But that’s three incidents in 12 years, four if you include Eric Rudolph. And as already noted, that’s compared to three incidents of attempted mass murder (successful in once case) by jihadist in just the last six months.

Has it officially been ruled out that the Times Square bomber was jilted by a girlfriend? Or that he was dissatisfied with Barack Obama’s health care reform bill?

As talk show host Dennis Prager says: “Leftism deprives you of wisdom because it creates a world in which you cannot see clearly.”

wordpress statistics

Posted in terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

POOR OBAMA – THE BIG APPLE SAYS “TAKE YOUR SHOW TRIAL” SOMEWHERE ELSE

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 29, 2010

So, last night the White House taps the Justice Department on the shoulder and says, “You Know, J, I’ve been thinking about this, and it occurs to me that maybe we ought to take these 9/11 terror trials out of New York City and put them somewhere else. It might be the best thing for everyone. So, do me a favor, would you? Be a dear and look into possibly of getting us a new spot, okay? Thanks, hon!”

The New York Daily News reports:

The dramatic turnabout came hours after Mayor Bloomberg said he would “prefer that they did it elsewhere” and then spoke to Attorney General Eric Holder.

“It would be an inconvenience at the least, and probably that’s too mild a word for people that live in the neighborhood and businesses in the neighborhood,” Bloomberg told reporters.

“There are places that would be less expensive for the taxpayers and less disruptive for New York City.”

State and city leaders have increasingly railed against a plan to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Manhattan federal court since Holder proposed it last month.

Sen. Chuck Schumer said he was “pleased” that the administration is reconsidering the location of the trial.

Earlier in the day, Schumer spoke “with high-level members of the administration and urged them to find alternatives,” said the senator’s spokesman, Josh Vlasto.

It’s a shame the White House didn’t fully come to its senses and tell the Justice Department, “You Know, J, I’m fond of you and all – and you’ve done some great work for us in the past – but I really need to give this Khalid Shaikh Mohammed thing to the military boys. It’s really their gig. It’s a war thing, you know.”

Leaders have suggested other venues for the trial, such as the Military Academy at West Point or Stewart Air National Guard Base in upstate Newburgh.

Guantanamo Bay, I hear, has excellent facilities, including air conditioning, padded matresses, and toilets capable of flushing down entire books, if necessary.

Let us not forget that these terrorists already admitted their guilt and were more than prepared to accept their punishment. In fact, they asked for death. There was no problem whatsoever until the coddling hand of modern liberalism intervened. Now there are a whole lot of virgins up in heaven, sitting around, doing nothing.

This trial has no business being held in the very city that suffered the brunt of the damage on September 11, 2001 – nor does it have any business being held in Boston, Philadelphia, Dallas, the Ozarks, Pumpkinpussville, or any civilian venue in the United States.

It was certainly nice of Mayor Mike Bloomberg to take a breather from his war on cigarettes, fatty oils and salt to actually do something that makes sense.

But the real question is: Who’s going to host this farce now that the Big Apple is saying, “no”?

Maybe a deal can be struck with Senator Ben Nelson for an Omaha show trial.

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in Justice System, Mike Bloomberg, New York City, Obama Bonehead, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

EX-CON CONVERTS: YEMEN, HERE WE COME!

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2010

From the “Fancy That” file …

The religion of peace is wrapping its ever-loving, all-inclusive arms around the dregs of American society and inviting them to blow up infidels. According to a new Senate report, it turns out that a number of ex-convicts who saw the light and converted to Islam while behind bars in American prisons have made the most out of their post-incarceration lives by going to Yemen and trying to become new Al Qaeda team members.

(But don’t think it necessarily has anything to do with Islam).

Richard Sisk of the New York Daily News writes:

The focus on ex-cons was part of an intensified effort by Al Qaeda to involve Americans who could more easily slip through security and pose a “significant threat” to carry out attacks in the U.S., said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

“These Americans are not necessarily of Arab or South Asian descent” but “include individuals who converted to Islam in prison,” Kerry said in a foreword to the report by his committee.

As many as 36 of the ex-cons, nearly half from New York, were believed to be in Yemen, and U.S. counterterror officials were on “heightened alert because of the potential threat from extremists carrying American passports,” the report said.

The FBI and CIA were also concerned about a separate group of fewer than 10 Americans without criminal records who went to Yemen, converted to Islam and married Yemeni women to be allowed to remain in the country.

The report quoted a U.S. official who described the smaller group as “blond-haired, blue eyed-types” who fit the profile of Americans wanted by Al Qaeda for terror missions.

So Al Qaeda is racially profiling?

Bastards!

Most interesting (and painfully typical of those who live in Leftsville) is this post from a blogger at the Daily News website called hjo4:

When you keep people disenfranchised, placing them in prison, the only (thing) that’s being done is that we’re creating Home grown terrorist. I often wondered what would America’s reaction be when her own citizens became suicide bombers, I guess we’ll find out.

So, according to hjo4, imprisoning people – which disenfranchises them – transforms these individuals into home-grown terrorists.

In short, we are to blame.

We keep people disenfranchised.

By coming down hard on larcenists, thieves and embezzlers, we alienate them. By laying down the law with child abusers, sexual deviants and violent miscreants, we make felons feel terrible about themselves. By throwing murderers and rapists behind bars, we shackle the souls within.

Where has the self-esteem inside our nation’s prisons gone?

This is one reason why the closing of Guantanamo Bay won’t be happening anytime soon, despite President Obama’s waffle-in-the-sky dreams of eradicating everything George W. Bush.

Real life has a way of intruding on the dreams of even the most idealistic water walkers.

But it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Islam. What about all of those abortion clinic bombers?

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in Foreign Policy, Middle East, national security, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

OKAY, CARVILLE … T-M-I

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 9, 2010

There are some things in this life that cannot – nay, must not – be allowed, in the name of human decency, to be heard in public. I’m not speaking of profanity or vulgarisms, which is (disgustingly) becoming more and more normalized with each passing year. I’m not talking about something as petrifying as Roseanne Barr singing “We Built This City” over the sound system at new Yankee Stadium. I’m not even referring to handing Yoko Ono a hot microphone within three miles of another human being.

This is something far more disturbing, far more chilling.

Putting aside First Amendment arguments – because this is not a Constitutional issue – I can only beseech the powers-that-be that they never again permit such a thing to be unleashed onto unsuspecting television viewers who may be eating, or innocent channel surfers who unsuspectingly  fall victim to fate’s fickle hand by stumbling upon such an unpleasant moment.

Democrat strategist-extraordinaire James Carville – who genuinely scares my wife – is in favor of full body scans at airports. He is tremendously enthusiastic about it, so much so that he is ready to be scanned this very minute … right down to his unmentionables.

He said so.

On yesterday’s The Tony Kornheiser Show, in the name of national security, Carville offered his crotch.

From The Hill:

…Carville laid out, or unzipped, his vision for airport security. But the consummate talker couldn’t help sharing too much information.

Let me buy a [security] card, then go and measure my penis, and let me get on the airplane,” he said.

Fortunately for travelers, and, one suspects, for T.S.A. agents, the scanners are designed to measure things like radiation and explosive levels — not private parts.

Shudder.

The word “penis” coming out of the mouth of James Carville is a phenomenon that no living human being in any corner of existence should ever, ever, ever, have to endure.

Ever.

(Another bone-crunching shudder).

Some days, this blogging thing isn’t all sunshine and cupcakes. Some days are definitely tougher than others.

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in national security, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

THEY’RE THERE … BUT NOT SO MUCH IN POLITICS

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 9, 2010

Conservatism doesn’t suffer from a lack of articulate, eloquent spokespersons. Talk radio is rife with right-sided pundits and raconteurs who espouse the principles of limited government and personal responsibility in remarkably entertaining and informative ways. Some of America’s greatest thinkers are conservative opinion columnists, proffering the greatest and most effective arguments of our time in support of a strong national defense, lower taxes, decreased federal spending, and far less intrusion into our lives.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party (conservatism’s traditional home) is much like water from a faucet in a run down Brooklyn tenement – sometimes hot, sometimes cold; sometimes murky, sometime clear. There are times when someone actually steps up and makes the case for conservative values – like when Senator Lindsey Graham grilled Attorney General Eric Holder on why the 9/11 terror trials are being held in a civilian court instead of a military tribunal, or when Senators Jim DeMint and John Ensign (among others) openly called the constitutionality of ObamaCare into question. (It’s a shame that these are thought of as conservative values, instead of American values).

Then there are those times when even the most mild-mannered among conservatives feel like opening up a giant can of “Shut Your Damn Mouth” and pouring it down the throat of some misguided, wishy-washy, right-leaning yakkity-yakker until the larynx is rendered unusable – like when RNC Chairman, Michael Steele, took a page from the “How To Be Ineffective And Sound Like A Moonbat Songbook,” saying that he didn’t think Republicans could win in this year’s midterm elections.

Way to lead, Michael.

No wonder most Americans view talk radio hosts as the nation’s most influential conservatives, instead of – oh, I don’t know – politicians.

One of my favorite conservatives who “gets it” – and one who is quickly becoming a favorite of conservatives everywhere – is not a politician, if you can believe it. She is, however, the child of one.

These days there is hardly anyone who is as well-informed on the War Against Islamo-fascism (the correct name for the war), or as passionate about this country’s need to fight to win, as Liz Cheney. She has been very outspoken about the incompetency that defines the Obamacrat prosecution of the war.

On Thursday, Cheney spoke out again.

Robert Costa from National Review’s The Corner wrote:

“Over the course of the last year, President Obama has taken his eye off the ball and allowed America’s counterterrorism systems to erode,” says Cheney. “Brennan and Napolitano both said they were surprised to learn from the review released today that al-Qaeda in Yemen was operational. Napolitano went on to say she hadn’t realized previously that al-Qaeda might use an individual to attack us. Yet, in the past year, we’ve had three attacks on America from individuals with Yemeni connections — from the terrorist at the recruiting station in Little Rock to the terrorist at Ford Hood and now the Christmas Day bomber.” Thus, she says, “it is inexplicable that our nation’s top counterterrorism officials would be surprised by a method of attack we’ve repeatedly seen before.”

“The president says he’s using every tool at his disposal but he’s not,” says Cheney. “We can’t prevail against terrorists without intelligence. When President Obama treats terrorists like criminals, reads them their Miranda rights and allows them to lawyer up, he ensures we won’t get the intelligence we need.” In addition, Cheney says, “When the president stopped the enhanced-interrogation programs and revealed our tactics to our enemies, he significantly reduced our ability to successfully interrogate any senior al-Qaeda leaders. Intelligence is key. Let’s be clear: We’re not going to win this war through more intense airport screenings.”

Take a huge bravo out of petty cash.

She’s right, of course.

Something has to be done to get this administration out of Nobel Peace Prize mode and into adulthood.

They need to act like this is a war – a genuine, honest-to-goodness, let’s-destroy-the-enemy-until their carcasses-are-pulverized-into-a-fine-paste kind of war.

They need to act as if the enemy is really out there, plotting terror attacks against America – and not sitting across the aisle trying to keep health insurance “reform” from happening.

Perhaps someone ought to convince President Obama that the Christmas Day terrorist was an avid reader of National Review, listened incessantly to Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, was an anti-abortion advocate, believed that public displays of the Ten Commandments were fine, had a Sean Hannity coffee mug, and was wearing “I Love The Second Amendment” underwear when he whipped out his explosives on that plane.

You know … pretend he was a conservative.

That’ll get the old Waffle Man moving again.

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

THE “GITMO” APPROACH TO DOING THE “OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY” THING

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 7, 2010

A bit of a follow-up to my piece yesterday, “Enough With The ‘Gitmo Is A Recruiting Tool’ Crap”…

According the AFP, Al Qaeda says that last week’s suicide bombing that killed seven at a CIA base in Afghanistan was retaliation for American drone missile strikes in Pakistan.

While I obviously applaud the President for carrying out those strikes (being the slobbering, war-mongering, gun-loving, kitten-kicking ruffian I am), I can’t help but wonder …

Now that Al Qaeda has been very specific in saying what the US has done to prompt them to take their “revenge,” what will Barack Obama do? How will he react?

