November 18, 2009
Broken Minds
This observation from Tom Maguire has haunted me since last night.
As he told us last Friday, Eric Holder wants to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in civilian courts because he (mostly) attacked civilians, while the attackers of the USS Cole will be sent to a military tribunal. The Dallas Morning News explained:
There is no contradiction here: military courts for attacks on the military, civilian courts for attacks on civilians.
OMG. And if the next batch of terrorists are clever enough to attack an elementary school will they be tried in juvenile court?
How bizarre is Holder's logic? First, why give more rights and more protections to a terrorists who targets civilians? Secondly, the court ought to be determined by the nature of the defendant, not the nature of the victims - if KSM is an enemy combatant he deserves a military tribunal regardless of who he was crafty enough to target.
I've long disagreed with the underlying ideology of the Obama Administration, which is based upon the philosophies of those men who replaced his father in his life. Radical left-wing ideologies like those the President learned from his mentors—Frank Marshall Davis (communist), Bill Ayers (Marxist), Jeremiah Wright (racist black liberation theology, Marxism), etc—have never led to anything other than misery for the wretches that survive it.
But Obama and his subordinates compound the errors of these diseased ideologies by adopting another failed ideology, one that acts as if the open warfare of Islamic fascism is a civilian law enforcement problem. That flawed thinking already led to horrors of 9/11. Why are our President and Attorney General so dimwitted that they desire to repeat those mistakes and put the lives of Americans at greater risk?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:35 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.
1
It is obvious that Holder has not bounced this idea of anyone with any intelligence.This is up there with the decision to NOT prosecute the black panthers on the voting station steps in Pa. If this insanity actually leads to a trial in NYC and a bomb goes off there, it will be the end of the era of Hope and Change. Holder is way over his head in this and there in no good that can come from it. Like my Dad used to tell me when I was a teenage hoodlum with bad ideas, "What is the best and worst thing that this will produce".
Posted by: inspectorudy at November 18, 2009 11:04 AM (Vo1wX)
2
But at the same time, KSM isn't a soldier, he's a murderer. His attack wasn't an act of war it was a cowardly crime. To me that means he should be treated as a criminal, and the Brits and Spanish had the same reaction after the London and Madrid bombings. They tried those guys in the cities that had been bombed, and they tried them in civilian courts, and they got convictions for murder, not war crimes or some crap like that.
If we turn terrorists like KSM into soldiers, or enemy combatants, or any legal fudge other than criminal then any attack by those guys that targets our military -- like the Pentagon -- would be a simple act of war in an ongoing war, and the civilian deaths would be collateral damage, which is pure BS. These guys aren't fighting a war, they're terrorists plain and simple.
Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2009 02:33 PM (KD9e1)
3
I wonder if Jim would feel the same way if it was his relatives that died in those buildings on 9/11.
Posted by: Michael Smith at November 18, 2009 03:09 PM (T4ASz)
4
WTF is that supposed to mean Michael, did you even read what I wrote?
KSM isn't a soldier, he's a criminal. His actions weren't attacks upon an enemy nation during a time of war, they were murders.
When we bomb cities during a war it's an act of war, not an act of murder. Do you want KSM to be able to claim he was doing the same thing? Of course not.
Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2009 03:56 PM (KD9e1)
5
And if the next batch of terrorists are clever enough to attack a
pig farm ?
Will they be tried by a
court of pigs ?
Posted by: Neo at November 19, 2009 08:43 AM (tE8FB)
6
So does this mean that the Holocaust was a military operation ? 6 million military deaths ? Nuremberg was a military tribunal.
Would a nuclear attack be a military or civilian operation ? Do they count the number of eviscerated and wounded military vs civilians ?
Posted by: Neo at November 19, 2009 08:51 AM (tE8FB)
7
You are free to disagree, but you are being willfully blind of the facts in this matter.
So by your definition, since Al Qaeda is not a formalized fighting force (aka Army), then ALL trials of Al Qaeda detainees should be held in civilian court.
Is that what you are really espousing?
