Posts Tagged ‘Islam’

Why Sarah Palin Is Right About Syria

Sunday, June 16th, 2013

Why Should We Go to Syria?

At Saturday’s session of the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference in Washington DC, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin made some remarks, and among those that prompted the media to go berserk, she said of the potential of US involvement in that conflict that we “should let Allah sort it out.”  I actually saw one site on which she was referred to as an “isolationist” for this view, but such claims are laughable given her in-depth understanding of international trade and national security.  I saw another site suggesting that she didn’t know what she was talking about, or wasn’t qualified to comment.  Either way, it seemed more likely that the sites and authors in question had more trouble with who said it, or how it was said, because I believe the vast majority of Americans probably side with Governor Palin on this issue.  Apart from the fact that most Americans haven’t the patience for another middle-eastern  military engagement with indistinct goals and a muddled mission, there are some very practical reasons why she is right about all of this.  Mostly, it comes down to the fact that it’s a no-win situation for us, because while the horrors of what is going on in Syria is tragic in human terms, nothing the US can do will effect an end to the suffering, instead only adding to it with our own losses.

The reports this past week that the Assad government had crossed Obama’s “red line” on chemical weapons seem not to be as certain or as specific as our engagement should require.  There are reports that Sarin nerve gas had been used, and that more than one-hundred had been killed in this manner.  If true, it’s an egregious and brutal use of some very insidious weaponry, but it must also be said that if killing one-hundred or more civilians by this manner is a trigger for war, why did it take so long for us to engage Saddam Hussein? In the early years of the Clinton administration, Hussein used precisely this sort of weapon on his own civilians in Southern Iraq.

Advocates of intervention in Syria claim that what we should do is enact a “no fly zone” over that country.  They insist that this is as far as we need go, but there are a few problems with this thinking.  Russia has recently delivered more advanced surface-to-air missile capability to Syria, meaning that our aircraft would be subject to shoot-down in a much more threatening fashion.  Is all of this really worth losing our airmen and our aircraft?  I don’t see a rational justification.  If this were about defending the United States, our men and women will go to the ends of the Earth in pursuit of our defense, but I know few who think we ought to spend their lives frivolously or as a matter of charity, particularly in a place where we have no particular interests or friends.

The fact is that the so-called “rebels” are simply al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda-backed fighters much like those who took down Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Nobody misses Gaddafi, but as the events at Benghazi last September demonstrate, the volatile nature of an environment only loosely-controlled by provisional governments but dominated on the ground by foreign fighters is not the sort of outcome for which Americans should be fighting.

Bashir Assad is a brutal dictator, but those “rebels” who face him are not much better.  We have seen this scenario play out before, and we’re witnessing its aftermath in Libya and Egypt.  The attack on our facilities at Benghazi was born of a similar situation, inasmuch as after we provided air cover for the “rebels” in that country, they immediately shifted gears and wanted us out as they began to build their Islamic Republic.  In this sense, we have no friends at all, by any definition, so that it’s impossible to understand why we would put Americans’ lives at risk to assist any of them.  In this context, it is easy to understand Governor Palin’s sentiment.  We don’t have any friends there, no real national security interests, and therefore, no justification for jumping in.

At the same time, the Russians are heavily invested in Syria and the Assad regime.  Iran is pledging forces to his defense.  Should we really consider placing our already over-stretched forces at risk for this?  Do we risk a wider war in the region if some Russian technical advisers are killed in a raid on a surface-to-air missile site?  More, if al-Qaeda-connected groups were to take over Syria as they have done in Libya, what will that mean for Israel that must live under the constant threat of Syria.  Which is worse for that island of liberty:  A neighbor that is predictably antagonistic and dangerous, or a volatile tempest filled with elements that feel no restraint born of relations to Russia or any other major power?  I’m not inclined to guess as to how the Israelis might feel about the matter, but I suspect that an al-Qaeda-driven neighborhood is not the most pleasant prospect the Israelis could imagine.

There is one final consideration in all of this, and it goes to the absolutely detestable leadership we’ve had over the last few years:  Americans can hardly trust a foreign policy that has squandered opportunities and lives in the manner that has been the hallmark of the Obama administration.  Do we wish to subsidize a foreign policy that is concocted by the likes of Samantha Power?  Do we wish to see the United States entangled in yet another quagmire in that region in which we have far too few friends given our more than two decades of exertions?  How much treasure has been spent, and how much of our blood has been spilled in the pursuit of policies with only vague platitudes about creating or supporting “democracy?”  In which pest-hole has that so far succeeded?