Will he take a page from his “I Hate Gitmo” handbook and conclude that air strikes – like the existence of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility itself – are a powerful recruiting tool for Al Qaeda?

Makes sense, doesn’t it?

If a prison for enemy combatants in the Caribbean is enough to bring in new suicidal talent to Al Qaeda Re-Up Centers, certainly full-blown missile attacks would be at least as effective in attracting fresh blood. I would think American war planes dropping bombs anywhere is a good propaganda tool for enemies of the United States, no?

Maybe we should quit the whole “dropping bombs” thing, too.

Hmmm.

There must be a way to keep the enemy in check while doing all we can to make them happy.

Man, it’s tough to be President, isn’t it?

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, national security, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

ENOUGH WITH THE “GITMO IS A RECRUITING TOOL” CRAP

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 6, 2010

Yesterday, the President of the United States once again blamed the existence of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for boosting Al Qaeda recruitment.

It is a devastatingly idiotic contention that makes him – and this nation – look stupid and anemic.

At the risk of coming across as an aimless bomb thrower and smear merchant, I truly have to believe that Barack Obama and his senses are no longer on a first-name basis. Despite rumors to the contrary, his ability to dabble in coherence appears to be nonexistent, almost mythical.

I sincerely mean that.

To listen to him say anything anymore is both exasperating and frustrating. With each syllable that bounces out of his pie hole, he embarrasses himself and weakens my country. With the world watching – and with America’s enemies feeling as if they’ve been left the keys to daddy’s Porsche – Barack Obama continues to master the art of clueless charisma, showcasing his inability (or unwillingness) to grasp the real world, reprimanding his own country for the creation of terrorists elsewhere.

It’s not about the bad values or evil deeds of our enemies, because Lord knows if this country only gave in a little bit more, peace could actually become a reality.

No, it’s Gitmo’s fault – which translates into being George W. Bush’s fault – that the “underwear terrorist” was this close to carrying out his mission.

I assure you, I derive no great pleasure in saying that, as a Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama has earned a photograph next to the enty for “mortifying” in the Encyclopedia Do-Nothinga.

It’s as if the realities of terrorism have been annoyances to Obama, drawing attention away from his real work, temporarily derailing his Messianic train, throwing a monkey wrench into his Messianic machine, messing up his great Messianic plan. Such inconveniences, such pests these terrorists are.

As soon as he started talking yesterday, the stomach juices started gurgling in anger. My left eye began to jump.

How on Earth can the President look at his teleprompter with a straight face and effectively bend over like the noodleheaded wartime leader he is, grabbing his ankles for the throat-cutters and suicide bombers of radical Islam, and make the imbecilic claim that Gitmo’s existence is a “recruiting tool?”

How exactly?

This is an explanation I, for one, would love to hear.

Terrorist A: “Hold on, Mohammed. They’re going to be closing that Guantanamo Bay prison.”

Terrorist B: “Praise Allah. Do you think I can get my money back on these pipes, nails and fertilizer?”

Why the hell do liberals think they have the ability to transcend the space-time continuum and make terrorists see the evil of their ways and repent?

Wasn’t the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia a “recruiting tool” as well, according to Osama Bin Ladin?

How did that withdrawal work out for us?

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, Osama Bin Ladin issued a statement in which he specifically blamed the existence of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay for an increase in the number of recruits into the ranks of Al Qaeda. And let’s say that the Yemeni division of Al Qaeda came out with their own statement saying that because of Gitmo, they’re recruitment numbers are up eighty-seven percent in the last twelve months. And what if Al Jazeera hosted a round table of Al Qaeda terror cell representatives from sixteen nations, and among the resolutions agreed upon is one that says recruitment increases among aspiring terrorists are directly attributable to the existence of Guantanamo Bay? And what if a petition that read, “You are right, President Obama … Gitmo has been our greatest recruiting tool. Love, Al Qaeda” undersigned by twenty million terrorists were presented to the Commander-in-Chief, notarized and framed?

Even if all of those things actually happened – and even if Al Qaeda opened up a recruiting office in the heart of Times Square with posters all over the windows and doors saying, “Thank you, Gitmo!” – so what?

Who cares?

What difference should it make?

Does the United States now take its cues from the enemy?

Apparently so, because the sad reality is, the President of the United States is closing Gitmo because it agitates the terrorists.

And he is not kidding.

Welcome to “hope and change” national security.

what is with the big belt, Mrs. Obama?

One can only guess the Obamacratic response if, for instance, Al Qaeda claimed tomorrow that US battleships on the open seas are provoking them to murderous actions. Or that American aircraft carriers are making their otherwise disaffected males jump up to join the ranks of the terrorist class. What if they said they were angered because we don’t do enough in this country to make Ramadan more prominent? Or that MTV drives them to slaughter infidels? Will an emergency session of President Obama’s Cabinet be called to discuss “toning things down a bit” so we aren’t so provocative?

Does the United States now take into consideration that which may or may not offend those who are at war with her?

Seriously, since when does the President of the United States concern himself with the feelings, sensitivities and concerns of Al Qaeda? Since when does the President of the United States have the audacity to blame his own nation for the actions of those sworn to slaughter innocent Americans? Since when does this country acquiesce to the butchers who would slice the throats of our President’s daughters if given the chance?

Honestly, I don’t get it.

What happens once Gitmo closes? Does Al Qaeda finally calm down a bit? Like they did after American troops withdrew from Saudi Arabia?

And if Al Qaeda announced that NBA basketball caused recruitment to jump, would the President suspend play? If the terrorists said that Rachel Maddow was to blame for the boost in new recruits, would he move to have Rachel taken off the air? And what if Osama Bin Ladin said that Michelle Obama’s big black waist belts were to blame for Al Qaeda recruitment increases, would Bammy lay down the law and tell his wife she couldn’t wear them anymore?

Hmmm..

On second thought …

One last question … if the closing of Guantanamo Bay was so critical to national security, as professed by Obamacrats across the board, shouldn’t it have been closed immediately?

As it stands now, it could be two years (or more) before it actually shuts down. That’s a long time to compromise the security of the country.

wordpress statistics -

Posted in Afghanistan, Evil, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, leftism, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

SOME QUICK THOUGHTS ON OBAMA AND WEAKNESS

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 30, 2009

I'm the President of the United States. See how I can bow?

If ever a President looked and sounded as detached, disconnected and disinterested in the events of the day as Barack Obama, I’m not aware of it. Jimmy Carter, for instance, never behaved as if the things he had to contend with were an annoyance, as Barack Obama does. He was simply an extraordinarily incompetent man who made appalling decisions. (And an anti-Semite to boot).

Bill Clinton, too, never made it seem like everything on his plate was as much of an inconvenience as Bammy does. While Slick Willie could charm the trousers off his frothing admirers, President Obama famously dismisses things in that eye-rolling, I’m-far-too-superior-for-this-kind-of-crap way that has become all too familiar. Obama always looks like he’d rather be talking about himself or nibbling on a waffle than tending to the real business of America.

For example, it was quite nice of the President to find the time, before hitting the links, to denounce the recent violence in Iran. For that, he gets a “credit where credit is due” sticker for his notebook. But he looked as if he had a thumbtack poking him in the roof of his mouth, or that he was wearing an over-starched pair of shorts. His apathy – body language, tone and overall demeanor – was as conspicuous as a piece of breakfast potato caught in Michael Moore’s beard. He didn’t even bother to wear a tie, looking as if he hastily grabbed the shirt Michelle had thrown over the top of the chair before he hit the podium.

Two days ago, in his initial statement after the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack, Barack Obama was as weak and pathetic as he has been at any time during his presidency. His response was, to say the least, frail and bungled; and in the aftermath of a terrorist attack that was essentially a success until the very last moment, seeing and hearing the leader of the free world sound as if the keystone cops wrote his remarks was feebleness at its finest. Within a half-hour of saying how “we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable,” he was teeing off at the Luana Hills Country Club.

Obama called the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack an “isolated incident.” His Homeland Security Chief said the “system worked.” Not once in his response did the President have the courage to identify radical Islam as the enemy. Never did the President use the word “terrorist.” Never did he summon the strength or show the necessary leadership in defining the evil that threatens America, as Ronald Reagan did when he called the “evil empire” exactly what it was.

These things matter.

It is simply not possible to develop a strategy against the enemy if one is not willing to identify it and understand it.

Oh yeah … yesterday, the President tried again, making another statement regarding the terror plot. Call it, “take two.” It was better than his first performance, but nothing more than a slice of “too little, too late.”

Leadership, thy name is Obama.

William McGurn, in a column published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, called Obama Puts the Dis in Dissonance,” writes:

Here’s a timely New Year’s resolution the president might do well to deliver to his National Security Council: “When it comes to nasty regimes that brutalize their people, we will never again forget that the most powerful weapon in a president’s arsenal is a White House photo-op.”

The December headlines remind us that we have no shortage of these nasty regimes. In China, the government sentences Liu Xiaobo to 11 years in prison for writing a letter calling for legal and political reforms. In Iran, security forces fire on citizens marching in the streets. In Cuba, pro-government goons intimidate a group of wives, mothers and sisters of jailed dissidents—with President Raul Castro characterizing these bullies as “people willing to protect, at any price, the conquests of the revolution.”

In all these cases, the cry goes up: Where is the president of the United States?

For a man whose whole appeal has been wrapped in powerful imagery, President Obama appears strikingly obtuse about the symbolism of his own actions … With every statement not backed up by action, with every refusal to meet a leader such as the Dalai Lama, with every handshake for a Chavez, Mr. Obama is defining himself to foreign leaders who are sizing him up and have only one question in mind: How much can we get away with?

All of that overseas apologizing for America has had an effect. Each and every bow to a foreign head of state (e.g., the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan) has had an impact. All of that coddling of America’s enemies does matter. All of the nose-thumbing at friends and allies does make a difference.

The world does pay attention.

These are the snapshots of Obama’s first year that will be forever burned in the brains of people across the globe, friends and enemies alike.

Weakness.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Foreign Policy, Islam, leftism, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

MAYBE THE UNDERWEAR BOMBER WAS LONELY

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 29, 2009

Indeed, this is sad.

I’m not suggesting that anyone in the mainstream media would ever claim that it is in any way acceptable to blow up nearly three-hundred innocents in an airplane with a crotch bomb. I’m not saying that Western journalists would ever condone stuffing one’s shorts with a groin blaster for the purposes of detonating it on a commercial aircraft. After all, even those who live left of center have to acknowledge that a terrorist is a terrorist, right? (Unless, of course, he is a freedom fighter, a Muslim holy warrior, or a jihadist). There are some, however, who may not be so quick to refer to the “Ding-A-Ling-Bomber” as the cold-blooded killer he is without trying to understand what drove him to commit the terrorist act he was about 85% successful in executing on Christmas Day.

You see, in the minds of those charged with reporting the news, it’s too simplistic – too monolithic – to suggest that Islam played the prominent role in this man’s evil deed.

It’s a dangerous trend. Americans are guaranteed to hear words like “alleged” and “suspected” long before they hear “terrorist.”

Think back to the Fort Hood terror attack. 

Recall how everything other than Islam was bandied about as the possible motivation behind the murder of thirteen innocents.

It’s no different this time.

It could have been anything that drove Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to his radical undertaking on Flight 253 four days ago.

Was he lonely, perhaps? Could this have been the trigger?

Jon Gambrell of the Associated Press says it appears that way:

Internet postings purportedly written by a Nigerian charged with trying to bomb a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day suggest a fervently religious and lonely young man who fantasized about becoming a Muslim holy warrior.

Throughout more than 300 posts, a user named “Farouk1986″ reflects on a growing alienation from his family, his shame over sexual urges and his hopes that a “great jihad” will take place across the world.

Those posts, beginning in 2005, show a teenager looking for a new life outside his boarding school and wealthy Nigerian family.

Most of all, they paint a portrait of someone who seems lost and needs someone to hear him.

After reading that, I can’t help but blame the non-Islamic portion of the planet for what Abdulmutallab did .

After all, it takes a village to build a terrorist.

Why couldn’t someone – anyone – take time out of his or her busy life to simply hear him? I’m sure he was a great guy otherwise. (Where’s Dr. Phil when you need him?)