Posted by: Michael Smith at November 19, 2009 09:04 AM (T4ASz)
8
Neo, Nuremberg is tricky for a number of reasons, the court was a mix of civilian and military, the defendants were a mix of civilian and military persons, and they were accused of a whole array of different crimes from waging illegal aggressive war to hate speech. Throw in a multinational set of prosecutors and judges and there's pretty much something for everyone there. This is just us.
Mike, I'm talking about KSM a guy who was captured far from the battlefield, not every potential defendant, different circumstances warrant different approaches.
Here's what I worry about, you can tell me if it's a valid concern.
The first shot we fired in the Iraq War was a cruise missile or missiles fired to try and kill Saddam. We had declared war, he was the head of state and the commander of the Iraqi military making him a valid target.
If some group like Al Qaeda "declares war" on us, would it then be legal in your eyes for them to attempt to blow up the President? I don't. I don't want to invest individual terrorists with the privileges of nations.
Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 09:30 AM (KD9e1)
9
I think the pushback on Jim is a bit gratuitous. But there is a third designation of less than ancient vintage but still with a long track record. In the Geneva Conventions this demo of asshole is called an "unlawful combatant" and as I understand it this concept loomed large in the legal underpinnings (yes, there were such) of the Bushies detention policies. It seems unclear if it is still the case and it is clearly NOT the case if other international accords are considered but in their original form the Geneva Conventions took a rather stern line on unlawful combatants; summary battlefield execution. If that is allowed then any lesser harshness in their detention is discretionary. The real indictment of the Obama KWM policy is that he has already confessed in military tribunals and no, this was not swirlied out of him. He is, as one would expect, quite a proud jihadi. As far as "justice" goes, before the recent decisions of OHolder, execution was a matter of procedure. These procedures were not yet pursued for the obvious intelligence value of KSM and who knows what other political factors. This amounts not to a delivery of justice unless a reprieve of the condemned man and a new trial is warrented. It is a perversion not of justice merely but of the justice system because rather than introducing decent jurisprudence into the GWOT it is importing Jihad into our courtrooms. So, what will be the results? I predict that KSM will walk. Holder declares that he has sufficient evidence for a CAPITAL conviction that is of sufficient provenance to be admitted. Well, maybe he thinks he does but it is the DUTY of the other side to argue otherwise. This "other" evidence must be absolutely underived from any non-Mirandized and evidence-chained information from ANY source. Needless to say this is a high bar and Holder's declared confidence is just braggadoccio. But will any of that ever become an issue? How will they seat a jury? That is a year's process at least, and then only if the defense team is not intentionally delaying. Other tactical possibilities abound that make Mr. Holder's "evidence" moot. Only two outcomes are possible. One, KSM will walk or two, he will be returned to his former state of detention. And it will not really take some Leftwing nutcase judge or plant in the jury, merely a rigorous application of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and if that doesn't happen at trial, it will happen at appeal, which is of course automatic and gub financed in capital cases. No, KSM is NOT in for speedy trial and execution. Nope. Holder promises the impossible, declaring it inevitable and in so doing reveals that he knows nothing in his supposed area of expertise OR he was instructed to make this decision. In that case he is indeed The Holder. He is holding the bag and it is ticking.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 19, 2009 09:41 AM (Z1yVV)
10
Jim believes that the Nanking Massacre wasn't murder because it was part of War.
Jim, all good people in the world disagree with you, as does the US Military.
UCMJ - Article 118 - Murder
Posted by: brando at November 19, 2009 02:47 PM (IPGju)
11
You have it completely backwards as usual Brando.
A better analogy for what I actually wrote above would be; I don't think a Chinese man who shot a Japanese woman in Tokyo a month after Nanking should be treated as though he was a soldier at war on the battlefield.
You can murder while in uniform, no one disputes that. I do not believe a person can declare war on a nation and then 5 years later kill civilians and call that an act of war. KSM was not a soldier in a war, he was a simple criminal and should be tried as such.
Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 03:36 PM (3GzXA)
12
Jim -
Your argument is so specious that I don't know where to start.
The US did not specifically target Saddam at the beginning of hostilities. They concentrated on command, control and communication facilities. That's the first move any aggressor makes in a war. The US may have a lobbed a missle or two after Saddam, and if they got him in the process, so much the better. But as I recall, lots of munitions fell that night, and not all of them were aimed at Saddam.