When critics of her remarks launch into their narrow-minded tirades against her alleged lack of foreign policy knowledge, or her supposed “isolationist” views, I can’t help but remember that these same critics would attack Governor Palin whatever her position had been.  Instead, her remarks serve as a flashpoint not for their true policy objections, but instead for their unabashed, unremitting hatred of Sarah Palin, the person.  When one carefully evaluates the facts on the ground in Syria, the hopelessness of the situation becomes evident, and the foolishness of any American engagement there becomes clear.  In Syria, we have no friends, but only enemies, who hate us as much or more than they hate one another.  Were we to intercede on behalf of the so-called “rebels,” were they to prevail, we would soon find ourselves under the gun to get out.  Most Americans are well beyond fatigued by this procedure, as it has been the trend in all our engagements throughout the Muslim world in the last two decades, so that unless the United States or its interests come under direct threat of some sort from actors in the region, our answer should be as Governor Palin wryly noted:  “Let Allah sort it out.”

 

Advertisements

Krispy Kreme Keynote?

Wednesday, August 15th, 2012

Embracing Islam...

I find it baffling when some politicians take such pleasure in behaving publicly like thugs, as has Chris Christie. With his bullying demeanor, and his non-stop vitriol, a loudmouth like this might be expected to take a tough stance against actual threats to the nation, but that’s hardly the case.  As obnoxious as he has been at times, I hadn’t known he was such a suck-up for the cause of Islam, but according to an article appearing in FrontPage Magazine, Christie hosted an Iftar dinner at which he has singled out a supporter of Islamic suicide bombers as his friend.  Yes, that’s right, the New Jersey blowhard, known for shouting- down members of the public, virtually groveled at the appearance of Mohammed Qatanani, an Imam well-known in New Jersey who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a proven supporter of Hamas.  This is a man who has helped raise money for the families of suicide bombers, and Chris Christie is hanging out with him? As I read this on Monday afternoon, I became perplexed at Governor Christie’s stance, but I was even more baffled as news came out on Monday evening that Christie would be announced on Tuesday as the man to deliver the GOP convention’s keynote address.

How is it possible that the Governor of New Jersey, who throws verbal bombs in every conceivable direction, and who has such ties will give the RNC’s keynote address? Part of the problem we face has been well-covered in such blogs as Pamela Geller’s AtlasShrugs, consisting of an unwillingness on the part of many Republicans to discuss the infiltration of Islamists into American governmental institutions.  Many of them are compromised, having ties to wealthy donors, and when questioned, they inevitably accuse the questioner of carrying out some sort of Salem’s Witch Hunt, or accuse them of “McCarthyism,” never acknowledging the facts of the matter.  Christie is no different on this score, using the occasion of the dinner to again defend Sohail Mohammed, a man he appointed to the Superior Court bench in Passaic County, New Jersey, who had been a defense attorney for Imam Qatanani:

“Ignorance is behind the criticism of Sohail Mohammed,” Christie declared, without bothering to explain how “ignorance” provoked Qatanani’s guilty plea, or involvement in Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, or Mohammed’s other ties to Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas-linked individuals and groups.

When you hear a politician fetch out this kind of language, it is almost invariably because there is something to be hidden.  I am concerned that as bad as Governor Christie’s demeanor has been in many instances, his ties to these sorts of unsavory characters calls into question what sort of man he really is, because there’s nothing in this to exculpate his behavior.  Why is the Governor of New Jersey involved with such things?  Is this a case of pure political back-scratching, and if so, is Christie unaware of the threat?  It would seem unlikely that Christie could have managed to ignore all the information to which he had access on Imam Qatanani, and it’s incomprehensible that he would be unaware of its implications.

I don’t know what Chris Christie will say at the GOP convention as its keynote speaker, but you can bet it won’t be about the threat of Islamic radicals that our nation faces.  I’m tired of politicians on both sides of the aisle who seem inclined to play patty-cakes with people who have a professed interest in undermining our nation.  The piece in FrontPage Magazine merely punctuates this point with respect to Christie, calling into question why he would be chosen as the keynote speaker.  It’s not as though one couldn’t think of better.  Ahem.

 

What If Christians in America Reacted Like Muslims in Afghanistan?