If only there were more licensed therapists assigned to terror cells, perhaps through a central planning office, people like Abdulmutallab wouldn’t have felt so isolated, so alone, so prone to mass murdering people on a plane with an underwear bomb.

People think it’s all virgins and salvation, but it’s no picnic being a terrorist.

In another posting, Farouk1986 describes how alone he feels and acknowledges feeling lust, chastising himself for not lowering his gaze around unveiled women. At another point, he warns how “the hair of a woman can easily arouse a man.” He writes that he was considering getting married at 18, as his family “could help me financially.” Abdulmutallab’s father is a prominent Nigerian banker, but nothing apparently came of his marriage wishes.

No wonder he brought an underpants blaster onto an America-bound airplane. It all makes sense now.

*cough*

I need to stop being so amazed at the level of inanity that exists in so many of the things I read.

Honestly, why in hell is this AP story necessary?

What is its purpose?

To make human excrement more palatable? To take us on a fascinating journey into the mind of a murderous thug? To tug on our heart strings?

And where is the word “terrorist” in this story?

Just asking.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Media Bias, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

OH YEAH … AND THERE WERE NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ BEFORE WE GOT THERE

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 29, 2009

CNN's Rick Sanchez

From the “If I Say It Enough, It Will Magically Become True” file …

Perhaps more germane than the age-old question, “How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie-roll center of a tootsie pop?” is the ever-perplexing, “How many times does one have to say something before it becomes true?”

Admittedly, it isn’t easy adding ingredients to the stew of conventional wisdom, but once they hit the pot, it is nearly impossible to flush them out.

These days, a compliant media complex is essential in giving credence to falsehoods, frauds and other fairy tales. (See “Global Warming.”)

Mike Bates at NewsBusters reports on a delicious quote from CNN’s Rick Sanchez illustrating this point. Sanchez was speaking with Octavia Nasr, CNN senior editor for Arab Affairs, about terrorism.

Nasr was commenting on how much of a “hot zone” the border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia is. She talked about how the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack on Northwest Flight 253 was a response to what terrorists believe is ongoing United States assistance to the Yemeni government in fighting Al Qaeda and the Houthis.

Rich Sanchez, in his most matter-of-fact demeanor, seized the opportunity to reinforce his “article of faith”:

SANCHEZ: And good, good, good, good, good, good. You see, this is a point that I’m trying to make, Octavia.

The terrorists weren’t in Iraq. We know that now. There was really a small band of them along with the mujahedeen which became al Qaeda in Afghanistan, as we know. But we have known for 10 years now that these really bad terrorists, the guys we really should have been going after a long time ago, are in Yemen. We knew that a long time ago.

So, the fact that we are now seemingly or the U.S. government seemingly now is putting an emphasis on there and that some of these folks are mad at us for putting an emphasis there, I can’t help but see that finally as the United States maybe going militarily in the right direction in this war on terror.

NASR: You’re right about al Qaeda being everywhere, Rick. It’s very true.

Let’s think about what Sanchez is saying here. (It is the default position of the vast majority of the mainstream media).

His claim is the nation of Iraq, headed by the murderous dictator, Saddam Hussein, was essentially a terrorist-free zone until the United States came along. Terrorism existed in every corner of the world except Iraq. Hussein was minding his own business, bothering no one, until the war mongers from the West swooped in to turn that nation into a terrorist breeding ground. Iraq was a wonderland of fuzzy bunnies, swaying daisies and frolicking kittens until Uncle Sam’s baby-killing machine came a-callin’. If not for the United States, the nation of Iraq would have been free to pursue a life of peace and religious fulfillment.

The problem with the Sanchez argument is … there is not a stitch of evidence anywhere to suggest that Iraq was not a terrorist state. The evidence is overwhelming that Iraq was a steadfast supporter of terrorist activity and a protector of terrorist groups.

Bates quotes from the Clinton State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism 1999 report:

Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999. Although Baghdad focused primarily on the anti-regime opposition both at home and abroad, it continued to provide safehaven and support to various terrorist groups. . .

Iraq continued to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front(ALF), and the former head of the now defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of US aircraft. Iraq provided bases, weapons, and protection to the MEK, an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime. In 1999, MEK cadre based in Iraq assassinated or attempted to assassinate several high-ranking Iranian Government officials, including Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi, Deputy Chief of Iran’s Joint Staff, who was killed in Tehran on 10 April.

Let’s not forget every Democrat who went on record declaring Hussein’s Iraq as a genuine threat:

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” -President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” – Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” – Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” – Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

The invasion happened because following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Iraq was considered, at the time, by almost everyone on both sides of the political aisle, to be the greatest threat to national security as well as to peace in the Middle East and around the world. There is simply no doubt that Saddam Hussein was linked to a host of terrorist organizations. His nation was an undeniable sponsor of terrorism. How could any of that be ignored?

This is not to say that he or Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. No one has ever made such a claim. It was never the position of the Bush administration. But this was a country that violated seventeen UN resolutions. It was a country that had used weapons of mass destruction before. It was a country that repeatedly fired upon American military aircraft. It was a country that had already harbored known terrorists. On those grounds alone, an attack was completely justified.

Think of all things that didn’t work up to that point (the crown jewels of the liberal foreign policy playbook): negotiations, no-fly zones, UN sanctions, pat-a-cake, etc.

The United States no longer had the luxury of simply reacting to Saddam Hussein. Iraq was a nation deemed by both Republicans and Democrats to be a genuine threat – and rightly so. President Bush could not just sit idly by and wait. He warned Hussein. He gave Hussein opportunity after opportunity to comply with the UN resolutions. Hussein scoffed. America took action.

No Commander-In-Chief worth his weight in gold, with his nation at war, presented with the very same intelligence and evidence President Bush was, could do nothing.

President Bush was smart enough to realize that “safe haven” was not just an Afghani phenomenon.

Six years later, our success in Iraq has, indeed, made America safer.

(H/T to Weasel Zippers)

wordpress statistics

Posted in 9/11, Iraq, Media Bias, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

BLAME BUSH, TAKE ONE-MILLION

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 28, 2009

It’s always an adventure of sorts to try and make some semblance of sense out of liberal thinking. Whether one finds himself (or herself) genuinely fascinated at the childlike cognitions that underlie liberal idealism, or aggravated at the disgustingly simplistic – and often destructive – “stage-one” notions that define modern liberal thought, it is often too tedious and far too bumper-stickery to be considered seriously substantive.

Unfortunately for this country and lovers of liberty, Democrats are in power.

Therefore, modern liberal thought must be taken seriously … for now.

Liberals, for instance, were dead wrong about the War in Iraq – on every level. From the moment they decided it was politically expedient for them to be opposed to it, the wrong side of history was theirs for the keeping – a trend for libs. Despite the overwhelming majority of Democrats voting in favor of military action against Iraq, opposition to the war became their “default” position once the invasion began. (Remember, Dems weren’t opposed to Bush because of the war. They were against the war because of Bush).

Indeed, libs still nosh on the dusty nuggets that fill up their ever-stale snack platters, blaming “Bush’s War” on everything from starving children in America’s inner cities to post nasal drip.

The fact is, Democrats don’t want to remember how the post-9/11 climate in America demanded a nation as terrorist-friendly as Iraq – with a ruthless dictator constantly violating Gulf War resolutions and firing on American war planes – be taken down for repeated failures to comply to the terms of those resolutions. To this day, Dems call the Iraqi War pointless, saying Bush should never have gone in. But had a terrorist attack on America been planned from the ever-accomodating confines of Hussein’s Iraq – or if training camps for terrorists had been allowed to thrive there (like under the Taliban in Afghanistan) – given the intelligence at the time, President Bush would have been hung from the village square for doing nothing – and rightfully so.

It’s likely “Bush’s War” will continue to be the beacon of blame for every malady that will befall America in the foreseeable future. One won’t be able to swing a dead mongoose without hitting an Obamacrat finding some way to blame the current state of affairs on “Bush’s War.” From unemployment to terrorist threats, from migraine headaches to anal fissures, it will all be Bush’s fault.

It’s how they think.

It’s their “default” position.

Take, for example, this commentary from Deputy White House Press Secretary, Bill Burton, traveling with the President in Hawaii, as he “recapped” the Sunday talk shows:

Robert Gibbs and Secretary Napolitano made clear that we are pressing ahead with securing our nation against threats and our aggressive posture in the war with al Qaeda. We are winding down a war in Iraq that took our eye off of the terrorists that attacked us, and have dramatically increased our resources in Afghanistan and Pakistan where those terrorists are.

Right on cue – the obligatory Iraq refrence.

So, if I am to understand … it was the Iraq War that led to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day? America’s eye was “off the ball” because of George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq? Conditions were such that if there was no invasion of Iraq, Abdulmutallab would never have been able to board that plane with explosive materials?

Yeah, okay.

But it gets better.

On Sunday morning, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, “One thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked.” And yet, both she and Gibbs announced that the President has asked for all procedures and policies at the Transportation Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security be reviewed. Bush-era policies will, in effect, need to be dissected with a fine-tooth comb … but somehow, the system worked?

How could it have worked when it took passengers and members of the flight crew to thwart the attempted attack? And if it really did work, why the need to suddenly “review” everything?

The terrorist Abdulmutallab got on the plane, didn’t he? What worked exactly?

What are these people talking about?

Do they ever pull their heads out long enough to observe the happenings of the real world?

Again, note the instinct to laud themselves and blame everyone else. “It worked” because we are living in the Messianic Age. Whatever went wrong must be the fault of the other guy – the previous guy. Otherwise, all went quite well … even though a review of Bush-era implementations will be necessary … even though it worked … even though it will have to be looked at … even though it went like clockwork … blah, blah, blah..

Napolitano was forced to do an about-face this morning, admitting that after further review of the painfully obvious, the system actually did not work, saying, “”Here, clearly, something went awry. We want to fix that problem.”

Nothing escapes her.

Meanwhile, expect the “Blame Bush” brigades to keep it up. 

As [President Obama] said in West Point, we must put aside petty politics and recapture the unity that we had after 9/11.

Enough with the “unity” blather, okay? It is this administration that, at every turn, finds some way to place the blame for every blight and blemish on George W. Bush. No matter what the issue is, poor poor Obama constantly reminds the American people that he has been saddled with a host of inherited complications, so extensive and so problematic, that he may or may not be able to rectify them.

Convenient.

That’s how you get a B+. (Or an “A,” if you’re Arnold Schwarzenegger looking in).

wordpress statistics

-

 

Posted in terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

POWDER ON A PLANE – IT’S NOT PART OF A BROADER EFFORT, THEY SAY

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 26, 2009

Not that this necessarily has anything whatsoever to do with religion. It could be that he had a nasty headache. Maybe he was suffering from painful rectal itch. Perhaps a particularly aggressive strain of head lice was causing him a great deal of discomfort. It could be his chick told him that she just wanted to be friends. Who knows what possibilities will be explored by the ever-vigilant mainstream media as they report on Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the man who yesterday brought “a powdery substance” onto a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight and tried to ignite it.

To be perfectly fair, yesterday’s incident is being called “an attempted terrorist attack” by Washington lawmakers and the White House.

Wonders never cease.

From Fox News:

An airline passenger, who claimed to have ties to Al Qaeda, was subdued Friday after he tried to ignite a powdery substance just before landing in Detroit, sources told FOX News.

Reflecting the severity of the incident, a number of lawmakers were tracked down on Christmas Day to be briefed on the incident. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., House Minority Leader John Boehner and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, were among them.

Collins, ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, released a written statement questioning how the passenger was allowed on board and what the TSA can do to prevent such an incident from reoccurring.

It should be noted that the concerns of the entire nation were put to rest when it was announced that West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller – Democrat – Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, will hold some hearings next month.

(That”ll show those powder igniters!)

Meanwhile, Congressman Peter King from New York says Mutallab was on a terrorist connections list.

From The Hill:

The suspect in an alleged attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas was on a list “indicating significant terrorist connections,” Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said Friday.

King, the top Republican member of the House Homeland Security Committee, described the suspect in the attempted bombing of a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit as a 23-year-old Nigerian national with potential ties to al-Qaeda.