And do you really believe that Al Qaeda would hesitate, even for a second, to eliminate Bush if they had the chance? You do understand what a PR coup that would be for Al Qaeda, right?
Further, except for the heroic actions of some on flight 83, Al Qaeda WOULD have destroyed the Capital. But, if I understand your argument correctly, had the terrorists succeeded, and politicians (as opposed to civilians) died, then we could try KSM in a military court?
You may not want to "invest individual terrorists with privileges of nations", but Al Qaeda doesn't really care what you think. They have already taken those "privileges", whether granted or not.
Posted by: Michael Smith at November 19, 2009 05:47 PM (T4ASz)
13
BAGHDAD, Iraq — The United States launched its opening attack against Iraq Thursday morning, aiming at "targets of military opportunity" in a pre-dawn "decapitation" strike after President Bush's deadline for Saddam Hussein to leave the country passed unheeded.
The "decapitation" attack targeted Saddam personally, U.S. officials told Fox News, and the barrage of cruise missiles and bombs was a prelude to a major invasion of Iraq.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81607,00.html
Of course Al Qaeda would target our President, my question to you is, if we and Al Qaeda are at war, and you can legally target a leader in a "decapitation" strike while at war, would you call an attack by Al Qaeda on our President a valid act of war or a crime. I would call it a crime because I don't treat Al Qaeda as an entity that can wage war. If you say they can and have, then why would their decapitation strike be illegal and ours legal?
Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 06:24 PM (3GzXA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 12, 2009
The Convictions of a Coward: Obama Fails to Choose and Chooses to Fail on Afghanistan
Barack Obama knows nothing of military strategy or tactics, doesn't understand counterinsurgency, and holds a barely-disguised contempt for the military. I guess it shouldn't be surprising, then, that the President has
rejected all options for winning the war in Afghanistan presented to him:
After months of deliberating, President Obama opted not to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.
In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
The Obama Administration sat silently by and enabled what most believe to be a fraudulent reelection of Karzai, and now wants to use his reelection as an excuse? That's like watching an arsonist douse a house in gasoline, only to complain later about the smoldering rubble being a blight on the neighborhood.
Karzai is a starwman, and a pathetic one at that. On two separate occasions in recent we've noted a remarkable counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan that bypasses Karzai's corrupt central government altogether, and works with the real arbiters of power in Afghani society, the tribes. One Tribe at a Time (PDF) is a blueprint for winning the Afghan war, and with a smaller footprint to boot.
The Administration could easily adopt this plan, but refuses to consider it an an option. Considering it removes their self-inflicted strawman of an ineffectual and corrupt central government that largely doesn't exist outside of Kabul.
Jim Hanson, retired SF operator and Director of the Warrior Legacy Institute, notes:
He has already had the advice of his entire military chain of command with a near unanimous call for for reinforcements to move to the strategy that won in Iraq. We have watched as he has heard from the deep wisdom of Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel. We have seen him dither and quibble and show a completely ineffectual and uncommitted face to our enemies and the rest of the world. Now months after his hand-picked commander has told him the situation is bad and getting worse, our troops in the field fight and die without the support of their Commander in Chief. He sent 21,000 more brave men and women there and now they are flappin' in the breeze. How can a squad leader look his men in the eyes and tell them to saddle up and head out on a patrol, perhaps to be the last to die for a cause their President no longer believes in?
Quite clearly, Barack Obama has decided against winning the war in Afghanistan, showing his long history of claiming that the Afghan war is the right war, and the war we must win, to be a bald-faced lie he repeated to get into office.
He is steeling himself for surrender, hunting for excuses to fail. And the rubes that believed he was anything other than a self-loathing defeatist have nobody but themselves to blame for electing him.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:08 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 581 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Damn Bob, how do you really feel? Ever thought of running for public office? You've got my vote!
I couldn't agree with you more and after that pussy Colin Powell told Obama to take as much time as he needs to make the right decision, we can tell who he is listening to.