Sunday, February 26th, 2012

One Thing Leads To Another

I can’t help but notice that the President and his friends in the leftist establishment press are offering a dangerous precedent for anybody who wants to notice it.  As Barack Obama apologizes to the Taliban, Afghans, and Muslims everywhere for the inadvertent burning of a few copies of the Qur’an, the reaction is even more strident and increasingly violent.  The more violent they become, the more Obama and his friends in the press grovel, to the extent that he’s now got the entire military chain of command making apologies and running around in panic that they have offended Islam.  Watching all of this, I had a sudden thought:  What would happen if American Christians reacted to the contraception mandate in precisely the same way?  Would Obama grovel before them too, or like his bowing all over the Middle East, is that reserved solely for the Muslim world?  To watch this president in action is to observe a slow-motion train-wreck, if you believe he’s incompetent, but I no longer hold that view.  No president could act so recklessly.  If Christians reacted in a more vociferous manner, would President Obama apologize and grovel for them too, or would he crack down on his own countrymen, as I suspect?

This display couldn’t be more disgusting, and yet, given the way Christians and others of faith(excepting Muslims) are treated by the current administration, maybe that’s the answer:  Americans of faith are simply too docile, and too willing to “turn the other cheek.”  Of course, as Americans of faith have long since discovered, when it comes to the Obama administration, and the mainstream media, turning the other cheek has begun to give the appearance of somebody watching a tennis match.  Christians particularly have taken a beating from this administration, and Obama’s willing accomplices in the media carry out shameless attacks on people of faith under the general auspices of “reporting the news.”

I realize Christians are not very likely to “go Taliban” as the Afghans have been doing this week, but the reaction of the Obama administration may offer a bit of a clue.  I’m not advocating violence, of course, but maybe it’s time to put together a “million Christian march” or some such thing to remind the administration Who is in charge.  Apparently, the administration is quite fearful of the mess now ongoing in Afghanistan, and at the rate things are going, I can see us evacuating via helicopter off the roof of our embassy there.  Not satisfied to turn the fight into Vietnam out in the field, the liberals are accomplishing the seemingly impossible: We’re going to wind up with video out of Afghanistan very much like we saw as the United States evacuated from Saigon, leaving people desperate to escape clamoring to be lifted out too. Leftists everywhere will celebrate.

Of course, the way this country is being led into the ground, Christians may not have to do much.  If the Occupiers have their way, they’ll create a similar scene at the White House, and Barack Obama will fly out in Marine One, leaving the likes of Biden and Carney to fend for themselves among the restless natives.  This is the state of our rudderless nation as Barack Obama takes one victory after the other and converts them into complete disasters.  His apologies have done nothing but to encourage the mobs of angry Afghans, and it’s a disturbing picture when you realize they are merely acting out on the basis of that which they believe.  Call it irrational if you want, and yes, they’re barbaric murderers who have killed Americans in their blood-lust, but consider this:  Barack Obama is begging their forgiveness for a “wrong” that has been shown to be an accidental insult, and not the act of malice.

What are we then to make of a president who acts with malice toward the people of faith in his own country? He insults Catholics, demeans Christians, and tells them their faith must be subservient to his government, while the government he leads and administers bows in surrender and supplication before the rioters in Afghanistan.  How is an American Christian or Jew to take this, realizing that he does the same at home, since we cannot say “Islamic Terrorism” with respect to Major Nidal Hasan, but instead call it “workplace violence?”  Is it not stunning to see an American president who evinces respect for foreign savages who practice a religion he does respect, while he ignores the consciences of Americans who practice a religion he apparently holds in contempt?

This is abominable, sickening behavior, not only by the murderous thugs in Afghanistan, but also by the irresponsible administration in Washington DC.  Where a decent President would have ignored the incident in his official capacity, knowing that to acknowledge it would give it more gravity and not less, and in a situation in which a responsible president would have loosed the dogs of war in their own defense, Barack Obama not only has harmed us, and especially the troops under his command, but he has ignored the chance to deliver a lesson to the Afghans who now rise up in open rebellion against us over a mistake.

Any decent respect for our country and its position in this world would have led him to treat this entire incident differently, but he has no respect, neither for the country nor for the office he occupies.  Just once, I would like to see him react in a similar fashion when Americans of faith were rightly offended, rather than working to offend them more thoroughly in the next instance.  Until Barack Obama leaves that office, our nation will suffer one disaster after the next, and all of his making, and as I wrote this past week, I no longer believe the line that it’s all due to incompetence.  He’s intentionally paying respect to those who have none for us, and he’s one of them in spirit, if not in open worship.  While he reaches out to offended Muslims the world over, he turns his backside to us, and the moon you’re being shown isn’t the crescent common to Islam.

 

Victoria Jackson Claims Islamic Infiltration of US Under Way

Wednesday, December 28th, 2011

She's Back!

