| Author | Message | | Cowboy | | Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 5:07 am Post subject: John McCain: We Must Take the Fight to the Enemy |
| John McCain: We Must Take the Fight to the Enemy
Sen. John McCain told Fox News today that the reason Americans should pay very close attention to what happened today in London is because "This is a grim reminder of the war that we continue to fight against people who want to destroy everything we and our friends across the Atlantic stand for and believe in."
Regarding our own homeland defenses, McCain told interviewer Shepard Smith, "We have made progress, we have a long way to go, and if we fail to take the fight to the enemy, the enemy will take the fight to us."
Smith pointed out to the senator that if someone wanted to take a weapon in a backpack onto any subway in the U.S., there would be no way to stop it. So, he asked, how do we remedy this?
McCain said that there is more we can do at our ports and rail stations, "but the moral of the story is, you can't fight them here.
"You've got to go where they're bred, and that happens to be in these madrassahs that are funded by the Saudis, where the [terrorists] are taught to hate and destroy the West and everything we stand for.
"We've got to go where these terrorists breed ... in the Middle East, with the followers of extreme Islamic fundamentalism.
"We can take preventive measures, but the best way to prevent these attacks is to go after them where they breed."
McCain also defended current U.S. foreign policy that is pushing democracy all over the world, saying, "Repressive and oppressive governments also provide the incentives for this kind of extremism and that's why we're fighting hard for Democracy in the Middle East, whether it be in Egypt or Iraq or any of these other Middle Eastern countries - that's why Afghanistan was so important."
McCain also doesn't believe the convoluted notion that we are somehow creating more terrorists by fighting them.
"These people were bent on our destruction [before] September 11 ... we had not had a war in Iraq at that time. ... It's clear that there is a breeding ground of radical Islamic extremism that predates anything the U.S. has done."
He added, "If you believe that Iraq is a breeding ground, then we should do everything we can to further the process of democracy and stability in Iraq." | |  | | Cowboy | | Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:48 am Post subject: |
| Death Threats and Tolerance
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 30, 2005
“May Allah rip out his spine from his back and split his brains in two, and then put them both back, and then do it over and over again….Amen.”
“I believe he's already on the hit list, nothing new.”
“we make dua [i.e., we pray] Allah allows your blood to spill over our hands.”
These are threats I have received recently. Last week, when I spoke at the New York Tolerance Center about “The True Nature of the Jihad Threat,” I discovered that news of these threats have somehow found their way to the New York Police Department, which -- unbeknownst to me until I arrived at the venue -- dispatched its “Hercules Team” to ward off any who might have wanted to make those threats reality. The Team, a group of courteous and accomplished plainclothesmen, turned away one young man with a backpack at the door, after he refused to let them search his bag.
Against that somewhat ominous backdrop, I spoke about the violent intolerance of the Islamic jihad: its imperative to impose Sharia, with its institutionalized discrimination against non-Muslims and women, and its mandate to commit violent acts that is rooted in the Qur'an and Sunnah, supported by mainstream understandings of those texts, and elaborated by Islamic law. I tried to impress upon the crowd the threat that the jihad poses to central notions of human rights enshrined in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Bravo for life's little ironies: after this talk about the need to defend the West from this furious and fanatical form of intolerance, I was confronted by a young man and a young woman who were quite offended by my -- you guessed it -- intolerance. The Muslims who made it necessary for us to have our conversation under armed guard because of death threats did not offend them. My talk did. We had a brief discussion -- until the young man refused to shake my hand and I realized that no real exchange of ideas was going to be possible -- in which I found that their views reflected not just their personal opinions, but a large number of common prejudices and false assumptions about the nature of the present conflict, the meaning of tolerance itself, and more.
The young man, for example, insisted to me that my focus was wrong. He told me that even though he was a Jew, he believed that Israel was a worse violator of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights than the jihadists, and reiterated several times that America is the world's greatest terrorist, not any jihadist. These are, of course, fashionable notions on the Left and some sectors of the Right, but that doesn't make them true.
