Archive for the 'Terrorism' Category

From My Way News:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) – Militants freed two Fox News journalists on Sunday, ending a nearly two week hostage drama. One of the former captives said they were sometimes held face down in a dark garage, tied up in painful positions and forced at gunpoint to make videos and say they had converted to Islam.

I would like formally to thank the captors of Centanni for making my point for me better than I could have.  See my post “Does this help explain Jihad a little better?”

Here at the Captain’s Journal, we always appreciate it when others make us look smart at the expense of making themselves look stupid.

From My Way News:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) – Militants freed two Fox News journalists on Sunday, ending a nearly two week hostage drama. One of the former captives said they were sometimes held face down in a dark garage, tied up in painful positions and forced at gunpoint to make videos and say they had converted to Islam.

I would like formally to thank the captors of Centanni for making my point for me better than I could have.  See my post “Does this help explain Jihad a little better?”

Here at the Captain’s Journal, we always appreciate it when others make us look smart at the expense of making themselves look stupid.

Our friend Mike at Cop the Truth sent me an interesting (but not surprising) link from the Herald Sun in Australia.

An Iran-based web site run by Hezbollah has run this picture of Hezbollah rockets allegedly hitting an Israeli ship last month.

Examine the features of the blast.  Now look at this picture below, of the intentional sinking of the Australian destroyer-escort HMAS Torrens in 1998 upon being retired and decommissioned:

Right click on the picture and notice the link URL.  It is from Defense Industry Daily.  Examine the features of the explosion in this frame and compare it with the frame above.

The real question is how anyone who views the Hezbollah web site could be so stupid as to believe that this was a picture of the Israeli ship.

The picture is obviously taken from the air (i.e., a helicopter) based on the oblique angle.  And it cannot have been taken from much more than about 1 km away.  So in order to believe that this was the Israeli ship, someone would have to believe that either:

1. Israel has a helicopter in the air that day taking time lapse photograpy, and then decided to release this picture to the press showing its failure to protect its ship, or
2. Hezbollah now has an air force and it made it to within 1 km of an Israeli war ship without being molested; the occupants of the aircraft knew when the Hezbollah missile was launched, and took time-lapse, fast shutter speed photography at the time of the missile impact.

The Herald Sun reported that since its publication of these pictures, the Hezbollah web site had removed its post.

Not so.  At the time of this post on the Captain’s Journal, the Hezbollah web site still has this post online.

I just can’t figure out who the clowns are: Hezbollah or their followers.

With all of the silly and dangerous definitions of Islamic Jihad out there (e.g., a “peaceful internal striving,” etc.), it is good to see moral clarity and precision.  Michelle Malkin has a great piece today on the case of Lina Joy, in which she converted to Christianity from Islam, and wants to marry a Christian man.  She is now facing death threats (as is her lawyer), and the case has gone to the highest court in Malaysia.  But apparently the civil courts routinely refer cases to the Islamic court, and:

While the Quran states there should be “no compunction” in religion, Islamic authorities world-wide consider apostasy both a sin and a crime. In Malaysia, Islamic courts can sentence apostates to “rehabilitation” in prison-like re-education centers that sometimes use caning as part of their program. 

Sounds nice, doesn’t it?  Rather like the Gulags? 

Continuing, we learn why Islam refuses to allow people to leave the faith:

“If Islam were to grant permission for Muslims to change religion at will, it would imply it has no dignity, no self-esteem,” said Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad, senior fellow at Malaysia’s Institute of Islamic Understanding.

“And people may then question its completeness, truthfulness and perfection.

There you have it.  These are some of the major differences (there are so many to choose from) between Christianity and Islam.  Christianity believes that God changes hearts and minds, not man.  Islam believes that caning can assist in “rehabilitation” in matters of religion.  Christianity welcomes a battle of ideas, confident in the victory of its world view if people will only be logical and if God chooses to change hearts and minds.  Islam tethers its self-worth to what man thinks.

Folks, these are critical differences.  This is why Christianity will not shoot others in the name of God, and why Islam believes that it is acceptable to spread Islam by the power of the “sword.”  It is because in Islam, man is doing the work rather than God.  If you believe that it is by your efforts that man is saved, then why wouldn’t you use all means at your disposal to spread your salvation?

This helps explain Jihad.  It makes perfect sense; it is the seed of violence within Islam.  All attempts to explain it away fail.

