Ron Paul: give more responsibility to Israel. Wait a second! USA did impose on Israel the horrible Oslo treaty which cost Israel the Second Intifada and the second wave of assault against Israel from Arab side, and now after initiated by USA Oslo policies did miserably failed, you want to give to Israel a chance for responsibility? It is either hypocrisy or stupidity or may be both.
Category Archives: middle east
It does not matter what you think about Newt Gingrich but he definitely can make a point. He made few appearances recently and did few keen remarks. But most interesting ones were on the FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace” , July 29, 2007 he formulated what I think absolute and only true : neither republicans nor democrats have a vision of enormous problems we are faced with: “the Republicans don’t recognize the scale of the performance failure of government as a system, and the Democrats are living in a fantasy land in terms of their policy proposals.”(fox news)
Why I am choosing republicans today? Because I do not want to be associated with those democrats who, as Gingrich said, are “deeply opposed to American victory and deeply committed to American defeat.” (fox news)
I always was thinking that there is not anti war movement today only anti-victory . it looks like democrats are rushing to quit before we really can win, just ” punish” republicans for starting the war. You cannot say better than Gingrich: “We are faced with evil opponents. Those opponents need to be defeated. And if General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker come back in September and say, “We actually can win this thing,” I want to understand the rationale that says, “No, we don’t want to let America win. Let’s legislate defeat for the United States.” (fox news)
It is not between doves and hawks anymore . People who want to end the war by withdrawal are not doves because the are not for piece. They are for defeat. By surrendering or by “legislating defeat” as Gingrich named it they are not going to save any lives by quitting. As Gingrich said
“What I would say to any Democrat who wants America to leave is quite simple. Millions of Iraqis have sided with the United States. They are known in their neighborhoods. They are known in their cities. If we abandon them, they are going to be massacred.” (fox news)
Another Cambodia is coming to mind. So those “doves” who by pro-peace (meaning anti-victory) demagoguery are imposing on us unavoidable casualties are really vultures, not doves .
I do not read Newsweek . I but thanks do DR Bulldog and his article I paid attention of this piece . Please read my note blow understanding that my notes addressed not against Muslims but against Newsweek and its interpretation of problems of Muslims in America.
“After the attacks “our responsibilities changed,” says Mohiuddin, who emigrated from India when he was 17. “It forced people to say, ‘Where do I stand? Either I walk away from the faith or I become more involved in defending the faith, which [is] under assault’.”
defending the faith, which [is] under assault?????
Wait a second, it was us who were attacked. And, correct me if I am wrong, all those who attacked us were Muslims!! I am not saying that Muslims attacked us, but I am stating the simple fact that those who attacked us were Muslims.
“The Council on American Islamic Relations, an advocacy group, counted nearly 2,500 civil-rights complaints by Muslim Americans in 2006, a dramatic increase over the previous year.“
It may mean that there is more of violations but it may be mean that there are more complains ( including these which were inspired by propaganda of Newsweek)
“These are the kinds of stories that make news—women who sue for the right to wear the hijab in their driver’s license photo”
Wait a second: what kind of civil rights violations we are talking about??? The right to have a driver license without showing a face on the license ??? Why Muslim have to have more rights than me? Nobody would allow me to have a license without my face on it .
Are Muslims, according to author, better than me. More special??
“The six imams who were pulled off a US Airways flight last fall after praying openly at a Minneapolis airport gate have sued the airline and the airport commission for civil-rights violations.”
Nobody argues that Muslims have no right to pray. It does not mean however that have special right to pray anywhere, anytime with disregard of others. If I would start praying for example on sidewalk of a highway a trooper would be interested in me in the very same moment. You want to pray? Go to mosque! End of story
“I think the poll miscaptures what’s being said,” he says. “There is such a thing as legitimate resistance to oppression, and there is terrorism on both sides. It’s wrong, but there’s also the right to resist.”
Who said that ? Operative of Hamas ? Leader of Hezbollah? None of the above. Those are words of executive director of the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services in Detroit.
I am not going into whole Israeli -Arab question for right now but the message of Mr. director of the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services in Detroit is until Israeli issue will be not resolved ( and we all know what that means) USA cannot rely on its own Muslims. Is that a message? Give us Israel to pacify us?
“The poll numbers, in his view, don’t point to a threat of homegrown suicide bombers, but to a passionate defense of a resistance movement—the way, 30 years ago, an Irish-American teenager would have supported the IRA.”