“He is a 23 year old Nigerian who is also – it’s been confirmed to me – while he was not on a no fly list, his name was on a list for having terrorist connections,” King said during an interview Christmas evening on CNN.

Keep in mind that just four days ago, the always-aggravating and never-interesting Congressman from Pennsylvania, John Murtha, said that he isn’t convinced that Al-Qaeda is a threat to this country.

An Obama administration official went on to say that he doesn’t believe yesterday’s incident was part of a “broader effort.”

Well, that’s a relief.

Thank God it isn’t a broader effort.

That would be … well, terrifying.

It’s much more reassuring – and far less menacing – when terrorist attacks occur as a continuous series of non-related “independent” incidents,  perpetrated by individuals or small groups tied together only by their evil perceptions of the tenets of one religion.

One has to wonder how many “individual” incidents have to occur before the brainpans who run things in Washington are willing to call the murderous actions of all islamo-fascists hell-bent on our destruction part of a “broader effort.”

Idiots.

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

SEPARATING DEMS FROM THE ADULTS

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 18, 2009

Terrorists are coming to Illinois – yet one more shining example of why national security needs to be left to the grown-ups.

I’ve yet to hear an explanation as to how the United States is better off having these murderous thugs on American soil instead of in an off-shore detention facility. I’ve yet to hear a coherent argument as to how creating government jobs to man the Thomson Correctional Center (i.e., taking money out of the economy through taxation just to redistribute it back to others in the form of paychecks) is a plus for Illinois. How does granting Constitutional rights to terrorists help America? How is this country more secure with these examples of human excrement under lock and key in the American Midwest?

The American electorate knew (or certainly should have known) exactly what they were getting when they voted President Obama into office last year. The preponderance of evidence indicating that Obama was, indeed, a hard-core leftist was hard to miss. And yet, 52.7% of us elected a man ill-equipped to run a bingo game, let alone prosecute the ongoing war against Islamo-facist terrorists.

Now, eleven months later, poll numbers are showing a whole lot of people suffering from good old fashioned buyer’s remorse.

The fact is, if the President of the United States hasn’t the courage to unambiguously identify that which is evil, and then stand up to it, the White House is without an adult at the helm.

As Eric at the great Vocal Minority blog often says, “Welcome to the future, suckers.”

An insight into the President’s “maturity” level in dealing with evil can be found by going back to the campaign (among other instances). In one of his most critical responses from the famed Saddleback Presidential Forum in August, 2008, when asked directly if he believed in the existence of evil, Obama responded that evil did exist and that it had to be confronted. (Notice his choice of words then – to confront evil rather than defeat it).

Obama said:

We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children.

Whereas his opponent, Senator John McCain, unmistakably identified the evil of Islamo-facist terrorism as the “transcendant challenge of the twenty-first century,” and said that it needed to be defeated rather than confronted, then-Senator Obama went on to say that evil had to be met with humility.

What?

This is precisely why Democrats cannot be trusted or taken seriously on so many of the critical issues of our time – particularly the War on Terror (or whatever they call it now). They reflexively respond to critical realities with quixotic, romantic, feel-good, college-campus adolescent poppycock. They advocate childish solutions to adult real-world situations. Their perceptions are dangerously awry. To Obama, inner-city violence exists on the same plane as terrorism. This thinking, tragically, is common in liberal-land … and it’s infuriating.

It’s manifested itself in having five terrorists – including the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks – stand trial in a civilian court in New York City.

In a now infamous article penned by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed in the Los Angeles Times last year, this thinking was taken a step further:

If most Muslims truly reject terrorism, why does it continue to flourish in Muslim lands? What these results indicate is that terrorism is much like other violent crime. Violent crimes occur throughout U.S. cities, but that is no indication of Americans’ general acceptance of murder or assault. Likewise, continued terrorist violence is not proof that Muslims tolerate it. Indeed, they are its primary victims.

Intellectual dishonesty and out-of-context assertions are aggravating.

Terrorism is much like other violent crime?”

How?

Is Mother Teresa much like Adolf Hitler because they breathed air, required water to live and were both homo sapiens? Yes, a rapist in St. Louis, for example, is an abysmal excuse for a human being. A murderer of innocents in Louisville is a horrible person and should be put to death (if applicable) … but neither of these pieces of human debris is a national security risk, are they?

Context!

The fact is, people in this country get up and rally openly against violent crime in the form of neighborhood watches all the time. Folks commonly gather in public places in America and openly take positions against what they perceive as injustices. If anyone can show me the last Muslim rally anywhere openly denouncing those who use Islam to justify terrorism and ghastly violence, I’d like to be directed to the article or video that reported on it.

Equally, police all over this country fight the good fight to keep streets on a daily basis, precisely because crime is something that must be kept under control as much as humanly possible. Does anyone claim the “threat” of violence in our cities is overrated?

We keep hearing from the left that only a small percentage of people in the Muslim world are sympathetic to the likes of Osama Bin Ladin.

So what? What does that mean exactly?

If the percentage were, say, two points higher, then the threat should be taken more seriously? How about six points higher? How about that big hole in Manhattan to illustrate what a small percentage of killers can sccomplish? That “small percentage” of people ultimately make up a huge grand total, don’t they? It’s certainly a number that eclipses the amount of violent criminals in the entire Western World.

And just think … 9/11 conspirators (i.e., enemy combatants) get to hide under the protections of our Constitution as they stand trial in civilian court not too far from that big hole in the ground.

Another thank you to President Obama.

If you believe the greatest threats to mankind include the liquefying icecaps of the northlands, gluttonous phramecutical companies, and national bankruptcy unless America spends an additional two trillion dollars (as Obama suggested), then saddle up the donkey, slap an “Obama is Love” bumper sticker on its backside and head for 2010.

I’ll stick with the grown-ups, thank you.

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in Dumb Liberals, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

BRIT POLS SAY NO TO OFFENDING MUSLIMS

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 11, 2009

What on earth has happened to Great Britain?

This is a serious question.

What are they thinking over there?

Has political correctness so impregnated itself into that nation’s value set that they have lost control of their sensibilities? Have they lost their ever-lovin’ minds?

To hear it from their elected officials, all across England, there are anxious Muslims teetering on the fence that separates good from evil, unsure of which path to take, draped in uncertainty, waiting to see what kind of language British politicians will use when referring to them. As they see it, there must be Muslims who grapple with trying to decide between raising their families in peace and blowing themselves up at pizza parlors based on how they’re referenced by English pols. Britainistan’s ministers are probably one or two uses of the word “jihadist” away from triggering a chain reaction of otherwise docile Muslims into a life of terrorist activity.

There might as well be a sign posted on the front doors of Parliament that reads, “Please Don’t Offend the Muslims” … which, by extension, translates into “Please Don’t Aggravate the Muslims and Make More Terrorists.”

In Great Britain, it is now prohibited for words and phrases deemed offensive to Muslims to be uttered in the halls of government. New politically correct phraseology will be implemented so that peace reigns.

Graeme Wilson, Deputy Political Editor with The Sun, writes:

MINISTERS have been BANNED from using words like Islamist and fundamentalist – in case they offend Muslims. An eight-page Whitehall guide lists words they should not use when talking about terrorism in public and gives politically correct alternatives.

They are told not to refer to Muslim extremism as it links Islam to violence. Instead, they are urged to talk about terrorism or violent extremism.

But they are not to mention who is responsible for the overwhelming vast majority of terrorist attacks across the globe, or which ideology is behind them?

The absurdity here is breathtaking.

Of course the phrase “Muslim extremism” links Islam to terrorism. That’s because those who participate in these terrorist attacks do so in the name of Islam!

Fundamentalist and Jihadi are also banned because they make an “explicit link” between Muslims and terror.

There is an explicit link between Muslims and terror.

Idiots.

Ministers should say criminals, murderers or thugs instead. Radicalisation must be called brainwashing and talking about moderate or radical Muslims is to be avoided as it “splits the community”.

Islamophobia is also out as it is received as “a slur that singles out Muslims”.

I don’t think I’ve read anything more ridiculous in all the time I’ve kept this blog.

If, for instance, I say I’m deeply offended because politicians are loathe to call Muslim extremists precisely what they are – that is, Muslim extremists – no one will care, because there is no threat that I will retaliate with an act of terrorism. It is precisely why Christians and Christianity can be attacked regularly by artists, pundits and other moral weaklings, because the threat of reprisal from even the most ardent believer in the name of Christianity is nil.

No one – repeat no one – believes all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathisizers. How many times does it have to be repeated? However, there are some Muslims who are terrorists – and the overwhelming vast majority of terrorism that takes place on earth is perpetrated by Muslims who admit to doing so in the name of their religion.

Why is this hard?

What if, during World War II, America sold war bonds to support the war effort against “Those Thugs West of Poland” or the “Criminals Over There“? What if the word “Nazi” had been banned so as not to antagonize all Germans?

The guidance was branded “daft” last night by a special adviser to ex-Communities Secretary Hazel Blears. Paul Richards said: “Unless you can describe what you’re up against, you’re never going to defeat it. Ministers need to be leading the debate on Islamic extremism and they can’t do that if they have one hand tied behind their back.”

Political correctness kills.

Ever hear of Ft. Hood?

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in Political Correctness, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

COMMANDERS TO CADETS: MAKE SOME NOISE … PLEASE

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 2, 2009

Maybe he was already tired

I’m sure they tried.

They were told to make it sound good.

It couldn’t have been easy – perhaps as difficult as any task these cadets will ever face as members of the United States military, including combat. It isn’t clear whether they were blatantly disobeying orders or were simply unable to beckon the fortitude needed to fake it.

In theory, cadets shouldn’t have to be reminded to greet their own Commander-in-Chief warmly, but they were.

Maybe this pre-speech prompting is standard procedure for every President who comes to speak at the United States Military Academy. If so, it is interesting to note that the cadets had no problem whatsoever responding eagerly to George W. Bush when he spoke there.

The fact is, the audience at last night’s Afghanistan-policy speech by President Obama was a touch on the quiet side.

One or two in the audience even dozed off.

In an opinion piece from Spiegel Online, Gabor Steingart writes:

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama’s speech would be well-received.

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.

One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

The audience’s most enthusiastic responses came toward the end of the speech when the President (somehow) managed to shift focus away from himself and the obligatory blame-Bush-for-everything gabble and actually spoke of his own country in positive terms, brief as it was.

Otherwise, Obama’s “pre-surrender” strategy drew fairly apathetic feedback.

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

QUICK THOUGHTS ON TONIGHT’S SPEECH

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 1, 2009

The President will finally share his Afghanistan strategy tonight in a speech from West Point. Much to the dismay of the anti-war left, Obama will not be announcing a withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Not immediately anyway.

By all accounts, the President will announce what will amount to a limited “surge” – anywhere from 30,000 to 35,000 additional troops on the ground. It will be a strategy dressed in limitations (because war strategies only work if there are pre-defined limits).

Paramount to Obama will be that in announcing the troop uptick, he sound nothing like George W. Bush.

It’s what the enemy is counting on.

I’ll rightfully save the bulk of my commentary on the matter until after he has finished speaking (so that I can pull quotes to eviscerate). There are, however, things to look out for tonight.

As a whole new batch of Americans prepare to go to war, how often do you think we will hear the word “victory” come out of the mouth of Barack Obama this evening? How will the Commander-in-Chief inspire his troops tonight as they get ready to march into battle? With the world watching, how exactly will he lead?

White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs said that tonight’s speech will “outline for the public … the cost of [Obama's] new strategy in Afghanistan and the limits on U.S. involvement there.”

Spine tingling.

Rousing.

“You will hear the president discuss clearly that this is not open-ended,” Gibbs said. “This is about what has to be done in order to ensure that the Afghans can assume the responsibility of securing their country.”

If this is any indication of what we can expect tonight from the President, it ain’t good.

Pray tell, how was President Obama, after only mere months of contemplation, able to decide that the war was not to be an open-ended one? That’s the kind of wartime leadership they sing about around the campfire.

Apparently, dithering begats clarity.