Posted by: inspectorudy at November 12, 2009 11:41 AM (Vo1wX)
2
I guess the mantra "The president needs to listen to the commanders in the field" ended on January 20, 2009.
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at November 12, 2009 12:08 PM (+LRPE)
3
You can tell that Obama has never played sports at a competitive level...because he doesn't know how much losing sucks. I grieve for the brave men and women who have been lost in Afghanistan and those who are still there fighting the good fight.
Posted by: favill at November 12, 2009 02:21 PM (fzLjW)
4
As his approval ratings sink, especially among independents, he becomes more dependent on the left wing to fund his campaign in 2012. The left hates the war in Afghanistan because it eats up their cash for social "progress" and because they failed to get their way in Iraq. Besides, most Muslims vote for the left everywhere in the world and their votes might count in 2012. Perhaps Obama thinks he can hold off defeat in Afgahnistan long enough to keep the left with him on health care and get him reelected. He has always gotten farther in his life by avoiding concrete decisions for which he alone has to be responsible . This war is only another example of this general theme. Also Afghanistan is not like Iraq which has oil wealth to support compromise among its factions and build a social infrastructure with some liberalizing elements in it. It has no uniformed enemy to quickly defeat, as the Russians found out. A very long term commitment is in the offing. Yet he would be better off to commit the troops the generals want and let them fight it how they want. If they fail he will be blamed but not as much as for a loss by doing too little.But the left has always distrusted the military, and Obama is a child of the left. Probably the Bay of Pigs and Tet are ringing in his ears.
Posted by: mytralman at November 12, 2009 02:35 PM (26p91)
5
As I wrote at least a year ago, the man is setting up a total pullout of Afghanistan, to be coupled with the draw-down of troops in Iraq and then there will be "no reason" to have such a costly defense department budget. You can rest assured the far left influence on him will prevail on this one. He's lost them on just about everything else and can't afford the political fallout in 2010. He HAS to take the gamble that pulling out of Afghanistan will save his bacon (along with Dems far and wide) in the mid-terms. However, I strongly suspect that "it's the economy, stupid" will override any such terrible decision. The man is a total fraud.
Posted by: Dell at November 12, 2009 04:48 PM (tS5n6)
6
What constantly amazes me is that these fools think that they can lie and lie and then lie about their lies, and we are too stupid to catch on. Just listening to these congressfools you can catch one lie built on top of another, and so forth. When will this house of cards fall? Man I sure hope soon, but unfortunately, the people out there are stupid enough to believe the lies. Who would have thought.
Posted by: TimothyJ at November 12, 2009 05:13 PM (IKKIf)
7
showing his long history of claiming that the Afghan war is the right war, and the war we must win, to be a bald-faced lie he repeated to get into office.
Along with all the other lies Obama spouted in order to get into office. This sort of lying is as acceptable in Marxism as it is in Islam (Hudaibiya).
It only matters if people remember. And it is hard to remember when the media constantly rewrites history (with the willing help of the left).
Posted by: iconoclast at November 12, 2009 05:42 PM (FGCRY)
8
Ugh! Speak NOT the name Powell! Is this auto-erotic reacharound not explicitly a repudiation of the alleged Powell Doctrine? What happened to going in fastest with the mostest, achieving a clear goal and going on home? Can anyone dispute at this point that Powell's persistent support of Obama in public divergence from his own long spouted views is anything more, anything other than racial solidarity? Powell always was an opportunist politically. He jumped on the O-wagon for no reason he is willing to burp up, he latched onto Desert Storm as its alleged architect and claimed the mantle of genius. It did not harm him that the Reps, quite wrongly, were seeking a Great Black Hope. Now, fifteen years later, we engage in the nation building Powell counseled was counter-productive... and maybe that was so, but he holds no brief against it now that it is being conducted by his Presidential preference; coincidentally a brutha. The man is without identifiable principle even in his field of "expertise". That is warfare, in case you were wondering. As far as I know, Powell has been portrayed only once in film, as the media driven bufoon of a general in Mars Attacks. Most gratifyingly, he is deathrayed at the first alien encounter and looks mighty shocked by that turn of events. I have to think he wears that expression frequently in his private moments, given the political deathrays buzzing past our ears these days.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 13, 2009 08:52 AM (eILON)
9
McChrystal asked for 2 divisions, 40,000 men. We do not have them available. 1 week ago the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Obama this that they would not recommend any soldiers being sent to Afghanistan that had not had 1 full year back in the USA from a combat deployment. You freakin armchair generals always think you know better. Go back to playing Risk. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125720469173424023.html
The Joint Chiefs says we have no troops available until next summer, but you think that they should go now.
