Obama's War on Al Qaeda

With the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki (along with a bonus terrorist), I once again have to give President Obama credit for taking decisive, effective action against Al Qaeda. As much as I dislike the president, and think he's an naive incompetent when it comes to foreign policy in general, I have to admit that he has pursued our war with Al Qaeda with every bit as much ferocity as his predecessor. If anything, he has expanded our global reach, and has demonstrated that there are few safe havens for terrorist enemies of the U.S. -- especially leaders like al-Awlaki.

Back in 2009 I wrote a series of posts giving my opinion on things I thought we should be doing to prosecute our war against radical Islamic terrorists. In the concluding post I said,

The U.S. needs to start instilling some terror of our own in our enemies. The current fear faced by Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region -- that they could be killed at any minute by a drone strike -- should be extended to terrorist enemies across the globe. Rather than fear arrest, every member of an Islamic terror organization, their supporters, and the radical Islamic clerics who cheer them on, should be made to live their lives waiting for a bullet in the head from a U.S.-directed assassin.

I also wrote,

there is little hope that anything I've suggested will be done by the current administration

Clearly I was wrong. The President has actually done some of what I advocated in the passage above. His establishment of drone bases gives us the means to strike at terrorists in various areas. More importantly, he has not allowed U.S. striking power to be crippled by the blind legalism of terrorist rights supporters. All the bases and drones in the world are useless without the will to send them into action. Unlike some -- including a minority on the right -- the president appears to be able to tell the difference between terrorist enemies who should be eliminated, and criminals subject to the legal system. In the case of al-Awlaki, he rightly decided that in this special case, American citizenship should not shield someone who is openly recruiting terrorists to strike America.

I'm a Republican partisan and I don't want to see Obama get re-elected. But it my opinion it is intellectually dishonest for Republicans to pretend that the president is somehow soft on terrorism, at least as it applies to operations against Al Qaeda and its affiliates worldwide. The evidence says that he isn't, and he should get credit for the things he does right, even from political opponents.

Anwar al-Awlaki Killed

We've been hunting Anwar al-Awlaki for quite some time and it appears that we finally got him. Details are unclear, but several news sources are reporting that he was killed in a drone strike. Naturally terrorist rights supporters are unhappy. I wrote about al-Awlaki and the ridiculous arguments of those claiming that he deserved "due process," a year ago in my post "Kill Anwar al-Awlaki."

Britain Decides to Cut Funding for Internal Enemies

It's a sad comedy of just how bad things have gotten in the UK that it took a big cabinet fight for the government to decide to stop funding Islamic extremist groups. Seriously.

David Cameron will emerge as the victor from a bitter cabinet battle over multiculturalism this week as the government unveils a hardline approach to tackling Islamist extremism.

Home Office sources say that Cameron has quashed Nick Clegg's argument for a more tolerant attitude to Muslim groups by insisting on a strategy centred upon the notion that violent extremism is incubated within the ideology of non-violent extremism.

Apparently Clegg and other useful idiots for Islamism within the UK wanted to provide money to Islamic extremist groups as long as they didn't openly advocate violence.

Cameron said it was "nonsense" to fund groups with extremist elements

You might think that would be obvious.

Lindsey Graham Thinks We Should Appease Barbarians

I expect this sort of thing from Democrats, ever eager to pander to Muslims. But here's Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

the first member of Congress to say the legislature needs to explore the possibility, however unlikely, of limiting some kinds of free speech - like Terry Jones' Quran burning - that help America's enemies.

"I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war,"

What a great idea. We should limit our free speech rights because of the actions of murderous, fanatical barbarians. We aren't bending over backward enough to avoid giving offense to Afghans, all while pouring money we don't have into a corrupt country that has done very little to deserve our assistance. Now we need to think about restricting a classic form of free speech by U.S. citizens: the harmless destruction of a symbol. We have to do that because savages poisoned by religion can't control themselves.

The people that should be held accountable are those who advocate and justify murdering innocent victims because someone burned a book and hurt their feelings.