Here’s the reality of the situation … The moment Obama uses the phrase “exit strategy” or throws in the word “timetable,” understand that he has, for all intents and purposes, conceded Afghanistan. By using tonight’s West Point speech to make it known that America will be walking away based on some pre-determined set of limitations, without ever setting victory as the objective, and only after sending in less troops than his commanders in the field asked for, he will essentially be inviting the Taliban to hold back until the coast is clear.

Remember, the surge in Iraq was as much as psychological tactic as it was a military one.

If the American will to do what it takes to win has a shelf life, the patience of our enemies will prove to be as formidable a weapon as any we are up against on the battlefield.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

SENATOR CONRAD PLAYS THE “LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT” CARD

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 25, 2009

Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota – who, by the way, is not up for election next year (as astutely pointed out by Rob at Say Anything) – says that if any of us don’t believe in our system (as he does), we might want to consider going elsewhere; a kind of twenty-first century variation of “America, love it or leave it.” Of course, he is referring to those of us who are enraged that enemy combatants who waged war on the United States are being tried in a civilian court in New York City. He is talking about those of us who despise the fact that terrorists captured on the battle field have been granted the Constitutional protection of American citizens. In his mind, American “civilian courts are well-suited to prosecute Al-Qaeda terrorists.”

Matt Cover of CNS News writes:

On Capitol Hill on Nov. 19, CNSNews.com asked Conrad: “We’re going to have a civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. If our troops–the evidence against him is going to be found in Afghanistan, there on the battlefield–if our troops need to enter a house and they think that there’s evidence there, should they have to establish probable cause and get a search warrant from a judge first?”

Conrad said: “You’re not being serious about these questions, are you?”

CNSNews.com: “[Yes], in a civilian trial. If I was on trial or you were on trial, that would have to be [done].”

Conrad responded, “We have tried terrorists in our courts and done so very successfully in the past and that is our system. So if people don’t believe in our system, maybe they ought to go somewhere else. I believe in America.”

There are two points to make here.

First, as Rob at Say Anything explains, the terrorists that have been tried in civilian court in the past, like Timothy McVeigh and the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, were apprehended “domestically by domestic law enforcement officials.” By contrast, the 9/11 co-conspirators who will stand trial in New York were captured by military forces on the field of battle or in the prosecution of war. Therefore, they were not subject to the guidelines and procedures of “civilian judicial standards.”  It’s difficult to imagine that there will not a host of legal issues to contend with when those captured as enemy combatants are tried as civilians.

Second, this is a matter of national security. These “defendants,” with the same protections afforded American civilian criminals, will have access to intelligence that cannot be denied them. Thus, by definition, civilian courts are not well-suited to prosecuting war criminals.

Sorry, Kent.

Conrad also dismissed a question about the rights of terrorists captured on foreign battlefields and the rules of evidence in terms of a civilian court trial as not serious.

Talk show host Larry Elder pointed out on Monday (while substituting for Dennis Prager) that the “rules of evidence” in the 1993 World Trace Center bombing trials resulted in security compromises:

“You know, in the trial of the first bombing of the World Trade Center, and the trial of blind Sheikh, people don’t realize how much information was given to the bad guys because of those trials, because in a civilian trial you have a right to have everything the prosecution has.

And so, because of those two trials, Osama Bin Ladin found out he was an unindicted co-conspirator – that we were after his butt – and he moved from Sudan to Afghanistan because of that. Because of those trials, Al-Qaeda found out that we tracking their whereabouts via their cell phones. They stopped using their cell phones.”

Believing in America, Mr. Conrad, has nothing to do with having to accept asinine political plays that literally put the security of the nation at risk.

It’s about keeping America safe.

Jackass.

wordpress statistics
-

Posted in 9/11, Justice System, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

TERRORIST LAWYER: I CAN’T SAY IF 9/11 WAS MURDER

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 24, 2009

Kudos to Attorney General Eric Holder – and of course, the man really calling all the shots, President Barack Obama – for bringing the mastermind of the September 11th attacks (and four of his cohorts) to New York City to face a civilian jury of his non-peers. Congratulations to the walking unconscious who constitute America’s gurgling leftocracy for furnishing a forum from where the 9/11 five will spend the next who-knows-how-many-years spitting out their anti-American propaganda. And an extra special tip of the hat to Scott Fenstermaker, attorney for Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali (one of the 9/11 five), who appeared on Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor last evening to prove to the prying eyes of the world that American justice is, indeed, blind, and that even terrorists can be innocent until proven guilty.

It was remarkable exchange.

Fenstermaker, for instance, was unwilling to say that the nearly three thousand people killed on September 11, 2001 were actually murdered.

Can't say that it's murderO’Reilly: Now, if the anti-American stuff dominates the trial, which it has to on your side – the defense – don’t you think the 9/11 families are going to suffer hearing this kind of garbage?

Fenstermaker: Well, I don’t necessarily think the defense is going to be anti-American. I think it’s basically going to be a justification defense.

O’Reilly: A justification for murdering three thousand civilians? That’s a pretty tough nut.

Fenstermaker: Well, I think the jury decides whether they’ve murdered three thousand. First of all, I don’t think it’s three thousand people. I think it’s less than that. However many it is, I think the jury decides that.

O’Reilly: Do you think there’s any justification on earth to kill thousands of civilians who go to work in the morning? Is there anything to justify that?

Fenstermaker: I’m not the person who is going to be making that decision.

O’Reilly: You’re the lawyer. I mean, you’re going to be asked that question. Surely, you’re going to be prepared to answer it.

Fenstermaker: As I explained before, I’m actually not going to be representing my client -

O’Reilly: But you’re working on the team.

Fenstermaker: That’s right.

O’Reilly: I’ll ask it again. Is there any justification on this earth to murder thousands of innocent people?

Fenstermaker: Well, as I said, the trial is to determine whether they were murdered or not. And a jury’s going to decide that.

O’Reilly: Are you sitting here as a human being telling me the people on 9/11 weren’t murdered?

Fenstermaker: I’m telling you the jury’s going to decide that.

O’Reilly: I want to know what you think.

Fenstermaker: I’m not going to be a juror in that case.

O’Reilly: So, you’re not going to say one way or another whether you feel those people were murdered?

Fenstermaker: I’m not a juror. The jurors decide.

And for those who may have held even the slightest inkling of hope that the trial would not descend into an anti-American, propoganda-filled farce, I extend my deepest regrets:

O’Reilly: In the courtroom, we are going to hear Al-Qaeda propaganda, correct?

Fenstermaker: I wouldn’t say that’s the case. I’d say you’re going to hear a lot of propaganda. I wouldn’t necessarily say -

O’Reilly: Well, if they’re Al-Qaeda, what kind of propaganda? Are we going to hear Roman Catholic propaganda?

Fenstermaker: We’re going to hear a lot of United States government propaganda.

O’Reilly: So, the strategy is to attack the United States government foreign policy and the way they operate?

Fenstermaker: I wouldn’t say that. All I’m saying is you’re going to hear a lot of United States government propaganda.

O’Reilly: But I don’t understand what that means. If you’re on the team, and you’re shaping your defense, what are we going to hear? That the United States is bad?

Fenstermaker: Bad? I don’t know what bad means.

O’Reilly: You don’t know what bad means? We’re getting into Bill Clinton territory. We don’t know what “is” means.

Fenstermaker: Okay.

O’Reilly: You’re okay with that?

Fenstermaker: What I’m okay with is that I think they’re going to put on their defense. The jurors are going to decide -

O’Reilly: You’re part of the defense.

Fenstermaker: As I’ve explained, I’m not going to be part of the defense at the trial.

O’Reilly: I don’t care about that. You’re shaping the defense. You just got back from Guanatanamo. You know these guys -

Fenstermaker: I know one of them.

O’Reilly: All right, you know one of them. Re we going to hear that they’re justified in killing three-thousand American civilians because the country – the USA – is a vile country? Are we going to hear that?

Fenstermaker: I think that the number of people was actually less than three-thousand.

Fenstermaker went on to say that he was not only honored to be part of the defense team, but that he would be quite satisfied to see the 9/11 five walk away scot-free, as long as the trial was a fair one.

After O’Reilly asked him whether or not he cared that people hated him for being part of the terrorist’s defense team, Fenstermaker replied, “I’m honored that they hate me … I’m honored because the people who hate me hate the rule of law.”

Another round of applause for the Bammy Bunch is in order.

Without them, this “The Constitution is For Everyone” bag-o-fun would not be possible.

And just think, this is only the beginning.

wordpress statistics
-

Posted in 9/11, Justice System, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

IT’S CONSERVATISM’S FAULT?

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 24, 2009

Nidal Malik Hasan, terrorist

In all of their self-serving delusional grandeur, the mainstream media remains dogmatically determined to cite reasons other than Nidal Malik Hasan’s religion for the November 5th terrorist attack that killed thirteen at Fort Hood.

Believe it or not, they may have actually hit upon one, thanks to New York Times columnist Robert Wright .

It’s American conservatism.

In a piece published on Saturday, Wright blamed Hasan’s shooting spree on being “pushed over the edge by his perception of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.” (both of which were initiated by a Republican president).

And while Wright cedes that Hasan also “drew inspiration” from radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki, now in Yemen, the Fort Hood shooting was, according to him, “an example of Islamist terrorism being spread partly by the war on terrorism — or, actually, by two wars on terrorism, in Iraq and Afghanistan.” 

He went on to say that “Fort Hood is the biggest data point we have — the most lethal Islamist terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. It’s only one piece of evidence, but it’s a salient piece, and it supports the liberal, not the conservative, war-on-terrorism paradigm.” (Not that thousands of Islamic terrorist attacks all over the world over the course of many years are especially salient in understanding Hasan’s motivations, mind you).

In fact, Wright believes that Hasan’s actions are mostly the  result of a noxious combination of conservative war-mongering and bats flapping around in his belfry:

It’s true that Major Hasan was unbalanced and alienated — and, by my lights, crazy. But what kind of people did conservatives think were susceptible to the terrorism meme?

These may be the two most asinine lines I’ve yet come across on the Hasan matter.

What is he talking about?

Hasan was isolated because he chose to be. Strange as it may seem to Wright, Hasan’s radical Islamic yammerings probably didn’t appeal to too many of his fellow soldiers. Talking jihad is not a great little ice-breaker.

Note how Wright initially classifies Hasan as “unbalanced and alienated.” By Wright’s reckoning, Hasan is crazy. Yet, in the next sentence, he appears to explain away the bulk of, if not all, Islamic terrorists, by suggesting that anyone “susceptible” to jihad must be, by default, “unbalanced and alienated.” In other words, terrorists, while bad, are prone to be frail mental flowers teetering on the edge of self-control, driven over the cliff by outside forces – in this case, two Muslim-erradicating wars waged by George W. Bush.

unbalanced?

Seriously, this is how liberals think.

America – or rather, conservative America, with its propensity toward hawkish, unnuanced solutions to the most complex problems of the human condition – is to blame (at least in part) for driving Hasan to kill. Safe to say, if the United States were not involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, people like Hasan, while still unbalanced, would probably have never been pushed to blow away innocents.

If not for America, so the thinking goes, recruiting numbers at suicide-bombing re-up centers would plummet. (It’s one of the reasons President Obama gave for closing Guantanamo Bay, you’ll recall – because of its function as an Al-Qaeda recruiting tool). By such logic, America shouldn’t bother fighting against terrorists at all, thus ensuring zero recruitment among the murdering class. Only the unhinged and easily-provoked are “susceptible to the terrorism meme.”

How would such an approach work in the civilian world, I wonder, in dealing with criminals such as serial rapists? Or child molesters? Or murderers? Would societal conditions improve or deteriorate if law enforcement officials decided to stop being so “aggressive” in pursuing evil-doers? Does it make sense for law enforcement to back off for fear of creating more rapists? Or bank robbers?

Or are common criminals not as “crazy” or as easily provoked as jihadists?

Wright continues:

Central to the debate over Afghanistan is the question of whether terrorists need a “safe haven” from which to threaten America. If so, it is said, then we must work to keep every acre of Afghanistan (and Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, etc.) out of the hands of groups like the Taliban. If not — if terrorists can orchestrate a 9/11 about as easily from apartments in Germany as from camps in Afghanistan — then maybe never-ending war isn’t essential.