Posted by: John ryan at November 13, 2009 12:20 PM (m0Q2u)
10
John, I don't speak for anyone else here I suspect but I am not reflexively for the McChrystal plan but McChrystal is Barack's handpicked man and as I recall his appointment, he was saying the same thing then. It could well be that Afghanistan is a fool's errand but that is not what Obama ran on, he ran on a more vigorous prosecution of the Afghan campaign than that doofus Bush. This was his claim to seriousness on foreign policy matters. Has anything changed? Sure. And maybe it is time to bug out. Maybe it is time to ramp up. Maybe it is time to dig in. What it is NOT time to do is to PUBLICLY fiddle-fart around. Bush made good decisions and he made bad decisions but he was, truly, The Decider. We have replaced him with The Denier. What the decision may be, yes I can defer to Obama which is more than the Democrats were ever willing to allow W. Whether a decision is warranted; that I declare as a citizen is a closed question.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 13, 2009 01:53 PM (eILON)
11
Obama is proving that the Bush strategy for Afghanistan was “spot on.”
Posted by: Neo at November 14, 2009 02:05 AM (tE8FB)
12
Neo, time does seem to be endorsing that view. I think we are not far from the day when Barack publicly embraces not just Bushism on foreign policy as he quietly has done on domestic surveillance for example. He will publicly embrace Bush the man. Sadly, what potential Surge II has for success is largely time dependent. Each day of dither the jihadis maneuver freely, gain ground and resources. Whether you like it or not, Barry. YOU are The Decider now. If you don't do it, it don't get done. This and other wisdoms Bush may gently communicate.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 14, 2009 07:19 AM (Uu2CW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 05, 2009
Fort Hood Shooter ID'd
With the
release of two other possible suspects, it is now starting to look like the shooting at Fort Hood today was the work of a single man, armed with two handguns. He was named as
Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who ironically specialized in treating traumatic stress, and who was angry about having to deploy to Iraq at the end of November.
Like another mass murder who targeted young adults, Hasan went to Virginia Tech.
Figures.
Update: Breaking news as of 10:00 PM is that Hasan did not die, and is in custody in stable condition.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:16 PM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm a UVA grad who pretends to hate VT, especially every November when you smoke us in football, but I have to agree with you on this one kaceala. Assuming someone is a likely mass murderer because they attend VT, join the Army, practice Islam, or have slanted eyes is offensive.
College attendance, military service, religion, and epicanthic folds don't kill people, people kill people.
Posted by: Jim at November 05, 2009 11:15 PM (KD9e1)
2
Assuming someone is a likely mass murderer because they attend VT, join the Army, practice Islam, or have slanted eyes is offensive.
Let us know when someone does that. Meanwhile, it seems that people are assuming Hasan is a likely mass murderer because of all the people he appears to have killed.
Posted by: Pablo at November 05, 2009 11:37 PM (yTndK)
3
There are, at the moment, some things relating to this murderous attack (not a "tragedy" as VP Biden said) that we know with certainty:
(1) Terrorists and criminals do not obey gun control laws.
(2) Gun free zones--surprisingly, this includes military installations--are among the least safe places in America.
(3) The police cannot protect any given citizen and have no legal do duty to do so.
(4) The only thing that can potentially deter terrorists is the knowledge that there are no gun free zones and that when they attack, there will likely be armed citizens ready to resist.
(5) When a lunatic starts shooting, the only thing that can stop him is armed, capable citizens who immediately return fire.
(6) In gun free zones, even the most rapid police response will mean nothing to the victims and their loved ones, in this case, 12 dead and 31 wounded at last count.
(7) Liberals and Obamites will surely use this situation to clamor for more gun control.