Israel a worse threat than the global jihad? What violence is Israel fomenting in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Nigeria, Bosnia, and elsewhere around the globe? Where are Israelis spreading an ideology that demands that its adherents subvert the states in which they live and replace their societies with a radically different social model that denies equality of rights to women and certain religious groups? Where are Israelis teaching their children that the noblest thing they can do with their lives would be to strap bombs on themselves and blow themselves up in a large crowd of unsuspecting civilians?
I am sympathetic to the Palestinian Arab refugees, some of whom I know personally. But let us not forget that the refugee problem was not created by Israel, but by the Arab states surrounding Israel that started war against her, making the displacement of peoples necessary where it need not have been. Those states also refused to take in those refugees.
It is also true that the obstacle to peace today in the Middle East is not Israel, which has always been willing to come to a negotiated settlement, but the Palestinian Arabs’ attachment to the jihad ideology, which will admit of no peaceful coexistence or any lasting negotiated settlement, but only truces on the way to total victory: the destruction of Israel and reduction of the Jews remaining in the area to dhimmi status.
Israel remains today the only Western-style republic in the Middle East, with the possible and increasingly problematic exception of Turkey. I am in daily contact with Christians from the Middle East, who feel hemmed in on both sides. Most, continuing cultural habits ingrained by centuries of dhimmitude, identify with the Muslims and excoriate Israel. Others are aware of what Sharia means: were peace to come to the area, it is unquestionable that Christians would enjoy more rights and freedoms in Israel than they would in a Palestinian Sharia State (and the Sharia is already invoked in the constitution of the PA). Where in the Muslim world do religious minorities enjoy the rights they do in Israel? Yes, the wall has made life hard for Christians and others in Bethlehem and elsewhere. Blowing people up in buses and restaurants made life hard too. Jihadist brutality and intransigence made the wall necessary.
And America is the greatest terrorist? In this the young man echoed views better expressed by the likes of Osama and Abu Hamza, but let that pass. The fact nevertheless remains that even if the most lurid tales coming out of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are true, they are simply no comparison in terms of human rights violations to the day-to-day record of Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's most notable modern Sharia states. To ascribe jihad violence to a reaction to American imperialism is to ignore the jihad conquests that went on for centuries before there even was a United States.
Of course, I was not dealing with the clearest of thinkers. The young man insisted that my talk was about “True Islam,” and that I had said that all terrorists were Muslims, when in fact the talk was entitled “The True Nature of the Jihad Threat,” and I had said no such thing about terrorists (I actually said that there was no global terrorist network comprised of Jews or Christians acting on theological imperatives from the mainstream of their traditions.) But unfortunately, it would be too hasty to dismiss all this as the muddled views of two somewhat under-informed and overly propagandized young idealists: such views are held by millions in the United States today.
Even worse came from the young man's companion, a Syrian Muslim young lady, wearing pants and no hijab. She complained that my talk did not reach out to moderate Muslims like her -- indeed, she said, it was full of “vitriol” and left the audience more intolerant than they were when they came in. Their view of my intolerance was reinforced, they said, when a New York Tolerance Center official, delighted with my talk (and finding in it no “vitriol”), told me they wanted to have me back next year to be part of a panel. The Tolerance Center official asked me to give them the names of my “dream panel” -- people I'd like to appear with. Off the top of my head, I named Bat Ye'or, Rafael Israeli, and Ibn Warraq. The couple was dismayed: no Muslims! And not only that, but all people identified with “The Right”! I tried to tell them I'd be happy to appear with Tashbih Sayyid, or, indeed, any other Muslim who cared to discuss these things with me, but by that time I was having trouble getting a word in.