There are those who will argue it’s hard to take Victoria Jackson seriously after her career as a comic on Saturday Night Live.  She’s been taking on more serious subjects for some time now, writing columns for WND, and also taking on the Occupy Wall Street crowd.  In this case, she claims that the Muslim Brotherhood is infiltrating the US federal government, and she’s goes to some lengths to make her case. It’s a serious charge, and she goes further, ultimately suggesting that President Obama is tied to all of this.  While it’s hard to dispute that Obama’s policies have certainly been favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood, her other claims are somewhat more difficult for most Americans to accept.

In the video below, she’s on PolitiChicks.tv, and she discusses the details of a briefing she attended.

It’s hard to deny that the mainstream media has been doing its best to cover up incidents involving Muslims.  The ridiculous classification by DoD of the Fort Hood shooting as an act of “workplace violence” comes to mind, and Tuesday’s disclosure about the Christmas day shooting in Grapevine, TX are only two examples of this sort of reporting.  With the Obama administration’s actions on the Fort Hood shooting, and its Department of Homeland Security head referring to acts of terrorism as “man-caused disasters,” it’s not hard to understand why some Americans are beginning to ask questions of their government and a media that seems institutionally devoted to covering for radical Muslim terrorists.  At the same time, we have the DoD allowing the wearing of the hijab by JROTC cadets, leading some to question what is going on behind the scenes.  Still, some will have difficulty accepting at face value what Jackson alleges because of her comedic past, but I think such an out-of-hand dismissal is a mistake.  In any event, it’s certain to be a matter of continuing controversy, and you can count on the media to sweep it all under the rug.

Why Israel Matters

Friday, August 19th, 2011

Abandoning our Friends?

It’s become fashionable in the media to suppose that conservatives’ support for Israel is due purely to religious considerations.  The most recent talking point from the left is that American conservatives support Israel because, as Noam Chomsky asserts, the Christians who are a substantial part of the conservative movement in the country want the Jewish population of Israel to be exterminated by Armageddon.  This assertion is offered because the left really has nothing else to offer in terms of the argument other than their endless hate-filled criticisms of both Israel and Christians.  In this way, they are able to dismiss the widespread support of Israel among conservatives as the ranting of religious zealots, in much the same way they’ve tried to dismiss the Tea Party by painting them as terrorists and racists. It’s their favorite smear, and the method by which they spread their madness.

This is the same basic tactic the left adopts in all matters, but if we examine only the strategic reasons to support Israel, what we find is that we arrive at the same logical conclusion:  Support of Israel is nearly as important to the security of the United States as our routine considerations in national defense.

Israel is a tiny sliver of land, and it is surrounded by enemies that do not recognize the Jewish state’s right to exist.  Those enemies will hate Israel until every inch of ground is conquered, and every Jew on the planet is exterminated.  Don’t make any mistake about it: These same villains intend the same end for all “infidels” including Christians, or any other non-Muslims, and also no small number of their fellow Muslims.  This is a fact.  Apologists are free to claim the opposite, but they aren’t free to invent their own facts.

The current meme among members of the Washington DC intelligentsia is that if only the Israelis would yield some land, and some more, peace would sweep over the region.  This is a bald-faced lie.  It offers Washington elites the opportunity to duck out and feign ignorance later, when the radical Islamists have their way with the region.  It also enables a few people on the right, with more libertarian ideas to pretend that the problems and threats the United States faces end at the water’s edge.  These naive people are dangerous in their own right, because they typically serve as tools for those who are far more malevolent in their intentions.

Israel is our only real ally in the region, despite the claptrap to the contrary, particularly with the advent of the media-lauded “Arab Spring” that has ousted a number of autocrats who we had over the years in various ways paid for their compliance.  This too is a failed policy, because in so doing, all we managed to do is alienate the populace to a certain degree and make them vulnerable to the radical militants.  This approach doesn’t improve the situation, and there is certainly some evidence that it has worsened things, but withholding payments and assistance to thugs, even those who some would term our thugs, is not the same as turning our backs on the people of Israel.

Israel is a nation with political freedoms for its citizens that approaches our own.  No nation is perfect, but Israel is the one nation in its region that permits political dissent without ultimately resorting to firing squads.  One need only examine the ruthless behavior of Assad in Syria, or Ahmedinejad in Iran to understand what sort of butchery the region routinely produces.  Israel is the exception, and it’s of paramount importance that we recognize this fact in our dealings with the Islamic world.