Following Friday prayers, Muslim clerics instructed religious worshippers to avenge the slander of the Holy Quran by western infidels.

Back in 2009 I wrote the following:

Deploying assassins to kill terrorist enemies is something we should already be doing, and should have put into place right after 9/11. It is also worth considering directly targeting radical Islamic clerics who preach jihad against Americans and openly support terrorism. Such clerics believe they can inspire terrorism and send suicide bombers to their deaths with impunity, remaining secure themselves while others blow up civilians or install roadside bombs. It's time they started dying also.

If we want to hold someone accountable, that would be the way to go about it.

As for Lindsey Graham, he should be voted out of office. Unfortunately he'd probably be replaced by an even worse Democrat.

Restricting Free Speech to Protect Free Speech?

There was an interesting editorial in yesterday's LA Times by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Daniel Huff called, "It's time to fight back against death threats by Islamic extremists." The authors call for new legislation similar to that passed to deter intimidation tactics used by anti-abortion protesters.

It's time for free-speech advocates to take a page from the abortion rights movement's playbook.  ... they lobbied for a federal law making it a crime to threaten people exercising reproductive rights and permitting victims to sue for damages. ... A federal law would do two things. First, it would deter violent tactics, by focusing national attention on the problem and invoking the formidable enforcement apparatus of the federal government. Second, its civil damages provision would empower victims of intimidation to act as private attorneys general to defend their rights.

Although I strongly sympathize with the intent, I'm highly skeptical of remedies that involve protecting free speech by passing more laws. The way to defend free speech against Islamic extremism is to defy intimidation by collectively refusing to pander to delicate Islamic sensibilities. Terroristic threats should be taken seriously, the perpetrators tracked down and prosecuted. But passing a new law that allows implied threats to be subject to preset legal damages -- as the authors advocate -- is a bad idea that will likely lead to unintended consequences. It would almost certainly result in a stifling of certain forms of political speech, based on court interpretations of what exactly constitutes some sort of threat. Protecting free speech by giving courts a new weapon to restrict it is a really bad idea.

Spineless Bowing Before Radical Islam

The Museum of World Culture in Gothenburg, Sweden has canceled an art exhibit "featuring homosexuality in religion." Why would they do that? Apparently they feared "it might offend some believers." Hmm, I wonder which ones might be most offended, and who the museum might actually care about enough to remove a planned exhibit. What religious believers could they be talking about? According to the article, museum officials "consulted" with Jewish, Christian and Islamic representatives before making the decision. I can't remember the last time people putting up art exhibits seriously worried that Christians or Jews might be offended. In fact, there is plenty of art specifically designed to offend Christians. There's no doubt that some Christians & Jews might be offended by an exhibit featuring gay sex and passages of scripture. They might even write some nasty letters, boycott, or show up to protest at the gallery. But the UPI adds to the spineless cave-in by the museum in the face of intimidation with its own cowardly refusal to mention the real reason for the cancellation: fear of radical Islamic violence.

A quick search about the Museum of World Culture turned up this Wikipedia entry.

In February 2005 the museum decided to remove the painting "Scène d’Amour" by Louzla Darabi. The painting was part of a temporary exhibition about HIV/AIDS, and depicted a man and a woman having sexual intercourse. The artist and the curator had received numerous death threats from Muslims enraged over the Koran quotations which were featured in a corner of the painting. Some threats were telling the artist to "learn from the Netherlands", referring to the murder of van Gogh and threats against Hirsi Ali.

I'm sure the museum canceled this latest exhibit before it even opened out of fear of offending Christians and Jews.

For Draw Mohammed Day

If you can't draw and want to participate, here's something that will help you out. 

From PoliticalCartoons.com.