However, I never did find out exactly what they found intolerant about my talk. Since I insisted -- as I always do -- that Muslims and non-Muslims must face the reality that jihadists are using the Qur'an and Sunnah to recruit and motivate terrorists, and that only when they face this problem will there be any chance for a viable solution, I can only think that that was their problem. Of course, many on both the Left and the Right consider it in the worst possible taste to suggest that today's terrorism might have anything to do with Islam (despite the fact that this cuts the ground out from any genuine Muslim reformers, whom they profess to support). Couple that with a Saidist inability to see non-Westerners as anything but victims, and Westerners as anything but perpetrators, and you have a potent brew that clouds men's minds.
Is it intolerant to speak about the intolerance of others? Is it intolerant not to tolerate evil? Is it intolerant to set out facts that are uncomfortable and that most people don't want to face? This Jewish/Muslim couple runs an organization that is designed to foster understanding between Jews and Muslims by bringing Jewish and Muslim children together to “celebrate” the “religious identities” of each. How do they keep Muslim children from celebrating the aspects of their religious identity that call Jews apes and pigs (Qur'an 2:62-65; 5:59-60; 7:166) and says they are under Allah's curse (9:30) and must be fought (9:29)? I do not know. But I know that if they simply ignore such aspects of Islam, they will someday be unpleasantly surprised by a recrudescence of Qur'an-inspired anti-Semitism and violence.
Tolerance is a keystone of modern Western societies. But if it is an absolute value, it is a one-way-ticket to cultural suicide. As I spoke with my accusers that evening, the policemen all around us made it vividly clear where the real intolerance was coming from. Should the policemen have been more tolerant of the jihadists who issued the threats against me, and the young man who refused to let his backpack be searched? Should the British and Americans have tolerated Hitler? Should the Cold Warriors have tolerated the Gulag? “Toleration of the unacceptable,” as Bob Dylan once said, “leads to the last round-up.” I am trying to head that off. Intolerant? Sue me. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:01 pm Post subject: A Nation cannot survive treason from within... |
| Traitorous Israel firsters like the Zionist Cowboy (and John McCain) are mentioned below:
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within."
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within."
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear."
Cicero Marcus Tullius - Born on January 3, 106 BC and was murdered on December 7, 43 BC.
"If the imperial state itself was divided and some sectors were not convinced of the need to go to war, which group was able to overcome that resistance, by-pass established intelligence channels (and create its own circuit), fabricate its own “intelligence and successfully lead the US to war? If war was not promoted by and in the interests of the US oil companies, and contrary to military doctrine of fighting two wars simultaneously, in whose geo-political interests was the war?
The War and the Israel-Zionist Hypothesis
The hypothesis which most fits the data is the Israel hypothesis – specifically that the principal architects and theoreticians of US world supremacy and the principal promoters of sequential wars, particularly in the Middle East, were influential Zionists in the top echelons of the Pentagon, National Security Council and in well-connected research centers “advising” the government while acting on behalf of the expansionist interests of the State of Israel.
The key author of the strategic doctrine of undisputed US world power was Wolfowitz, back in the first Bush Administration (1991). He joined with other influential Zionists like Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and a host of pro-Israel extremists to prepare a strategy paper for the Israeli state (1996) in which the Palestinians were to be physically driven from all of Palestine and Israel would become the regional power in the Middle East. Both Feith and Wolfowitz, early in their public careers were accused and chastised for turning US government documents over to the Israeli government. For at least twenty years they have been actively collaborating over Israeli policy and, in and out of government, they have worked intimately with Israeli officials in the United States and Israel."