Unfortunately, it has become increasingly clear that our current administration is determined to leave Israel alone and vulnerable, without even such support as the assurance of our vote in their favor on the UN security council.  This can have only one ultimate purpose, and that is to force Israel into permitting their country to be divided and partitioned, and ultimately destroyed.  We, the American people, who have rescued nations from tyranny around the globe, should never permit this. We, who arrived too late to prevent one holocaust, should do all we are able to prevent another, particularly when prevention merely requires standing firmly with our lone ally in the region.

The problem with abandoning Israel as some libertarians would have us do, and lately, as every leftist in the country seems inclined to do, is that rather than keeping us from war, it runs the ultimate risk of a global war from which we will not escape.  It is widely believed that Israel has a substantial nuclear arsenal.  If they are attacked in any way seen as an existential threat, we can expect them to employ that arsenal, and I would not blame them in the least.  The consequences of such an exchange would almost certainly ignite a worldwide conflagration to which we would become a party, in one way or another.

That sort of war would certainly threaten Americans at home, in a thorough way, not only in terms of subjecting us to actual warfare, but also crippling our nation as oil from that region slowed to a trickle.  Whatever your particular religious beliefs may or may not be is irrelevant to this discussion.  I don’t need to be a Christian or a Jew to know that murder is wrong, and the intention of mass murder is evil.  I realize we spend some money in our budget in support of Israel, but considering the alternatives available at present, it may well be a relative pittance to us when compared to the cost in blood and treasure we would pay if the situation there destabilized further, and Israel came under direct attack [again] by one or more of their neighbors.

It makes no sense to argue that we should withhold a few billion dollars in financial support of Israel in the name of thrifty government when the potential costs of a strategically unavoidable conflict in the region would exceed those relatively modest expenditures in the first few hours alone, never mind the human tragedy that would unfold.

When a leftist like Chomsky proposes the idea that Christians seek the death of Jews in an Armageddon, he’s not only lying, but also offering a psychological confession of what it is that he intends.  One needn’t be religiously motivated to see the crucial position of Israel in US strategic national security matters.  It takes only a basic regard for the facts on the ground to realize that to abandon Israel is to substantially subject ourselves to the ravages of war.

There are many Americans who possess only vague knowledge of the conflict in and around Israel.  Many of these have become convinced of the notion that “they’ve been fighting one another for thousands of years, and it’s best for us to simply leave it be.”  If you’ve fallen for this notion, is it because you’re tired of hearing about it?  Does it look too futile ever to be solved?  Do you falsely place both parties in this struggle on a plane of moral equivalence?  What motive is served by this frivolously thoughtless notion?

In Israel, there is no moral equivalence between the two.  Those who claim to be “Palestinean” are the un-assimilated children of refugees who fled the West Bank and Gaza because they believed the Jews were going to be eradicated, and they had been told to leave in order to make it easier for the advancing armies of Islamic states to attack mercilessly.  They are those who wished to collaborate in a holocaust.  The Jews who were expelled from Arab states sought their refuge in Israel.  Israel took them in and assimilated them into their population.  Why did the Arab states not pursue the same end after the cessation of hostilities?

It is on the basis of such a naive false moral equivalence that the elites in Washington DC now urge you to turn a blind eye.  As soon as you do so, they will feel comfortable in doing so also.  When and if that occurs, the results will be horrifying.  Don’t shrink from it.  Don’t attempt to disclaim responsibility.  Too many Americans of all manner of religions have attempted to warn you, and don’t be surprised when the consequences visit these shores.  It’s inevitable.  The people of Israel seek freedom in their land.  They have in graciousness followed a fools’ errand of attempting to buy peace with a portion of their lands to no good effect, but they have learned. That approach has been approximately like offering a mugger half your wallet willingly, whose gun is at your head, and actually holding out hope he will be satisfied with the half.  Once he has it, what is to prevent him from demanding the other half, if he still holds the gun?

This is why, despite attempts over the course of human history, the lesson remains firmly, stubbornly true: You cannot negotiate with terrorists.  There is no limiting factor, because if they are willing to wipe you out for some particular purpose, the moment you yield to their terror, they will understand it as weakness, and they will be willing to wipe you out for any motive that crosses their minds.

For the sake of our own country’s security, Israel matters a great deal.  Let the leftist and Islamist thugs who are now working together claim otherwise, but to follow their advice is surely to condemn not only Israel, but also our own country, to bloody disaster.  Most of us have known of the idea contained in the affirmation and oath: “Never again.”  Did we mean it, or is that mere bravado we spout for our own self-satisfaction?