IRA did not present the global religion which is in state of holy war with my country.
Did I miss something or we still talking about religion which is under flag of Jihad calling to kill Americans everywhere? You want a fair comparison ? <b>The fair comparison with IRA would be adequate if IRA would declare a holy war on all non Catholics and start killing them around the world for that being non Catholics, That would be case . But it is not.
“For him, the bombing of Afghanistan that followed was much more tragic and painful.”
Just one question was similarly painful to him bombing of Belgrade? When Americas were bombing Serbs protecting Muslims in Yugoslavia?? Or this particular bombing was OK?
If indeed “the Lackawanna Six were vulnerable boys seduced by a charismatic radical.”
First of all the executive director of the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services in Detroit who is saying that violence against Israel is “There is such a thing as legitimate resistance to oppression” is excellent inspiration for them as well.
Second of all: if charismatic radical is to be blamed , then why instead of condemning “charismatic radical” ( sounds like a honorable title in this context) they are running stories about alleged anti-Arab racism like an excuse for terrorism? If you so understanding to your “vulnerable boys” have some understanding to other “vulnerable boys” who may be “ frustrated” with 9/11 and with Jihad declared against t their country , anti-cartoon paranoia and beheading of infidels.
May our “vulnerable boys “ are as “vulnerable boys” as yours ?/ Did you ever had this thought??
Article ended with a statement which in this context sounds like a chilling threat :
“Losing Jamil Ahmed and Autri Sajedeen would be the worst thing in the world—not just for them, but for all of us.”
Meaning if Muslims in USA will not be happy we all pay the price
Democrats are calling for withdraw of troops. Democrats are OK with defeat in Iraq because the military defeat of the USA in Iraq means a political defeat of Bush, and, by proxy, defeat of GOP. So, military defeat of USA in Iraq will be a political victory for Democrats. Democrats have capitalized on anti-war sentiment in 2006, and they are going to bet on anti-war mood and general apathy of public during 2008 campaign. I do not blame Democrats for using anti-war demagoguery as a main tool in 2008 elections. After all, they have nothing else what separates them from GOP. They are similarly corrupted. And similarly incapable to achieve anything in Congress. So Democrats rely solemnly on ending the war and on winning political power by ending the war. It is exactly what Lenin and Bolsheviks did during WWI: he used the national tragedy as an instrument of grabbing the power.
I do not trust anti-war people. I am sure that their goal is political demagoguery.
If they are real anti-violence dedicated citizens, why nobody demonstrates against mass killings by terrorists ?
Can anybody refer me to at least one recent anti-terrorist demonstration? Does anybody know about at least one action by anti-war crowd, pacifists and other “anti-violence” talkers against suicide bombing and car bombing maniacs?
I challenge those who are calling us to stop “violence in Iraq” to explain why it is OK to ignore deliberate mass killings by terrorists and in the same time use casualties and violence as a “moral” excuse for accepting a defeat by withdrawal?
If they are anti-violence, why do they not think about those Iraqis who will be killed for sure if/when we leave? According to all experts there will be more casualties if we leave! So, if they really care about Iraqis, you should be for us staying there. Anyway, it cannot be both ways: crying for Iraqi casualties from suicide bombs and in the same time by damning them to even worse casualties.
These “anti-war” people are not “anti-violence” in general, they are “anti-violence by USA.”
This leads to at least three conclusions:
- they are essentially anti-American because they are focusing exclusively and solely only against violence created by Americans
- they are encouraging terrorism and violence against Americans because by ignoring terrorist violence they are creating a moral alibi for terrorists. And it is all terrorists need.
- Being for withdrawal essentially means to be for escalation of violence. Being anti-war today means mean being pro-violence not against it.
So if we will withdraw for the sake of stopping violence it will be anti-American, pro-terrorist action encouraging further violence.
Prove me wrong
There is new political doctrine around. Its called Levinism after senator Levin!
As similarly sounding and ideologically related Leninism of Russia, Levinism is looking for the defeat of its own country in a war in order to gain a political advantages for own party .
Levin Urges Republicans to Back His Troop Withdrawal Plan. He said :”If those Republicans who say they want a change in course in Iraq will vote for one, we can start bringing our troops home and force the Iraqi political leaders to take responsibility for their own country,” (source)The question is what then??? According to the doctrine of levinism it will be peace and all of the USA will live happily ever after !!!