However you come out on that argument, the case of Nidal Hasan shows one thing for sure: Homegrown American terrorists don’t need a safe haven. All they need is a place to buy a gun.

Liberals are funny when they try to think things through.

Take a moment to ask yourself this …

How many homegrown Islamist terrorist attacks have there been on American soil over the years?

Perhaps a better question is … how many homegrown Islamist terrorist attacks have there been on American soil over the course of time that did not involve a United States Army Officer (who most likely would not have had not too many problems acquiring a firearm anyway)?

It is precisely because America is not a safe haven that so many terrorist attacks have been thwarted over the years.

And why is it not a safe haven?

Because of the presence (both overtly and covertly) of those men and women charged with the task of defending the United States against all foes, foreign and domestic.

In short, it’s just not very feasible for terrorists to train and prepare for 9/11 style attacks in the United States (or in most free nations, for that matter) the same way they would be able to do in nations sympathetic to their cause. Obviously, preparations can be undertaken to varying degrees in almost any location, as evidenced by the number of stateside plots that have been squashed in recent years;  but the notion that one can hatch, and train for, terrorist attacks with the same ease  – and with the same scope – from “apartments in Germany” as they can from Taliban-protected camps in Afghanistan is ridiculous.

Just because one believes that terrorism can potentially spring from almost everywhere does not mean nothing should be done anywhere.

This is about values, not the ability to acquire a gun.

This is about having the courage to label evil, not the willingness to protect diversity at the expense of innocent lives.

Presumably, in Wright’s world, if those external forces that so played havoc with Hasan would just back off and stop doing whatever they’re doing to provoke the susceptibly unhinged who have yet to snap, terrorism would drop like President Obama’s approval numbers.

wordpress statistics
-

Posted in Dumb Liberals, Evil, Foreign Policy, religion, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

NOT GUILTY, SAY THE 9/11 FIVE

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 23, 2009

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Oh, those nutty terrorists.

Leave it to barbarous murderers who have utter disdain for the United States to take advantage of the American system of justice for their own benefit. Leave it to vermin who target innocents through acts of war to milk the American Constitution for the very rights they abhor. Leave it to those who laughed and applauded when the Twin Towers came crashing down to squeeze the American legal system by using a civilian courtroom as a showcase for their repugnant rhetoric – and do so only blocks from where those towers once stood. And leave it to American leftists to afford these remorseless war-makers Constitutional rights in the first place so all of this can happen.

To the Eric Holders and Barack Obamas of the world, this circus-to-be will demonstrate to our fellow citizens-of-the-world what American fairness is really all about. Our openness will inspire. Our transparency will impress.

It isn’t hard to imagine a cave hidden somewhere in the treacherous mountains of northern Afghanistan where would-be terrorists are sitting around having conversations such as this:

Terrorist 1: “Man, that American legal system is really wonderful, isn’t it, Mohammed?”

Terrorist 2: “Damn straight, Ali.”

Terrorist 1: “They are leading by example, Mohammed.”

Terrorist 2: “We should all get along. America is showing us how.”

Terrorist 1: “It was that last apology Obama made for America that really got to me.”

Terrorist 2: “Yes. me, too.”

As first glance, to go from wanting to die to pleading “not guilty” may seem like quite a leap – even for Muslim terrorists – but that’s precisely what’s happened.

And it really shouldn’t have surprised anyone.

According to the attorney of one of the “defendants,” the five terrorists slated to stand trial in New York for the September 11th attacks will not deny their involvement. Rather, they want to take the opportunity to “explain what happened and why they did it.”

The first thought that came to mind, of course, was, “Thank God! Now we can finally get the bottom of all this. This ought to shed some much needed light on that whole 9/11 thing.”

Such a relief!

Karen Matthews of the Associated Press writes:

[Ali Abd al-Aziz] Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain “their assessment of American foreign policy,” Fenstermaker said.

“Their assessment is negative,” he said.

I think we can all take a “No, really?” out of petty cash.

Critics of Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try the men in a New York City civilian courthouse have warned that the trial would provide the defendants with a propaganda platform.

Critics of Holder’s decision — mostly Republicans — argued the trial will give Mohammed and his co-defendants a world stage to spout hateful rhetoric. Holder said such concerns are misplaced, and any pronouncements by the suspects would only make them look worse.

“I have every confidence that the nation and the world will see him for the coward that he is,” Holder told the committee. “I’m not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial — and no one else needs to be, either.”

They were all minding their own businesses, planting sunflowers, harvesting radishes, exchanging falafel recipes, playing soccer, performing innocent nondescript clitoridectomies on their female young when war-mongering, Israel-loving America came swooping in with her implements of death to slaughter as many Muslims as possible.

Something like that.
wordpress statistics
-

Posted in 9/11, Justice System, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

AND NOBODY BOTHERED TO TELL THE ARMY?

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 21, 2009

So, the FBI knew.

But the Army didn’t?

Perhaps my thinking is a bit unrefined, and I’m willing to concede that I am no authority on the finer points of national security, but I don’t find it particularly unreasonable to ask why the hell the Federal Bureau of Investigation didn’t bother notifying the United States Army that Ft. Hood mass-murderer Major Nidal Malik Hasan was in contact with radical imam Anwar al-Aulaqi through a series of e-mails prior to the murderous terrorist attack there. In fact, I find it absolutely remarkable that correspondence between a US Army Major and a radical Muslim cleric – as many as nineteen e-mails – wasn’t deemed at all noteworthy enough by the FBI to bring to the Army’s attention.

Call me crazy, but it seems like it might have been something worth mentioning.

What the hell is going on?

Carrie Johnson, Spencer S. Hsu and Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post write:

In the months before the deadly shootings at Fort Hood, Army Maj. Nidal M. Hasan intensified his communications with a radical Yemeni American cleric and began to discuss surreptitious financial transfers and other steps that could translate his thoughts into action, according to two sources briefed on a collection of secret e-mails between the two.

The e-mails were obtained by an FBI-led task force in San Diego between late last year and June but were not forwarded to the military, according to government and congressional sources. Some were sent to the FBI’s Washington field office, triggering an assessment into whether they raised national security concerns, but those intercepted later were not, the sources said.

“He [Hasan] clearly became more radicalized toward the end, and was having discussions related to the transfer of money and finances . . .,” said the source, who spoke at length in part because he was concerned the public accounting of the events has been incomplete. “It became very clear toward the end of those e-mails he was interested in taking action.”

The kicker in all of this – with the mainstream media still reluctant to use the “t” word to describe the Ft. Hood attack – is that even Democrat Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is now having to face reality.

Levin told reporters after a briefing from Pentagon staff members that “there are some who are reluctant to call it terrorism, but there is significant evidence that it is.”

No kidding?

Terrorism?

Have migraines been ruled out yet?

I’m curious … under what circumstances would communication between an American serviceman and a known radical imam (and supporter of Al-Aqeada) not be anything the military should be made aware of?

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in Political Correctness, terrorism, Uncategorized, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

DAVID AND BARRY – NOT ON THE SAME PAGE

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 17, 2009

The Governor of New York and the President of the United States aren’t exactly tight. While they are both big time Democrats who hail from big blue states, they seem to have about as much affection for each other as a gaping flesh wound has for salt.

The President, for instance, has all but asked Paterson to bow out of the 2010 gubernatorial race, and the Governor has all but told him to take a flying leap off a high ledge.

That’s how they play together.

The decision by the Obama administration to bring terrorists to New York to stand trial has only widened the gap between them.

While most Democrats seem to be in favor of Attorney General Eric Holder’s (i.e., President Obama’s) disastrous decision to have 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, tried in a civilian court with four of his terrorist chums, the Governor of New York, David Paterson, doesn’t like the idea one bit.

For once, I agree with the otherwise useless governor of my state.

Marcia Kramer from WCBS-TV in New York writes:

Gov. David Paterson openly criticized the White House on Monday, saying he thought it was a terrible idea to move alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other suspected terrorists to New York for trial.

“This is not a decision that I would have made. I think terrorism isn’t just attack, it’s anxiety and I think you feel the anxiety and frustration of New Yorkers who took the bullet for the rest of the country,” he said.

Paterson’s comments break with Democrats, who generally support the President’s decision.

“Our country was attacked on its own soil on September 11, 2001 and New York was very much the epicenter of that attack. Over 2,700 lives were lost,” he said. “It’s very painful. We’re still having trouble getting over it. We still have been unable to rebuild that site and having those terrorists so close to the attack is gonna be an encumbrance on all New Yorkers.”

Paterson went on to say that “he will do everything in his power to make sure that the state’s Department of Homeland Security will keep New Yorkers as safe as possible.”

As difficult as this is to say definitively, considering the cavalcade of harm President Obama has already overseen since taking office ten months ago, this decision to bring war criminals to New York to be tried as civilians may very be the most disastrous of all.

More importantly, this is a very bad move for the United States. Treating war criminals like civilians, who will potentially have access to intelligence data and Bush-era policy information, is a calamity waiting to happen. It will also afford these examples of human excrement a forum from which to disgorge their hateful prattle.

As it stands right now, nearly two-thirds of all Americans believe this is a bad idea – that a military court is the place to try these war makers who have already asked to be put to death.

The first noise you hear is the gentle sound of terrorist laughter wafting across the oceans into New York, where that great big hole in the ground still sits.

That other sound you hear is Obama’s base collectively gnawing on that great big bone he threw them.

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in Evil, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

JOB CREATION, OBAMA-STYLE

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 16, 2009

ThomsonHow many misfiring synapses does it take to enable one to come to the conclusion that moving incarcerated terrorists from a detention facility in Cuba to the mainland United States is a good idea? Uprooting human debris hell-bent on destroying America from a perfectly functioning maximum security military installation so that they can be locked up in America is the embodiment of absurdity. Where else but from the muddled minds of liberals could such thinking come? Where else but from the left could such a plan be born?

President Obama has said that Gitmo’s mere existence has served as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Thus, in Obama-speak, it stands to reason that once these terrorists are transported to the American mainland, recruitment for the terrorist organization will begin to fall off, right? Those who would have thought nothing about strapping bombs across the chests of their children to kill infidels will rethink their positions if the enemies of America could actually be moved here. Osama bin Ladin’s heart will surely soften once these jihadists are living in the midwest.

Makes sense, no?

Setting aside whatever anti-Bush motivations there are concerning this obsessive need among Obamacrats to close Guantanamo Bay, proponents of the terrorist transplant plan claim that it will also be a huge economic boost.

Target: Illinois.

Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times writes:

If [the Thomson Correctional facility] is acquired by the federal government, [it] would be run as a supermax facility housing federal prisoners. A portion of it would be leased to the Defense Department for a “limited number” of Guantanamo detainees — about 100, according to Durbin. About 215 prisoners are now at Guantanamo.

[Senator Dick] Durbin’s office has been quarterbacking the potential sale of the prison through a series of meetings between the White House and [Governor Pat] Quinn, who is looking to generate revenues for the cash-strapped state.

According to an economic impact analysis by the Obama administration, the federal purchase and operation of Thomson could generate $1 billion for the local economy over four years and create between 2,340 and 3,250 jobs.

Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Everybody wins, yes?

Here’s the problem.

Every one of those jobs is a government job. That means every one of those employees’ salaries would come at the taxpayers’ expense. That means all of that money would be sucked out of the economy first before it is redistributed in the form of paychecks.

Stimulating.

Durbin and Quinn called the possibility of opening such a facility in their state “a dream come true.”

That’s three thousand new jobs that can be added to the billions and billions of new jobs that have already been created by this administration.

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in Dumb Liberals, Economy, Liberalism, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

TERRORIST RIGHTS

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 14, 2009

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, in reacting to the pathetic and irresponsible decision taken by the Obama administration to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other terrorists to civilian court, reminded us all, in an interview with Neil Cavuto of Fox News, what the 9/11 attacks really were:

This was an act of war. One of things I thought we learned from September 11th is that we were in a state of denial before September 11th. We went through this once before in 1993. We had terrorists attack the World Trade Center. We did not recognize it as an act of war. We tried them in the Southern District in New York. It did no good.