[And please, do not send me any moronic e-mails about Eric Rudolph or Timothy McVeigh.  Neither one carried out their actions because of religious motivation.  Rudolph was a white supremicist, while McVeigh didn’t very much like Ruby Ridge or the U.S. government.]

I posted a while back on the fact that I thought that Israel should have invested in THEL (Tactical High Energy Laser) to help against the Katyusha rockets coming across the border.  From Haaretz:

Contrary to the approach of his predecessors, Defense Minister Amir Peretz believes it is of the “utmost strategic importance” for Israel to “come up with an effective solution as soon as possible” to the threat of Katyusha rockets and missiles. Peretz thus appears to be shaping a new security doctrine before the defense establishment has talked about the matter in depth.

Peretz plans to convene a discussion on the matter in the coming days.

Even without the minister’s determination in this regard, senior defense establishment officials agree on one immediate conclusion from the recent conflict in Lebanon: Israel must press ahead quickly with initiatives to protect the home front against high-trajectory weapons – missiles of various kinds, including Katyusha and Qassam rockets.

But even now, the concept has its detractors:

“As a researcher, I believe that the entire notion of developing means to intercept Katyushas or Qassams is superfluous,” says Yiftah Shapir of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University.

According to Shapir, a former Israel Air Force intelligence officer, “A Katyusha is in fact an artillery shell, and no one talks about the need to develop means to intercept shells. … With the existing technology, it is difficult to deal with tens of thousands of Katyushas or Qassams or shells. There’s no end to it, and it is not economically worthwhile.”

Well, perhaps.

But it seems to me that the smartest approach is a defense-in-depth concept of security.  Assuming that the money is available — and this is a big assumption — Israel should invest in and deploy a THEL defense system, in addition to working towards the disarming and relocation of Hezbollah.  If the resources are available, it should not be a matter of either-or.  It should be both-and.

Hat tip to my friend Knighthawk at Polipundit, this from USA Today:

“I am shocked,” said Jürgen Lesch, 56, a Dresden software developer. “Now it looks like terrorism has reached us, as well.”

Germany’s refusal to take part in the U.S.-led war in Iraq once had Germans thinking Islamic terrorists would focus elsewhere, said Lesch’s wife, Marita, 52, a teacher. “We didn’t fight in Iraq, and until now we assumed that if we behaved well in the world, nothing would happen to us,” she said.

Michael Lüders, a Middle East expert and government policy consultant, said, “Germany is reorienting its (foreign) policy. It did not call for an immediate cease-fire (during Israeli attacks) in Lebanon, and that was disappointing in the Arab world. Some radical forces now think Germany should be punished,” he said.

I have always found that I can talk to liberals because at least you know where each other stands.  Most often I cannot persuade the liberal to see things my way, but at least there is a clash of world views, and eventually one will be proven correct.

The most difficult times I have when conversing with people who do not yet understand the war that radical Islam has declared against the U.S. is the “conservative” thinker, the isolationist who, like Pat Buchanan, believes that it is U.S. presence and intervention in the affairs of other nations and the existence of our troops in other parts of the world that has “caused” the radical Islamicists to hate us so.  If it had not been for our hegemony and colonialism, they say, none of this would have happened.

I find it so difficult to talk to these people because there is almost nothing to say to them.  The fact that history denies this view is irrelevant.  In other words, it is fairly well known that the so-called Crusades were primarily defensive struggles against Islam as it came north into Europe (or at least we can say that it began that way).  At the time that Islam began to assert itself militarily, there was no colonial presence of Europe into Africa or the Middle East.

And yet the Islamicists still attacked, didn’t they?

Folks, we could fold our tents in Iraq, remove all U.S. troops from everywhere in the world, and declare that we will never again have U.S. troops on foreign soil for any reason under the sun.  And the Islamicist response?

To cheer their victory and then begin planning their all out attack on the U.S. homeland.

So here are a couple of questions for you: Do you want to fight the terrorists on foreign soil or U.S. soil?  Do you want to have IEDs blowing up in the streets of Ramadi, or the street on which you live?

As my friend Knighthawk says of the Islamicist approach: “Conform or die.  Get it?”  And as I say, fight them there or fight them here.  Get it?

Iranian officials have told the world that they will not end their enrichment program:

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said a compromise has to be achieved during future negotiations.

“We won’t suspend (uranium enrichment). Everything has to come out of negotiations. Suspension is not on our agenda,” Asefi told a press conference Sunday.