(
Liberal and Obamites will suppress any information relating to the shooter that might seem negative toward Islam or any other favored victim groups or nation.
(9) Anyone expressing anger toward the shooter will be branded a racist by the press.
(10) Should it turn out that the shooter had foreign, jihadist connections, particularly any Iran-related connections, they will be ruthless suppressed by the Obamites so as not to harm "engagement" with those who seek to destroy western civilization.
Posted by: Mike McDaniel at November 05, 2009 11:41 PM (DJR56)
4
Kaceala and Jim, ConYank gave us an interesting tidbit of information and a useful reminder of an instance of another mass murder of people within the murderers daily sphere. Of all the things in the world to get offended about to pick this one is well...picky. On the other hand, Steve had a straight to the core of the matter comment.
Posted by: Jayne at November 05, 2009 11:43 PM (dwIL0)
5
Hi Pablo,
Yeah, CY made no comments at all about this guys time at VT having any influence on his crime. Three different times.
And capt26thga didn't say anything about muslims being the enemy and that they should not be trusted just like people with slanted eyes were not to be trusted in the Nam (which oddly includes every single Vietnamese person we were fighting to protect, I'm not exactly sure what he thinks we were doing over there).
Nope, no one said anything like that here at all.
Posted by: Jim at November 05, 2009 11:48 PM (KD9e1)
6
Yeah, Pablo's right. The assumption that he's a mass murderer is pretty much a result of 12 dead, and 31 wounded. Um, so when you look at this whole situation, the thing you're offended about is that CY pointed out that two mass murderers went to the same college, and not the mass murder itself.
Murder is what I find offensive, especially against servicemen, but that's just me. Agree to disagree I guess.
I went to DU right away, and of course, they're yucking it up pretty good, and making up lies.
Today's a pretty awesome day for Liberals, but a pretty terrible day for America.
Posted by: brando at November 05, 2009 11:49 PM (LjEkE)
7
Jim's just here to gloat.
Posted by: brando at November 05, 2009 11:50 PM (LjEkE)
8
Take your spluttering indignant outrage and direct it at the man who just murdered a bunch of people, Jim.
Posted by: Steve at November 05, 2009 11:53 PM (xdvz0)
9
Gloat Brando? You are one sick person. Get well.
Jayne,
CY didn't point out a tidbit that the two mass murderers went to the same school, he said, and I quote "frankly wonder if Hasan might have been influenced by the university massacre...Not influenced as it "he made me do it" but more inspired to carry out the same sort of attack."
CY says "Went to Tech = more likely to commit mass murder", which is stupid and offensive.
Posted by: Jim at November 05, 2009 11:55 PM (KD9e1)
10
Take your anger and direct it at the man who pulled the trigger, not everyone who happens to practice the same religion, Steve.
Posted by: Jim at November 05, 2009 11:58 PM (KD9e1)
11
>>"Take your anger and direct it at the man who pulled the trigger, not everyone who happens to practice the same religion, Steve."
Like you, huh?
Run along, you nasty little turd.
Posted by: Steve at November 06, 2009 12:05 AM (xdvz0)
12
Nope, I'm a Baptist.
As for the rest you sound like you're full of rage yourself Steve, I wonder if it's due to your religion or race? Or maybe you're just a jerk.
Posted by: Jim at November 06, 2009 12:11 AM (KD9e1)
13
CY says "Went to Tech = more likely to commit mass murder", which is stupid and offensive.
I was noting that they both used roughly the same MO of using handguns at point blank range against massed unarmed young adults with little chance of escaping a campus-like environment, but whatever floats your boat.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 06, 2009 12:28 AM (WjpSC)
14
CY you said "more inspired to carry out the same kind of attack". The attack was a mass murder, 'more inspired' is the same thing as 'more likely',
If there is another meaning for the words "more inspired" I'm all ears.
Posted by: Jim at November 06, 2009 12:42 AM (KD9e1)
15
I shouldn't be sniping at you over this today CY, I apologize. I think your statement was over the top, but, I agree with some others here that this isn't the time or place for an argument, it's a time to think about the families of the victims.