Another False Analogy from the Left

The use of false analogies has long been a staple of left-wing argumentation, almost as important as smear tactics. But occasionally you see one that is outrageously idiotic, even for a logically-challenged leftist. Such is the case over at Balloon Juice, in a post called, "Who’s being naive now?" According to DougJ, the South Park situation involving Revolution Islam happens "in some form, every day on every show on television." Really? I guess we missed all those death threats that regularly force people not to show certain things on tv. But for clueless leftist DougJ, radical Islamic death threats are somehow equivalent to "complaints."

here’s a partial list of people who lost their jobs for not being sufficiently psyched about Operation Iraqi Freedom: Bill Maher, Ashleigh Banfield, Phil Donahue. NBC wouldn’t rebroadcast the clip of Sinead O’Connor tearing up a picture of the pope. ... When it happens because of right-wing American complaints, it’s called family values or patriotism. When it happens because of Muslim complaints, it’s called censorship.

Let's pretend that DougJ is correct about why those people lost their jobs. How is losing your job because you offended advertisers, the viewing audience, or network executives somehow equivalent to threatening people with death if they show certain images during a television show? Are peaceful protests, boycotts and other non-violent acts against things you find offensive the same as issuing death threats to enforce your demands? Is Balloon Juice run by complete imbeciles without a shred of logical reasoning ability, or is this just another typical, intellectually dishonest attempt to draw false equivalence between radical Muslim extremists and right-wing Americans?

Response to Radical Muslim Threats & Intimidation

This video is from 2006, but it pretty much sums up my attitude toward extremist Muslim threats, such as those regarding the recent South Park episode. 

This is How You Fight Terrorists

As I read a New York Times article called, "Elite U.S. Force Expanding Hunt in Afghanistan," I had two thoughts. My first thought was, I wish they hadn't reported on this, since these types of operations require secrecy. But given that it is being reported, I see these operations as an extremely positive sign that the U.S. is taking effective actions that will seriously damage terrorist groups. From the article:

Secretive branches of the military’s Special Operations forces have increased counterterrorism missions against some of the most lethal groups in Afghanistan and, because of their success, plan an even bigger expansion next year, according to American commanders.

If you read the article, it reveals that the U.S. military is using elite special operations units such as Delta Force, and SEAL teams to carry out what are in effect military assassination missions designed to take out enemy leaders.

American commanders in Afghanistan rely on the commando units to carry out some of the most complicated operations against militant leaders, and the missions are never publicly acknowledged.

No one is speaking out publicly about such missions, including the Obama administration. And that's a good thing. Reports such as this one should be met with a standard "no comment" response.

Back in my series of posts called, A New War Against Radical Islam, I specifically advocated the increased use of secret operations, and the deployment of teams of assassins to target terrorist leaders -- although my focus was on the CIA rather than the military. But according to at least one source, the CIA is involved as well.

an official with Pakistan’s main spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, or I.S.I., said there had also been more than 60 joint operations involving the I.S.I. and the C.I.A. in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Baluchistan in the past year.

The official said the missions included “snatch and grabs” — the abduction of important militants — as well as efforts to kill leaders.

If true, that is very good news, and shows that despite public efforts damaging to the CIA, the Obama administration is secretly making effective use of the agency as a weapon against terrorists.

Christmas Moron

That would be Lew Rockwell at lewrockwell.com, responding to reports of the attempted terrorist attack on a plane landing in Detroit. A would-be Islamic terrorist tried to ignite an incendiary device on the plane. We don't have all the information yet. It's unclear how dangerous the device was, but the government is taking it seriously. The suspect claims ties to Al Qaeda, and there is information that he has terror connections. So how does Lew Rockwell react?

The story reads like an episode of MAD TV. Does the government have any better fodder than this for its fear mongering campaign? ... Dear Republicrats and other assorted War on Terror proponents: don’t write me and tell me this was a serious threat

Generally someone trying to set off an incendiary on board an aircraft is a bad thing. But it's just no big deal to Rockwell. An Islamic terrorist on a plane? That couldn't be a real threat, could it?  Rockwell not only feels qualified to dismiss the incident out of hand as some sort of a joke, but has come up with an immediate and amazingly idiotic conspiracy theory. It's all part of government "fearmongering," to allow them to increase airport security. Is there a better example of why anyone who uses the term "fearmongering" shouldn't be taken seriously? If anyone was wondering if Lew Rockwell had any credibility at all, this article should provide a decisive negative indication.