In further news today, Iran has blocked inspections at its Natanz enrichment facility.  As another indicator of Iran’s intent regarding enrichment, we learned today that:

Iran’s supreme leader said Tehran will pursue nuclear technology despite a U.N. Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment by the end of the month or face the threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has made its own decision and in the nuclear case, God willing, with patience and power, will continue its path,” said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to state television. 

No one (who has a brain and is sentient) really expected Iran to cease its enrichment program.  More interesting was this response from Germany:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel pressed for a “solid answer” from Iran on the package.

“I still hope that it will be positive, although some signals have been very confused,” said Merkel, whose country drew up the package with the five permanent Security Council members.

Chancellor Merkel (not Iran) is “confused” because of lack of a “solid” response.  Let me help.  Iran is pursuing an enrichment program and has said no to your requests to stop.

There.  I hope that was helpful.  I will be sending the invoice for my consulting time in the mail to the Chancellor.

Iranian officials have told the world that they will not end their enrichment program:

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said a compromise has to be achieved during future negotiations.

“We won’t suspend (uranium enrichment). Everything has to come out of negotiations. Suspension is not on our agenda,” Asefi told a press conference Sunday.

In further news today, Iran has blocked inspections at its Natanz enrichment facility.  As another indicator of Iran’s intent regarding enrichment, we learned today that:

Iran’s supreme leader said Tehran will pursue nuclear technology despite a U.N. Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment by the end of the month or face the threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has made its own decision and in the nuclear case, God willing, with patience and power, will continue its path,” said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to state television. 

No one (who has a brain and is sentient) really expected Iran to cease its enrichment program.  More interesting was this response from Germany:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel pressed for a “solid answer” from Iran on the package.

“I still hope that it will be positive, although some signals have been very confused,” said Merkel, whose country drew up the package with the five permanent Security Council members.

Chancellor Merkel (not Iran) is “confused” because of lack of a “solid” response.  Let me help.  Iran is pursuing an enrichment program and has said no to your requests to stop.

There.  I hope that was helpful.  I will be sending the invoice for my consulting time in the mail to the Chancellor.

**** UPDATE ****

John Hawkins at RWN has this to say:

I’m still of the opinion that since Hezbollah is flagrantly violating the ceasefire by refusing to disarm or go North and since the international force is starting to fall apart before it gets started (Thank you, France), Israel should start bombing again.

I would add to this by saying that they should never have stopped bombing (nor should they have held in abatement an aggressive land invasion).  I said so from the beginning of this campaign.  Just after posting the original post below, I was watching coverage at FNC on southern Lebanon, and the reporter commented that disarming Hezbollah would be impossible because, in her words, “they have melted into the population and hidden their weapons.”

Of course they have.  Without a land invasion to root this out Israel cannot win.  And without eventually confronting the terror-master Iran (whose surrogate is Hezbollah), neither the U.S. nor Israel will win against terror.  The head of the snake must be cut off.  Our war is with Iran who supports the Shia in Iraq and Hezbollah in Iran.  We just haven’t battled them directly yet.  We are fighting a proxy war thus far.

**** ORIGINAL POST ****

The Strategy Page has this interesting assessment of the Israel – Hezbollah conflict:

August 16, 2006: The success of the ceasefire in Lebanon hinges on a condition that Lebanon and Hizbollah both insist will not happen. Hizbollah is supposed to disarm, but says bluntly that it will not do so. The Lebanese government says it will not force Hizbollah to disarm. So what’s going to happen? It appears that Israel is going to hold the UN responsible for carrying out its peace deal, and disarm Hizbollah. To that end, Israel will withdraw its troops from Lebanon, and leave it to UN peacekeepers to do what they are obliged to do. But here’s the catch, not enough nations are stepping forward to supply the initial 3,500 UN forces, much less the eventual 15,000 UN force. However, it is likely that, eventually, enough nations will supply troops. But many of those contingents may not be willing to fight Hizbollah. Israel says it will not completely withdraw from Lebanon until the UN force is in place.The Israeli strategy appears to be to allow the UN deal to self-destruct. If the UN peacekeepers can disarm Hizbollah, fine. If not, Israeli ground troops will come back in and clear everyone out of southern Lebanon. At that point, it will be obvious that no one else is willing, or able, to deal with the outlaw “state-within-a-state” that Hizbollah represents. Hizbollah will still exist after being thrown out of southern Lebanon, and it will be up to the majority of Lebanese, and the rest of the Arab world, to deal with Hizbollah and radical Shias.