The meaning of war: A heterodox perspective by James Petras, March 13, 2005
(An abridged version of this long treatise)
http://www.livejournal.com/~mparent7777/825272.html | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:03 pm Post subject: London Terrorism=More Intensive War |
| From: "Stephen Sniegoski" <hectorpv@comcast.net>
To: "Sniegoski, Stephen" <hectorpv@comcast.net>
Subject: London Terrorism=More Intensive War
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 21:27:22 -0400
Friends,
London Terrorism=More Intensive War
The terror attack in London is being used to justify a more intensive war in the Middle East. Tony Blair is presenting the war in Churchillian terms to justify stiffer resolve. (First article) In the second article (from the Jerusalem Post) ex-Mossad chief Halevy uses the London bombing to stress the world war scenario for the "war on terror," which the neocons have been styling World War IV. (See my article on Halevy's promotion of an American Pax Americana--http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_halevy.htm)
It is easy to notice that the Anglo/American war in the Middle East is justified no matter what the actual realities. It has been justified on the grounds that the US must fight the Islamic terrorists in Iraq in order to prevent attacks on the West. An actual attack on the West, however, is used to justify a more intensive war in the Middle East. Of course, the attack on Iraq initially was sold as a cake-walk but the actual intense resistance there has been used to prove the existence of terrorist hatred of America and the West that must be fought.
Of course, critics of the war from the very outset pointed out that the attack on Iraq would generate greater hostility to the West and those Arab governments friendly to the West. As Robert Fisk wrote in May 2002, "There is a firestorm coming. And we are blissfully ignoring its arrival; indeed, we are provoking it." http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk0527.html The firestorm is becoming reality, and is simply used by the war crowd to justify more war--which will provoke more terrorism, ad infinitum.
All of this fits the Likudnik strategy to destabilize the Arab/Islamic Middle East. It does nothing to help America or Britain but instead gives them serious problems that they could easily have avoided by a policy of non-intervention.
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050707/w0707146.html
Blair waxes Churchillian in call for unity, defiance of terrorists
08:37 PM EDT Jul 07
JILL LAWLESS
LONDON (AP) - For British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the high of winning the 2012 Olympics was followed by the devastating low of deadly bombings in the heart of London.
He rose to the occasion Thursday, delivering an almost Churchillian appeal for unity and vowing to defeat terrorism and root out the perpetrators.
In a solemn rallying cry, Blair said it was "a very sad day for the British people but we will hold true to the British way of life."
While those who set off the explosions "act in the name of Islam," he said, "we also know that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims here and abroad are decent and law-abiding people who abhor those who do this every bit as much as we do."
Blair was hosting a summit of G8 leaders in Scotland when the attacks struck, killing close to 40 people on three subway trains and a bus. He rushed back to London and after meeting with ministers and officials, delivered a televised address from 10 Downing Street.
"It is through terrorism that the people that have committed these terrible acts express their values and it is right at this moment that we demonstrate ours," said a sombre Blair.
Blair has long shown a sure rhetorical touch in times of crisis. When Diana, Princess of Wales. was killed in a car wreck in 1997, the newly elected Blair delivered a memorable speech dubbing her the "people's princess."
Hours after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, Blair promised Britain would "stand shoulder to shoulder with our American friends in this hour of tragedy and we, like them, will not rest until this evil is driven from our world."
Blair has a talent for bouncing back from adversity. Just two months ago, he had appeared a spent political force after British voters returned him to office for a third term but with a sharply reduced majority.
But the chance to host the G8 summit and his recent assumption of the rotating EU presidency as the bloc struggles for a direction appear to have reinvigorated him. And Blair's poised performance on Thursday once again proved he is a leader who thrives in times of crisis.
In his address, Blair harkened back to the "Blitz spirit" that saw Londoners through the dark days of Nazi bombing during the Second World War - and, by association, to wartime prime minister Winston Churchill, whose determined, moving speeches helped steel the resolve of Britain and the Empire.
"There will, of course, now be the most intense police and security service action to make sure that we bring those responsible to justice," Blair said.
"I would also pay tribute to the stoicism and resilience of the people of London who have responded in a way typical of them."
Blair promised "the most intense police and security service action to make sure that we bring those responsible to justice."
He said Britain would show "by our spirit and dignity" that "our values will long outlast theirs (terrorists)".