Canadian Police Apologize for Arresting Radical Islamists

There's been much talk lately about political correctness with regard to offending Muslims, in the wake of the Fort Hood shootings. As bad as things are here in the U.S., they are worse elsewhere. Canadian police arrested two men in Windsor, Ontario because of connections with a "radical Islamist group" across the border in Detroit. During the arrest of the alleged Islamists, one of their wives was patted down by an officer. Therefore the police felt the need to issue a news release saying,

"It was never the intention for Windsor police officers to offend or embarrass the families of our Islamic community," wrote Windsor police Chief Gary Smith in a news release Thursday. "The actions taken did cause embarrassment and did offend their religious beliefs. I sincerely apologize to the families and the Islamic community."

That's just pitiful. I wonder if any other "communities" get written public apologies when police offend their delicate cultural and religious sensibilities? What about all the Canadian citizens who are probably offended and embarrassed that the police would go so far as to issue such and apology? Fortunately the police union at least is speaking out.

"Usually, when you make an apology, that means something was wrong. In my opinion, nothing went wrong here.

"I believe the officers were doing everything they're entitled to do under the law. I believe they did it professionally. I don't see an issue here."

Imagine that. He thinks that the police are within their rights to search the immediate associates of suspected terrorist when making an arrest. Maybe the police chief should issue another apology for the insensitivity of the police union.

Willful Blindness

Max Fisher has an article in the Atlantic amazingly titled, "Why Home-Grown Islamic Terrorism Isn't A Threat." He points out all the ways Muslim-Americans differ from Muslims elsewhere. They are better educated, better off economically, more satisfied, and far better assimilated into American society, than for example in many European countries. This is all true. But Fisher completely misses the point. Pretending that home-grown Islamic terrorism isn't a threat in the aftermath of the Fort Hood shootings is just willful blindness.

The threat of home-grown Islamic terrorism does not come from the vast majority of Muslim Americans, but from a radical fringe. Denying that this fringe is a real threat is an attempt to deny reality. Fisher also resorts to a typical false analogy used by those who try to minimize the threat of radical Islam.

sometimes deeply disturbed individuals cling to Christian fundamentalist extremism or jihad as a way to justify their unhinged and explosive anger. But the cause they pretend to adopt is incidental to their crime. Critics who point out that Scott Roeder was also called a terrorist are absolutely right to compare him to Hasan -- neither is any more than a lone madman. No one has seriously suggested, say, banning the pro-life evangelicals who protest regularly at the Supreme Court. They certainly haven't suggest the FBI monitor all evangelicals in the military or block them from deployment. Far from it: the U.S. military remains a hotbed of evangelical Christians.

I'm sorry, but this argument is simply idiotic on multiple levels. Even a blind fool like Fisher should be able to see that radical Islamic views appear to have been a prime motivating force in Hasan's actions. And there is no comparison between Christian fundamentalist extremism and radical Islam. Extremist pro-lifers are indeed a terrorist threat. But they are a threat to a very small, specific part of our population: doctors who perform abortions, and people who work at abortion clinics. And yes, we should take precautions to monitor such extremists and try to prevent attacks like the murder of Dr. Tiller.  But we are at war with radical Islamists, who are a threat to the entire country. And obviously,comparing the monitoring of suspected radical Islamists to evangelical Christians within the military is just insane. 

As Hasan's treason demonstrated again, radical Islam is a threat that can produce murderous acts of home-grown terrorism. It is unclear why there are those like Fisher who are so determined to live in denial. 

Peters Was Right

In the aftermath of the Ft. Hood shootings, Ralph Peters wrote an article that I thought was inflammatory and over the top. He blasted the army for ignoring the signs that Major Hasan was an Islamist threat, and blamed political correctness. But now that we know more, it appears that Peters was right on target.