Let us for the sake of argument presume that Iraq invasion was a mistake. Can Dems due to their anti republican paranoia not see that withdrawal , as they see, it will be even bigger mistake? Granted, war is not going well. So what ? The normal thinking would be how to change the situation and to win. But they even do not want to think about winning. Why? Because winning in Iraq will make republicans stronger.
It is surreal to me but the fact: Pelosi cannot meet Petraeus but she found time to visit Bashar Al-ASSAD!
This is the real face of democratic party today . Party which has same demands as our enemy. In fact all those demands by Democrats to “ stop the war” are identical to demands of Taliban , Al-qaida, Iran and others.
The problem is that with no leadership from white house (and Bush provides none) they got a huge opening to exercise virtually unchallenged demagoguery . Liberal press is spinning everything in vacuum left by Bush’s inability to articulate a position of the USA in this global war.
We are facing the new Revolutionary Defeatism coming form the left
Levin said :
“It would require the President to begin reducing U.S. forces in Iraq within 120 days”
I bet al-quaida and Iran second this motion . Any doubts??
- “It would limit the mission of our remaining troops to protecting our service-members and diplomats; training Iraqi security forces; and conducting operations against al-Qaeda; with the transition to those missions to be completed by next April”
Limit mission of troops by self protection? How about to limit mission of police on the dangerous neighborhoods by self-protection? Conducting operations against al-Qaeda? Like what ? How? What are priorities? Self-protection of troops or conducting operations?
- “It would require a comprehensive diplomatic, political and economic effort to help create and sustain stability in the region.”
This is hilarious! Any examples of “comprehensive diplomatic, political and economic effort to help create and sustain stability in the region”? Oslo? Oil for food program? Levin sounds sometimes like Lenin, sometimes like Chamberlain. Very odd combination.
Situation is that: We are fighting a new type of war. War without rules with enemy with no face. It is difficult to figure out how to fight this war and therefore we are loosing precious lives of our troops. Leadership is bad or rather there is no leadership at all.
Solution how democrats see it: run away .They suggest us to forget everything and pretend it never happened. Let us pretend that USA was not attacked on 9/11and let us hope that the world will love us again after we retreat. Sounds silly? May be if you would remember that defeat in Iraq is inevitably a political defeat of Bush and by proxy defeat of GOP it is not that silly for Democrats . They see their gains on anti war sentiment in 2006 . After all they have nothing else what separates them from GOP. They are similarly corrupted. And similarly incapable to achieve anything in congress. So they rely solemnly on ending the war and by ending the war winning political power. It is exactly what Lenin did during WW1: he used the national tragedy as an instrument of grabbing the power.
May be Bush must be impeached but not for starting the war, but for not fighting the war he started. He must be impeached for not winning the war and wasting precious lives of our troops, not by not letting them fight. But Levin definitely must be called for what he is , traitor and defeatist-demagogue .
He calls for accepting a defeat and then negotiating a victory!!!
Islam versus Islam : violence within Islamic community is it not a price to pay for hating the world?
I think the questions we have to ask ourselves are
1. why Islam is only religion today which impose violence globally ?
Balkans. Middle east, Chechnya, Indonesia , Cashmere , Sudan, : wherever Islam has border with not Islamic world it is a trouble. Entire world cannot be wrong meaning Islam is doing something to inflame the world.
2. why Islam is the only religion today which imposes violence within its own community:
Palestinians versus Lebanon; Hamas versus Fattah; Shiites versus Sunnis in Iraq; and now within Pakistan it is the only religious community which has a permanent violent problems inside itself ( catholic versus protestants in Ireland is rather an exception than the rule, besides it is largely contained lately)
Islam was for decades trying to inflict violence on not Islamic world, as a result, it has created the new breed of hatemongering generation, created violent structures which went out of control and now inflicting pain on Islamic world itself : is it not a price to pay for hating the world?
there are brilliant free tips on the blogs for Muslims how to deal with that situation
“Here is a tip for my Pakistani brothers-when you know it is a radical mosque close the damn thing and donate the property to Israel. How many Imams are going to act up then? Here is another tip-don’t let anyone build a fortress like mosque. You are an Islamic country are you not? Why do they need a fortress? Do you really think anyone is going to attack it except you? BTW, I am available at reasonable rates to explain to you how to crush these islamonazis.” doctorbulldog