Hizbollah suffered a defeat. Their rocket attacks on Israel, while appearing spectacular (nearly 4,000 rockets launched), were unimpressive (39 Israelis killed, half of them Arabs). On the ground, Hizbollah lost nearly 600 of its own personnel, and billions of dollars worth of assets and weapons. Israeli losses were far less. 

 

Well, I don’t completely buy it.  My post just below indicates my position on Iran: they are the clear winner, but I didn’t assess Hezbollah.

Israel did not win, but it would appear to me that Hezbollah didn’t either.  The problem for Israel is that Israel is still at risk of war with Iran by proxy.

As to this notion that the U.N. plan will fall apart, perhaps it will.  But I don’t think that this will be something that will be announced from the rooftops.  The failure will be invisible to the world, because Hezbollah will be re-armed by night and by trickery and by deceipt.

Eventually, terrorism will befall the “peace-keeping” troops in southern Lebanon, but by then it will be too late.  Hezbollah will be back up to strength and ready to wage war again will Israel.

**** UPDATE ****

John Hawkins at RWN has this to say:

I’m still of the opinion that since Hezbollah is flagrantly violating the ceasefire by refusing to disarm or go North and since the international force is starting to fall apart before it gets started (Thank you, France), Israel should start bombing again.

I would add to this by saying that they should never have stopped bombing (nor should they have held in abatement an aggressive land invasion).  I said so from the beginning of this campaign.  Just after posting the original post below, I was watching coverage at FNC on southern Lebanon, and the reporter commented that disarming Hezbollah would be impossible because, in her words, “they have melted into the population and hidden their weapons.”

Of course they have.  Without a land invasion to root this out Israel cannot win.  And without eventually confronting the terror-master Iran (whose surrogate is Hezbollah), neither the U.S. nor Israel will win against terror.  The head of the snake must be cut off.  Our war is with Iran who supports the Shia in Iraq and Hezbollah in Iran.  We just haven’t battled them directly yet.  We are fighting a proxy war thus far.

**** ORIGINAL POST ****

The Strategy Page has this interesting assessment of the Israel – Hezbollah conflict:

August 16, 2006: The success of the ceasefire in Lebanon hinges on a condition that Lebanon and Hizbollah both insist will not happen. Hizbollah is supposed to disarm, but says bluntly that it will not do so. The Lebanese government says it will not force Hizbollah to disarm. So what’s going to happen? It appears that Israel is going to hold the UN responsible for carrying out its peace deal, and disarm Hizbollah. To that end, Israel will withdraw its troops from Lebanon, and leave it to UN peacekeepers to do what they are obliged to do. But here’s the catch, not enough nations are stepping forward to supply the initial 3,500 UN forces, much less the eventual 15,000 UN force. However, it is likely that, eventually, enough nations will supply troops. But many of those contingents may not be willing to fight Hizbollah. Israel says it will not completely withdraw from Lebanon until the UN force is in place.The Israeli strategy appears to be to allow the UN deal to self-destruct. If the UN peacekeepers can disarm Hizbollah, fine. If not, Israeli ground troops will come back in and clear everyone out of southern Lebanon. At that point, it will be obvious that no one else is willing, or able, to deal with the outlaw “state-within-a-state” that Hizbollah represents. Hizbollah will still exist after being thrown out of southern Lebanon, and it will be up to the majority of Lebanese, and the rest of the Arab world, to deal with Hizbollah and radical Shias.

Hizbollah suffered a defeat. Their rocket attacks on Israel, while appearing spectacular (nearly 4,000 rockets launched), were unimpressive (39 Israelis killed, half of them Arabs). On the ground, Hizbollah lost nearly 600 of its own personnel, and billions of dollars worth of assets and weapons. Israeli losses were far less. 

 

Well, I don’t completely buy it.  My post just below indicates my position on Iran: they are the clear winner, but I didn’t assess Hezbollah.

Israel did not win, but it would appear to me that Hezbollah didn’t either.  The problem for Israel is that Israel is still at risk of war with Iran by proxy.

As to this notion that the U.N. plan will fall apart, perhaps it will.  But I don’t think that this will be something that will be announced from the rooftops.  The failure will be invisible to the world, because Hezbollah will be re-armed by night and by trickery and by deceipt.

Eventually, terrorism will befall the “peace-keeping” troops in southern Lebanon, but by then it will be too late.  Hezbollah will be back up to strength and ready to wage war again will Israel.