Eugene Robinson, not exactly a right winger, has a column in today's Washington Post called, "Failing the Troops at Fort Hood." He points out some of the things the army chose to ignore.

According to published reports, Hasan told people of his serious doubts about the U.S. military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hasan, a psychiatrist who had evaluated returning soldiers for stress-related disorders, made no secret of his reluctance to serve in the Afghan theater, where he was to be sent within weeks. According to ABC News, fellow Army doctors told superiors of their concern that Hasan felt divided allegiance -- both to the Muslims whom he felt were under attack and the country he had volunteered to serve.

As Robinson notes,

There's a difference between sensitivity and stupidity. If there were indeed signs that Maj. Nidal Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood mass murderer, was becoming radicalized in his opposition to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army had a duty to act -- before he did.

Exactly. The government seems to feel a need to bend over backward to avoid offending Muslims. By allowing politically correct "sensitivity" to trump basic sense, the army not only failed to prevent the Ft. Hood shooting, it also ensured that Muslim soldiers will now come under greater scrutiny and suspicion. It's rare that I recommend any articles by Eugene Robinson, but this one is an exception.

Someone Who Should Receive a Bullet Thru the Brain

I'd rather not link to his website, but excerpts can be found here. Anwar al-Maliki, the former Imam of a mosque frequented by Major Hasan, had plenty of praise for the murderous rampage.

Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.

A while back, I did a series of posts called "A New War Against Radical Islam." In part two I advocated forming teams of assassins to conduct clandestine warfare against our terrorist enemies. And I also suggested the following:

It is also worth considering directly targeting radical Islamic clerics who preach jihad against Americans and openly support terrorism. Such clerics believe they can inspire terrorism and send suicide bombers to their deaths with impunity, remaining secure themselves while others blow up civilians or install roadside bombs. It's time they started dying also.

When I wrote that, individuals such as Anwar al-Maliki were the targets I had in mind. He is openly encouraging U.S. military personnel to commit treason and murder their fellow soldiers. By doing so, he is helping place more suspicion on Muslims in the U.S. military, and working diligently to associate Islam with acts of murder and treason. There's no reason he should be allowed to produce his propaganda with impunity.

Good Article About Left, Right & Ft. Hood

Jonathan Zimmerman has an article in the Christian Science Monitor called, "Fort Hood: What the right and the left have gotten wrong about Hasan." The author points out that reaction on the right shows an attempt to demonize Muslims in general.

Internet attacks on "Islam" since Thursday's tragedy lie firmly within this tradition of nativism, bigotry, and hysteria. The shooter was Muslim, and what else do you need to know? Apparently, not much.

But he doesn't stop there. What about the left? After noting that some are actually defending Hasan, Zimmerman writes,

left-wing posters have refused to acknowledge any tension between freedom and security – or any threat to the United States from radical Islam.

As he points out, this type of attitude is completely irrational.

There are people living here who want to commit acts of terror, and more than a few of them are radical Muslims

This is an unfortunate fact. The whole article is worth reading.

A Prime Example of the Current Difference Between Islam & Other Religions

There's a new movie coming out called, 2012. It's cinematic sequences show the destruction of major landmarks, including some religious ones such as the Sistine Chapel, the statue of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, and a Buddhist temple. But guess what isn't in the movie? That's right, there are no images of Islamic holy sites being destroyed. Is that because it just isn't part of the story? No. Apparently the director, Roland Emmerich, wanted to include a scene of the Kaaba, in Saudia Arabia, but was talked out of it by his co-screenwriter. 

"Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit ... but my co-writer Harald said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right. ... We have to all ... in the Western world ... think about this. You can actually ... let ... Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have ... a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is.

When people look upon Islam and Muslims with suspicion, it isn't just because of bigotry -- as some would have you believe. It's because of Muslims and their actions. True, it's only a minority of Muslims who are the problem. But it's a problem big enough that a major filmmaker can't put a scene in a movie without fear of a violent Muslim reaction. That's something to remember the next time someone tries to pretend that Christian extremism is some sort of major threat in any way comparable to the threat of radical Islam.