"The purpose of terrorism is just that. It is to terrorize people and we will not be terrorized."
Text of British prime minister's statement on attacks in London
British Prime Minister Tony Blair issued a pair of statements Thursday after explosions in the London transit system caused deaths and injuries; the first was an initial account of what happened, the second issued with other G8 leaders at their summit in Gleneagles, Scotland.
Blair's first statement:
I'm just going to make a short statement to you on the terrible events that have happened in London earlier today. And I hope you understand that at the present time we're still trying to establish what has happened. There's a limit to what information I can give you. And I'll simply try and tell you the information as best I can at the moment.
It's reasonably clear there have been a series of terrorist attacks in London. There are, obviously, casualties, both people that have died and people seriously injured. And our thoughts and prayers, of course, are with the victims and their families.
It's my intention to leave the G8 within the next couple of hours and go down to London and get a report face to face with the police and the emergency services and the ministers that have been dealing with this, and then to return later this evening.
It is the will of all the leaders at the G8, however, that the meeting should continue in my absence, that we should continue to discuss the issues that we were going to discuss and reach the conclusions which we were going to reach.
Each of the countries around that table has some experience of the effects of terrorism. And all the leaders, as they will indicate a little bit later, share our complete resolution to defeat this terrorism.
It's particularly barbaric that this has happened on a day when people are meeting to try to help the problems of poverty in Africa and the long-term problems of climate change in the environment.
Just as it is reasonably clear that this is a terrorist attack, or a series of terrorist attacks, it's also reasonably clear that it is designed and aimed to coincide with the opening of the G8.
There will be time to talk later about this.
It's important, however, that those engaged in terrorism realize that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world.
Whatever they do, it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilized nations throughout the world.
Thank you.
-
Blair's G8 statement:
We condemn utterly these barbaric attacks. We send our profound condolences to the victims and their families.
All of our countries have suffered from the impact of terrorism. Those responsible have no respect for human life. We are united in our resolve to confront and defeat this terrorism that is not an attack on one nation but on all nations and on civilized people everywhere.
We will not allow violence to change our societies or our values, nor will we allow it to stop the work of this summit. We will continue our deliberations in the interests of a better world.
Here at this summit, the world's leaders are striving to combat world poverty and save and improve human life. The perpetrators of today's attacks are intent on destroying human life.
The terrorists will not succeed. Today's bombings will not weaken in any way our resolve to uphold the most deeply held principles of our societies and to defeat those who would impose their fanaticism and extremism on all of us.
We shall prevail and they shall not.
© The Canadian Press, 2005
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1120702711778&p=1074657885918
Rules of conflict for a world war
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efraim Halevi, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 7, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place today on the London transportation system were the work of perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope. They have come a long way since the two attacks of the year 1998 against the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar-Es-Salaam, and the aircraft actions of September 11, 2001.
There was careful planning, intelligence gathering, and a sophisticated choice of timing as well as near-perfect execution. We are faced with a deadly and determined adversary who will stop at nothing and will persevere as long as he exists as a fighting terrorist force.
One historical irony: I doubt whether the planners knew that one of the target areas, that in Russell Square, was within a stone's throw of a building that served as the first headquarters of the World Zionist Organization that preceded the State of Israel.
It was at 77 Great Russell Street that Dr. Chaim Weizmann, a renowned chemist, presided over the effort that culminated in the issuing of the Balfour Declaration, the first international recognition of the right of the Jewish people to a national home in what was then still a part of the Ottoman Empire.
We are in the throes of a world war, raging over the entire globe and characterized by the absence of lines of conflict and an easily identifiable enemy. There are sometimes long pauses between one attack and another, consequently creating the wrong impression that the battle is all over, or at least in the process of being won.