President Barack Obama is following through on his promise to undo everything Bush by gradually emptying out the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

What better way to do it than to yank terrorists from the security of Gitmo and send them to an American city to face a jury not comprised of their peers? And what better place to bestow rights onto those who are not entitled to them than in New York City?

As disgusting as this is – and, I assure you, it doesn’t get more reprehensible than conferring Constitutional rights on terrorists – it should come as no surprise to anyone.

52.7% of your fellow countrymen voted for this.

While he was still a candidate, then-Senator Barack Obama was talking constitutionality – which in itself was (and still is) enough to send the short hairs on the back of my neck to attention. He launched an attack against then-Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her position on the so-called rights of terrorist suspects, referencing Palin’s comments in her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last summer.

She said (referring to then-Senator Obama):

Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay … he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights?

Obama’s response:

First of all, you don’t even get to read them their rights until you catch ‘em. They (the Republicans) should spend more time trying to catch Osama bin Laden and we can worry about the next steps later. My position has always been clear: If you’ve got a terrorist, take him out. Anybody who was involved in 9/11, take ‘em out.”

Obama saw himself as defending the Constitution (in some sick, twisted way) as he went after Governor Palin, supporting the issuance of rights to terrorist suspects because, as he put is, “we don’t always have the right person.”

If this wasn’t the atomic alarm of all alarms, then nothing ever could have been.

How was Obama able to reach the conclusion that Osama bin Ladin was a terrorist without affording him access to the legal protections outlined in the Constitution? What criteria was he using to make that determination? How could Obama want to “take out” bin Ladin without granting him his Constitutional rights?

And if I am being obtuse here, then allow to me ask the question the other way. Wasn’t Sadam Hussein a terrorist? Or, at the very least, the leader of a state that sponsored terrorists? Didn’t we “take him out?”

Of course, it would have been interesting for someone at the time to point out that Obama supported the Washington, D.C. handgun ban, which is unconstitutional.

Kettle meet pot.

And now, more than a year later, the circus of all circuses – one that will needlessly cost the American taxpayer tens of millions of dollars – will begin only blocks from where the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center stood. The Attorney General, Eric Holder, will seek the death penalty against the five men who have already said – repeatedly –  they want to die. (At least they’re on the same page). The courtroom will serve as a stage from which these reprehensible terrorists – war criminals – will be given the opportunity to spew their hate, justify the murders of nearly three-thousand innocents, and hide behind the Constitutional protections afforded them by the Commander-in-Chief of the United States.

Absolutely disgraceful.

If undoing the endless malignancies of the Bush era means putting American lives in danger, so be it.

It isn’t Obama’s fault he inherited such a mess.

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in 9/11, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

GENERAL CASEY, YOU CAN’T POSSIBLY MEAN THAT

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 10, 2009

From the “Words Mean Things” file.

General George Casey, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, made the following statement on Sunday in regard to the Fort Hood terrorist attack:

Speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers and what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here. It’s not just about Muslims, we have a very diverse army, we have very diverse society and that gives us all strength. But again we need to be very careful about that.

george caseyIf necessary, take a moment to read it again – particularly the  phrase, “What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here.”

There can be no mincing words here. It is a despicable thing for an officer in the United States Army to say.

Call what happened at Fort Hood terrorism (as I do). Call it an act of war. Call it what you will. But with all due respect to General Casey and his honorable service to this nation, he is dead wrong on all accounts – and an embarrassment.

To begin with, calling the mass murders at Fort Hood, Texas a “tragedy,” as I wrote late last week, is a profound disservice to the thirteen dead and twenty-nine wounded. Indeed, it is an insult to the memory of the fallen. As a “tragedy,” the act becomes more random, more arbitrary, more illogical. As a “tragedy,” blame effectively shifts from being squarely on the shoulders of the murderer to being attributable, at least in part, to outside forces beyond his control; it gives evil enough room to wriggle off the hook.

The fact is …It was not an act of chance. It was not an accident. It was perfectly logical in its lethal perversity. It was a deliberate, pre-meditated act of evil, fuelled by a dangerous ideology.

But more imprtant than Casey’s mislabelling of this terrorist act as a “tragedy,” is his disturbing take on diversity in the military.

Again the quote:

What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here.

Common sense demands that the general must have misspoken, because no officer in the United States military can truly believe such a thing.

General Casey is saying that a little less diversity in the military is worse than having innocent soldiers killed.

He’ll take dead soldiers over shrinking diversification.

To him, slain military personnel are more acceptible than decreasing varieties of ethnicities and skin tones in the service.

How could anyone in their right mind honestly believe that?

What the hell kind of thinking is that?

DISGRACEFUL.

First of all, diversity means that everyone – regardless of skin color, ethnicity, sex or religion – is held to the same standard; and it is clear from the abundance of reports that have come out since the shooting spree on Thursday that the killer, Hasan, was not treated as any non-Muslim would have been had he or she been involved in highly questionable activities.

The man tried to contact Al-Qaeda, for heaven’s sake – and we knew about it.

Political correctness planted the seeds of murder that took place at Fort Hood last week.

Second, diversity is not where the strength of the military – or America herself – lies. The United States does not thrive because of its diversity.

It is absolute nonsense.

Indeed, America is comprised of a diverse population, but it is the singularity of America’s value system – what she stands for – that epitomizes her real strength.

Check your money, General Casey.

E Pluribus Unum.

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in military, Moral Clarity, terrorism | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

MEDIA WEAKNESS – ISLAM, TERRORISM AND HASAN

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 9, 2009

FBI Arrests

Daniel Patrick Boyd

Remember Daniel Patrick Boyd? You may recall he was the North Carolina contractor who, along with a group of others (including two sons), was planning a “violent jihad,” which included an attack on the Quantico Marine Base. He was a Muslim convert who was also involved in planning a series of terror attacks internationally.

If his name doesn’t ring a bell, don’t feel too bad. He wasn’t an angry Christian targeting an abortion clinic, so the story had a shelf life of maybe eighteen seconds.

How about the name Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad? If not (which is quite likely), perhaps you will recall the incident associated with him. In June of this year he shot up a Little Rock, Arkansas recruiting office, killing an American soldier. Afterwards, he claimed he was justified because of what Americans were doing to Muslims in the Middle East.

Since he wasn’t an angry American white man setting off a bomb somewhere, the chances that this story would snag more than a day’s worth of coverage was slim-to-none.

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad

Remember the story of the Bronx, New York terror plot – the one where four home grown Muslim terrorists planned on shooting down military planes and were arrested as they planted what they thought were bombs at two synagogues? How long did that story stick around with the mainstream media?

Since there was no way to cloak the role of Islam in that particular terrorist scheme, it isn’t surprising that after a day or two, it became a page twenty-five afterthought, lest the Muslim community be insulted or provoked.

Certainly many will recollect the Fort Dix terror plot. That should have been, by anyone’s measure, a huge story – particularly when three Muslim immigrant brothers, Dritan, Shain and Eljvir Duka, were convicted of planning an al-Qaida-inspired attack meant to kill hundreds of American soldiers on the New Jersey military installation.

It wasn’t.

It went away in short order as newspapers filled with stories of how screwed up Afghanistan was thanks to George W. Bush.

Ask anyone with even an elementary knowledge of current events to recall any of these domestic terror plots and, more likely than not, you won’t elicit many responses.

Sadly, they’re buried way below the fold of America’s collective consciousness.

But now, with thirteen people dead and twenty-nine injured at Fort Hood, Texas – and every indication in the world that the murderer, Nidal Malik Hasan, acted as a radical Islamic terrorist – the morally weak, fainthearted American media (in conjunction with the American Leftocracy) cannot sweep the details of this horrific incident away under the rug as they would like. Thus, as long as the news cycle demands that this story be covered, they will continue to avoid the obvious as long as humanly possible – that radical Islam almost certainly played the defining role in the Fort Hood mass murder.

Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera, for example, went as far as saying that, for all we know, it could have been a bad headache that made the terrorist, Hassan, kill.

Yes, he really said that.

And no, he doesn’t believe that for a second.

However, Rivera is one the overwhelming majority of journalists who live in a world where clarity is routinely sacrificed for being inoffensive.

(I wonder how many throbbing-headed individuals in human history have actually resorted to mass murder. I’ve found that, generally speaking, bad headaches are debilitating).

On his radio program today, Dennis Prager played a clip from MSNBC’s show Hardball that aired Friday, where host Chris Matthews introduced a segment with Nihad Awad from the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) this way:

Welcome back to Hardball. The investigation into that massacre at Fort Hood yesterday is still ongoing and it’s unclear if religion was a factor in this shooting.

What motivated this killing yesterday? And we may not know that ever.

Really?

So, in light of every stitch of evidence available to him, in light of every report pointing in that direction, Mr. Matthews believes we may never ever know what motivated these murders?

I guess this Hasan is a real puzzle.

If everything that is known right now about Hasan – including the fact that, for years, he has been making anti-American comments in public; that he has openly professed to being pro-terrorist; that he has posted commentary online in support of suicide bombings; that he has incontestable ties to radical Islam; that he has likely had contact with terrorists; that he has been heard to say on numerous occasions that he is a Muslim first and an American second; that he was heard to shout “Allahu Akbar!” (God Is Great) before slaughtering innocents – is not enough to suggest that religion might have been some sort of factor in what happened at Fort Hood, what exactly would be?

What other “clues” would need to be in place for the murderer, Hasan, to be seen by the gutless American media as an Islamic terrorist?

A t-shirt?

Even Anwar Aulaqi – the radical imam, now in Yemen, who preached at the Virginia mosque where Hasan was known to have attended – posted the following at his website:

Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.

Obviously, Aulaqi believes that Hasan’s shooting spree had something to do with religion. Why else would he praise Hasan if this was not a terrorist attack in the name of Islam? When, pray tell, will Chris Matthews criticize Aulaqi for jumping to conclusions?

Somehow, in the flummoxed brains of the American leftist, to accept the reality that there are radical Muslims who commit atrocities such as the Fort Hood massacre – and do so in the name of Islam – is to say that all Muslims are terrorists. It’s how they think. It’s a charge the Left makes against conservatives regularly – that we on the right believe all Muslims are terrorists. But no one on my side of the aisle has ever said it, nor do we believe it. It isn’t an issue. Rather it is they on the Left who avoid the topic all together in fear of offending Muslims, even when the Qur’an is slapping them repeatedly across the chops.

Of course, lefties often go on and on about white racism in America – especially where the opposition of Barack Obama’s policies are concerned – but never once have any fear of offending all whites, or lumping all Caucasians together.

Funny how that works.

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in Evil, Islam, Liberalism, Media, military, Political Correctness, religion, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

KILLER TIED TO VIRGINIA MOSQUE – AP ARTICLE SAYS MURDERER IS “ALLEGED”

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 9, 2009

There are reports that Nidal Malik Hasan, the man who murdered thirteen at Fort Hood, Texas last week, attended the same Virginia mosque as two of the 9/11 hijackers in 2001. This would have happened during the period when a radical imam, Anwar Aulaqi, was preaching at the Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va.

According to an Associated Press story:

Aulaqi told the FBI in 2001 that, before he moved to Virginia in early 2001, he met with 9/11 hijacker Nawaf al-Hazmi several times in San Diego. Al-Hazmi was at the time living with Khalid al-Mihdhar, another hijacker. Al-Hazmi and another hijacker, Hani Hanjour, attended the Dar al Hijrah mosque in Virginia in early April 2001. In his FBI interview, Aulaqi denied ever meeting with al-Hazmi and Hanjour while in Virginia.

Of course, it is imperative that the American public continue to refrain from jumping to any conclusions.

There may be other factors to contend with that the rest of us may be missing. Perhaps he was bullied as a child. Maybe he adored his mother and hated his father. It could be that he wasn’t allowed to have a Big Wheel as a boy. Maybe the other kids wouldn’t let him play in any reindeer games.

Regardless, we need to relax and let the facts come out.

While Hasan’s ties to the Virginia mosque are obviously of tremendous relevance – and as all the details surrounding the Fort Hood terrorist attack become known – it is the Associated Press article itself that draws my attention.

To begin with, the article’s opening sentence is profoundly troubling:

The alleged Fort Hood shooter apparently attended the same Virginia mosque as two Sept. 11 hijackers in 2001, at a time when a radical imam preached there.