The Tim McVeigh False Analogy

There is a popular meme going around the left in the wake of the Ft. Hood shootings. I even heard it deployed on an NPR discussion as I was driving earlier. It goes something like this: When Tim McVeigh carried out his act of domestic terrorism we didn't start focusing suspicion on white Christian males, therefore it's unfair or even bigoted to train our suspicion on Muslims when a Muslim carries out a terrorist act. This is a false analogy on multiple levels. 

First, Tim McVeigh's primary motivation, from what we know, had little to do with Christianity, and a lot to do with him being an anti-government radical. We do in fact focus plenty of suspicion on people who appear to be extremist anti-government radicals. Why? Because they fit the profile of people who could be a domestic terror threat.

Second, it is indisputable that there is a significant minority of Islam that is radical and supports terrorism. There have been numerous acts of terrorism carried out in the name of Islam. There are even a significant number of Islamic clerics who support such actions and interpret the Koran accordingly. There are other religions, including Christianity, that contain violent extremists. But at the moment, the amount of terrorism perpetrated in the name of Islam, and justified by religious leaders, exceeds that of any other religion. 

It is unforunately often difficult to tell who is and is not an Islamic extremist. While it is wrong to smear all Muslims for the actions of an extremist minority, or the actions of a deranged individual who may have just misused his religion to self-justify his actions, in my opinion there is nothing bigoted or extreme about viewing Islam as a possible risk factor. That is why the FBI conducts surveillance of mosques in this country.

If there were Christian terror organizations comparable to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associates, or Christian theocracies like Iran, where ministers ruled, a significant minority of Christian clergy who advocated & justified terrorism, Christian schools that regularly produced terrorists, and numerous terrorist acts perpetrated by white Christian males, white Christian males would indeed fall under suspicion.

The vast majority of Muslims in the U.S. are good citizens like any other. Outrage at Major Hasan's crimes shouldn't obscure the fact that there are millions of Muslim citizens who are not murdering people, and thousands who serve honorably in the military. Some have sacrificed their lives in the service of this country. It is sad that being a Muslim in the U.S. can cause suspicion, or be seen as a risk factor for terrorism. And I don't blame Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism for being upset or angry at being seen as suspects. But that doesn't mean that everyone who views Islam as a risk factor for terrorism is some sort of bigot. Unfortunately reality indicates that it is a risk factor, and a risk factor not at all comparable to the risk factor of being a white Christian male.

Was Religion a Motivating Force at Fort Hood?

There is much speculation going on about the Ft. Hood shooting. The latest report says that soldiers heard the shooter, Major Hasan, yell "Allahu Akbar!" before he started firing. There are basically three possibilities, none of which has been ruled out.

1. Hasan was just a lone maniac who happened to be a Muslim. This would fall under the nuts do crazy things category, that is often the best explanation for murderous rampages.

2. Hasan's actions were motivated by his religious beliefs.  For example,  he might have felt that the U.S. wars in the Middle East were wars against Islam, or had other religious-based beliefs that motivated him to carry out the shooting. From what I have seen, there may be some evidence supporting this scenario.

3. And finally, Hasan might have had actual connections with radical Islamists. So far I've seen no evidence this was the case.

Since Hasan is alive and in custody, not killed in a shoot-out as originally reported, an investigation should be able to uncover the details and find which of these three scenarios applies.

Libyan Envoy to Iran Comments on My Proposal

In a previous post I advocated striking at radical Islam through the its own religion, in order to "foment conflict within Islamic communities where terrorist recruiting takes place." Libyan envoy Saad Mujbe met today with the Iranian chairman of the "Expediency Council, a clerical body advising the supreme leader." Given what I wrote, a couple of the reported remarks caught my attention.  

Enemies seek to sow religious discord in order to counter Islamic states

That sounds like a good idea. The two officials agreed that

Iran and Libya must cooperate to ensure their common enemies do not propagate religious friction as a weapon against Islamic states

"Religious friction" as a weapon. We should look into it.