Generally speaking, the populations at large are not involved in the conflict, and by and large play the role of bystanders. But once in a while, these innocents are caught up in the maelstrom and suffer the most cruel and wicked of punishments meted out by those who are not bound by any rules of conduct or any norms of structured society. For a while, too short a while, we are engrossed with the sheer horror of what we see and hear, but, with the passage of time, our memories fade and we return to our daily lives, forgetting that the war is still raging out there and more strikes are sure to follow.
It cannot be said that seven years after this war broke out in east Africa, we can see its conclusion. We are in for the long haul and we must brace ourselves for more that will follow. The 'Great Wars' of the 20th century lasted less than this war has already lasted, and the end is nowhere in sight.
There will be supreme tests of leadership in this unique situation and people will have to trust the wisdom and good judgment of those chosen to govern them. The executives must be empowered to act resolutely and to take every measure necessary to protect the citizens of their country and to carry the combat into whatever territory the perpetrators and their temporal and spiritual leaders are inhabiting.
The rules of combat must be rapidly adjusted to cater to the necessities of this new and unprecedented situation, and international law must be rewritten in such a way as to permit civilization to defend itself. Anything short of this invites disaster and must not be allowed to happen.
The aim of the enemy is not to defeat western civilization but to destroy its sources of power and existence, and to render it a relic of the past. It does not seek a territorial victory or a regime change; it wants to turn western civilization into history and will stop at nothing less than that.
It will show no mercy or compassion and no appreciation for these noble values when practiced by us. This does not mean that we can or should assume the norms of our adversaries, nor that we should act indiscriminately. It does mean that the only way to ensure our safety and security will be to obtain the destruction, the complete destruction, of the enemy.
MUCH HAS been said in recent years about the vital need for international cooperation. There is no doubt that this is essential. Yet no measure of this will suffice and it cannot replace the requirement that each and every country effectively declare itself at war with international Islamist terror and recruit the public to involve itself actively in the battle, under the direction of the legal powers that be.
In the past, governments have been expected to provide security to their citizens. The responsibility is still there, in principle. But in practice, no government today can provide an effective 'suit of protection' for the ordinary citizen. There can be no protection for every bus, every train, every street, every square. In these times the ordinary citizen must be vigilant and must make his personal contribution to the war effort. Private enterprise will have to supplement the national effort in many walks of life.
The measures that I have outlined above will not be easily adopted
overnight. When the US entered World War Two, Congress approved the momentous decision by a majority of one vote. Profound cultural changes will have to come about and the democratic way of life will be hard-pressed to produce solutions that will enable the executive branch to perform its duties and, at the same time, to preserve the basic tenets of our democratic way of life. It will not be easy, but it will be essential not to lose sight of every one of these necessities.
This war is already one of the longest in modern times; as things appear now, it is destined to be part of our daily lives for many years to come, until the enemy is eliminated, as it surely will be.
The writer, who heads the Center for Strategic and Policy Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is a former head of the Mossad.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1120702711778&p=1074657885918 | | | | PSCM USCGR | | Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:49 pm Post subject: |
| | Keep in mind...when these Arab ass lickers read something that shows how Muslim extremists kill for innocent civilians...they call it "Zionist Propaganda". But if the same source says something favorable to them, it's called a "true and reliable source". | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:55 pm Post subject: |
| | PSCM USCGR wrote: | | Keep in mind...when these Arab ass lickers |
You too?.
What's with this "Ass licking" pejorative theme. Call me anything you want but I really don't understand it.
Kinky. To each their own. | | | | Alpha | | | | PSCM USCGR | | Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 7:49 pm Post subject: |
| | Jefferson Davis wrote: | | PSCM USCGR wrote: | | Keep in mind...when these Arab ass lickers |
You too?.
What's with this "Ass licking" pejorative theme. Call me anything you want but I really don't understand it.
Kinky. To each their own. |
Not really JD....just bored sitting here in Panama City waiting for Hurricane Dennis. I guess I'm paying the price for all this good living...but it's still better than snow. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