The “alleged” shooter?

So, it is possible that the individual who shot thirteen people dead and injured twenty-nine was not Nidal Malik Hasan? It could have been someone else?

And what about Sergeant Kimberly Munley, the officer who took down the killer, Hasan?

If Hasan is “alleged,” I hope Munley is being held in jail until it can be confirmed who the “shooter” actually was. Or did she “allegedly” shoot Hasan? Or did she shoot someone else? And if so, was that shooting “alleged?”

And are the dead “alleged” until the shooter can actually be confirmed?

Is the entire incident “alleged?”

(And does this shirt make me look fat?)

The article’s next line is equally troubling:

Whether the Fort Hood shooter associated with the hijackers is something the FBI will probably look into, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

The FBI will “probably” look into whether or not the terrorist, Hasan, had any associations with the 9/11 hijackers who attended the same mosque as he??

Probably?

Given that I am obviously a novice when it comes to criminal investigations, law enforcement and matters of national security, wouldn’t it nonetheless seem to be an automatic to look into it?

Maybe I watch too much television.

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in Evil, Islam, military, Political Correctness, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

STOP CALLING IT A TRAGEDY – WORDS MEAN THINGS

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 6, 2009

the murderer

Nidal Malik Hasan, Murderer

Assuming for a moment I were elected King of the World, the first edict issued would be to ban the use of the word “tragedy” in describing the horrific murders that took place at Fort Hood yesterday afternoon.

If ever there was a misuse of the word, this is it.

This was not a mudslide or an earthquake. It wasn’t a tornado or a typhoon. There was no twenty car pileup on a blizzard-ravaged road.

It was a murderous shooting spree that cost thirteen innocents their lives and injured as many as thirty. It was a ghastly execution of wickedness from a very bad man.

It was an act of evil.

Second, with emerging reports of the murderer as a man increasingly disgruntled with America’s involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and one whose name is said to have appeared on several radical internet postings about suicide bombings – it is not unreasonable to look into the man’s connection with radical Islam.

Third, with reports that the murderer shouted out the love call of the suicide bomber, “Allahu Akbar!” (God is Great) before unleashing his terror on innocents, it is not unreasonable to pursue the angle that yesterday’s deadly rampage was an act of terrorism.

However, ours is a world where a cold blooded killer, such as the human debris who committed these murders, is referred to as a “shooter” or “gunman” – not a “murderer,” or even a “killer.”

It is a world where people are called upon to begin “healing” long before they’ve finished grieving.

It is an age where the “circumstances” that drive the evil-doer to commit the crime are explored at length, while the innocent dead are counted before being discounted.

We live in an era where there exists a pervasive unwillingness (or fear) to label the evils of our time.

It is both frightening and sickening.

Incidentally, the Fort Hood mass-murderer’s name is Nidal Malik Hasan. Many news outlets didn’t even bother to report that for several hours, even after it was confirmed.

He is also a Muslim.

Had Mr. Hasan been called Bobby Ray Jones or Thomas Alan Smith (or something equally Anglo), and was wearing a “Jesus Is Lord” t-shirt when he shouted “Praise Jesus!” before shooting up an abortion clinic or a Planned Parenthood office, there wouldn’t be enough fiber-optics in all the cable television lines in all the world to handle the coverage it would be given. A new channel would have to be created. Additional satellites would have to be launched to accomodate the load. The murderer would have become a household name by the time Keith Olbermann hit the screen at 8:00PM.

Definitionally, how is yesterday’s mass-killing not an act of terrorism?

wordpress statistics

-

Posted in Evil, Media, terrorism, Values | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

RESEMBLING THE TALIBAN

Posted by Andrew Roman on October 26, 2009

chris matthewsI haven’t cracked open a thesaurus in a mighty long time, but in the coming weeks and months, I may have to. Using the word “desperate” over and over to describe liberals and their recurrently pathetic tactics will almost certainly wear thin – not unlike President Obama’s first nine months in office.

Still, it is unavoidable to give credit where credit is due. After all, if not for the American Left, where then would desperation nest?

No, it isn’t enough to have the Speaker of the House accuse fellow Americans of being swastika bearers at Townhall meetings. It isn’t enough to have the Senate Majority leader call those opposed to ObamaCare “hate mongers.” It isn’t enough to have the White House assail private citizens (Rush Limbaugh) and privately owned companies (Fox News) because they have the chutzpah not to bend over for President Liberty-Kill and his big government Obamacrats. It isn’t enough to have a mainstream media so in the tank for the administration that almost no coverage is afforded Anita Dunn and Alan Grayson while names like Joe Wilson become more familiar than Abraham Lincoln.

It just isn’t enough.

Thank goodness for MSNBC’s Chris Matthews – the lacerated septum of broadcast journalism.

Late last week, on MSNBC’s Hardball, Chris Matthews was having a “discussion” with Frank Gaffney and Ron Reagan Jr. about Afghanistan.

As the segment came to an end, the exchange went this way:

Gaffney: (speaking to Reagan) Your father would be ashamed of you.

Reagan: Oh, Frank, you better watch your mouth about that, Frank.

Matthews: That’s not fair. The group in this country that most resembles the Taliban, ironically, is the religious right.

To begin with, Gaffney, who is President of The Center for Security Policy, made himself look a bit silly by having to resort to pulling out the “Ronald Reagan” card while debating Reagan, Jr., who is an unabashed, unapologetic, liberal. Whatever the elder Reagan would have thought of his son’s views on Afghanistan was irrelevant to the discussion. Unquestionably, Gaffney had more than enough substantive ammunition to combat Reagan. He knew better.

However, it was the always ignoble and detestable Matthews (let me count the ways), in true “drive-by” media style, who actually compared the American “religious right” to the barbarous terrorists – the Taliban  – before escaping into the security of the ensuing commercial break.

(Of course, if Congressman Alan Grayson could somehow correlate the state of America’s health care delivery system to the Holocaust, then equating American conservatives of faith to the murderous Taliban wouldn’t seem particularly preposterous).

First of all, Mr. Matthews ought to take a moment and brush up on his ideologies. By definition, conservatives want less government involvement in our lives.

By definition.

religious rightIf for no other reason than that, the American “religious right” simply does not resemble the Taliban, who exist to impose theocratic influence on every aspect of life through totalitarian rule. Simply having a strong faith in God, which presumably is what Matthews is attempting to use to tie the two together, is an embarrassingly weak premise to build such a ridiculously naive – and easily refuted – argument.

If faith alone, in Matthews’ simplistic, one-dimensional, bumper-sticker world, were the main criterion for drawing parallels between the American “religious right” and the Taliban, then leftists, who worship with equal zeal at the alter of unproven global warming, would, by definition, more resemble the Taliban because of their propensity to expand the power of government.

Naturally, neither the American Left or the American Right really resemble the Taliban in any way whatsoever, but playing along with Mr. Matthews brings certain relaities to light. Leftists are just as religious when it comes to global warming as conservatives are about traditional religion. However, it is the global warming movement, in their ever-growing fanaticism, that demands governments intrusion on the industrialized free market by inflicting crippling emissions standards – guidelines that would literally bring down the American economy.

By contrast, no one on the “religious right”  – no one – wants that level of government involvement in American lives. And no one on the religious right advocates, supports, suggests or even hints at imposing a theocracy of any kind in the United States.

If presented in those terms, which side more “resembles” the Taliban, Mr. Matthews?

It isn’t difficult to understand.

Besides, if Mr. Matthews can point me in the direction of those “religious right” organizations that strap bombs to the chests of their young for the purpose of blowing up as many innocents as possible, I’m willing to listen. If there are videos out there of hooded members of the “religious right” slicing the heads off of non-believers, I missed it. If the “religious right” advocate the beating of women for walking by themselves or driving motor vehicles, I’d love to see the literature. Perhaps Mr. Mathews can play on his television program the audio of members of the “religious right” calling for a Holy War against non-Christian nations.

He certainly has the forum to defend his assertions.

-

wordpress statistics

Posted in Democrats, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, religion, terrorism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

NEW ADDITION TO THE BLOG ROLL – KEEP AMERICA SAFE

Posted by Andrew Roman on October 14, 2009

An important new blog has been added to the Roman Around blog roll.

It is called Keep America Safe and is the creation of Liz Cheney, William Kristol and Debra Burlingame.

Their mission statement, in part, reads as follows:

The mission of Keep America Safe is to provide information for concerned Americans about critical national security issues. Keep America Safe seeks to influence public policy by encouraging dialogue between American citizens and their elected representatives in order to produce legislation and executive action that enhances the national security of the United States.

Keep America Safe believes the United States can only defeat our adversaries and defend our interests from a position of strengh. We know that America has, for 233 years, been an unparalleled force for good in the world, that our fighting forces are the best the world has ever known, and that the world is a safer place when America is trusted by our allies and feared and respected by our enemies. Keep America Safe will make the case for an unapologetic approach to fighting terrorism around the world, for victory in the wars this country fights, for democracy and human rights, and for a strong American military that is needed in the dangerous world in which we live.

On the Keep America Safe home page is a terrific video, professionally produced called Rhetoric vs Reality.

Please check it out, bookmark the site, and visit regularly.

They’ve done a fine job.

-

Posted in Foreign Policy, national security, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

A BROKEN PROMISE

Posted by Andrew Roman on August 25, 2009

hero's welcome in libyaThe word he used was “sensitivity.”

According to Kenny MacAskill, Scotland’s Justice Secretary, the man who blew up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 killing 270 showed “no sensitivity” to the families of those he murdered in celebrating his release from a Scottish prison last week.

According to MacAskill, Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi was being insensitive. (In the mind of a leftist, is there anything more dastardly, more shocking, more contemptible than being insensitive?)

Al-Megrahi broke his promise. He said he wouldn’t do anything to upset the families of those he killed, but he did anyway.

Such a fibber! Such a cad! Such insensitivity!

And the Libyan government – led by the ever-upstanding, incorruptible, honorable Muammar Gaddafi – who pledged the whole affair would be handled in a respectable, low-key fashion – well, they fibbed, too.

They’re all gosh-darn fibbers!

Who would have guessed?

Those images of the terrorist, al-Megrahi, being greeted in Libya by an orgasmic hero’s welcome were reminiscent of the Beatles landing at JFK in 1964, or Charles Lindberg touching down in Paris in 1927. While al-Megrahi is reported to be rapping at death’s door, about to succumb to prostate cancer, what a thrill it must have been for him to descend from the plane and be greeted with such fanfare, such adulation. Such a moment could not have been possible without the massacre of all those innocent people – most of whom were American (a bonus for any self-respecting jihadist). One could imagine that this is what it must be like to get to heaven and have all those virgins waiting for you.

While the “insensitivity” of whooping it up is certainly worth touching upon, I would ask MacAskill about the original “insensitivity” of killing 270 innocents. Does the passage of time somehow make the crime more palatable?

If, for instance, al-Megrahi were convicted of the bombing within a year or so of the event, and diagnosed with prostate cancer, say, a year after that – or even five years – would his release on “humanitarian” grounds still have been considered? Does time somehow have the effect of deteriorating life’s worth?

How “humanitarian” is it to devalue human life by sending the message that the penalty for murdering the innocent means nothing when the comfort of the killer takes precedence?

Next to the killing of the passengers, crew and the innocents on the ground, the ultimate insensitivity was in releasing him so that he might enjoy some peace in his final days outside of his cold, unwelcoming prison cell.

Justice anyone?

The continued submission of the nations of Europe to the ongoing spread of civilization-eroding leftism is a frightening thing to behold. So-called compassion for evil-doers, in the name of humanity, accomplishes nothing more than demeaning the value of life itself.

How is it that a terrorist thug like al-Megrahi – who should have been put to death upon his conviction – deserves such accomodation when the 270 innocent people he ripped from this Earth were robbed of their lives?

How does this example of human debris deserve any comfort and joy when the 270 innocents he wiped from the planet were deprived of the right to live?

Al-Megrahi should have been left in his cell to die –  a death far less disturbing and less frightning than the one that befell his victims on Pan Am 103.

-

Posted in Libya, Talk-Radio, terrorism, Values | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.