I'd appreciate it if you could delete my last post to Steve (the one at 12:11). You deleted his, for obvious reasons, and it would probably be for the best if you deleted my response to the now missing post. That was for sure an exchange that didn't need to happen!
Posted by: Jim at November 06, 2009 12:55 AM (KD9e1)
16
"More inspired" meaning "hey, that guy killed a bunch of people in a place they couldn't defend themselves so maybe I should hit the same sort of target."
Oh wait, that doesn't let you get any remarks full of mightily faux outrage at CY so you probably discarded it, if you bothered to think much about it at all.
Posted by: Patrick Chester at November 06, 2009 12:59 AM (RezbN)
17
Patrick,
You're leaving out the part where CY said it "figures" that Hasan went to Tech.
OK, I'm out, please direct all future comments about faux outrage to the tech grad and vet kaceala.
Posted by: Jim at November 06, 2009 01:09 AM (KD9e1)
18
"I agree with some others here that this isn't the time or place for an argument, it's a time to think about the families of the victims."
You expect that to be believed after that show you just put on? I'm
against mass murder, and you think I'm sick? What in the world is wrong with you? When you think of what that monster did to those servicemen and their families, you come here to yuck it up, and throw insults? Wow. You really do have negative value.
Posted by: brando at November 06, 2009 01:29 AM (LjEkE)
19
Brando, project much?
Quote me gloating and yucking it up or go play somewhere else. As for throwing insults, what's your excuse?
Posted by: Jim at November 06, 2009 01:56 AM (KD9e1)
20
Play? This isn't the time for your Liberal sarcasm and snark, you goon.
They. Were. Murdered.
Don't ask CY to cover-up your comments again.
Posted by: brando at November 06, 2009 02:15 AM (LjEkE)
21
And yet another follower of the cult of islam murders. Here in Seattle, we are following the trial of the scumbag who shot up the Jewish Federation killing one woman. He apparently was mad at Israel.
When will we have had enough of this filthy, violent, expansionist cult?
Posted by: iconoclast at November 06, 2009 02:26 AM (O8ebz)
22
The attack was a mass murder, 'more inspired' is the same thing as 'more likely',
If there is another meaning for the words "more inspired" I'm all ears.
*facepalm*
Jim, put those goalposts down anywhere you like. Just let us know where, k? Then you can Superior Dance your butt on out.
Posted by: Pablo at November 06, 2009 08:10 AM (yTndK)
23
Pablo, let me know what college you attended and I'll get back to you on what awful crime it "figures" you'll be more inspired to one day commit. Of course he wasn't
exactly taking a cheap shot at VT. Sorta.
Posted by: Jim at November 06, 2009 09:08 AM (KD9e1)
24
I have to sort of agree with Jim a bit here, though CY did put in some clarifying statements in the comments. As written it is a bit of a shot at VT.
"Like another mass murder who targeted young adults, Hasan went to Virginia Tech."
There is nothing wrong with that statement by it self. However when you combine it with the following it does imply that there is a link between mass murders and attending VT.
"Figures."
That being said the murder's religion or mental state probably had a lot more to do with his attack than his college. In typical Muslim/Leftist fashion the man's family is playing the "religion/race card" by saying he was the victim of harassment due to his religion.
Disgusting.
They need to behead him, IIRC Muslims believe that is a dishonorable and shaming death which is why they do it to infidels. I could be wrong about that though.
Posted by: Scott at November 06, 2009 10:26 AM (6yHgW)
25
>>"I agree with some others here that this isn't the time or place for an argument"
And yet you seem to be determined to have one, one in which you focus your anger at we racist intolerant bigots who object to Islamic terrorism.
Posted by: Steve at November 06, 2009 11:35 AM (E/z/c)
26
Back when the Communists were a threat, there were useful idiots like Jim around who saw it as their mission in life to stand up for the poor persecuted Commies. They were "anti-anti-communist".
The circumstances may change but the fundamental mindset of the left never does.
Posted by: Steve at November 06, 2009 11:40 AM (E/z/c)
27
Islam has nothing to do with this, if he attacked fellow people of the book then he is not following the religion of peace,
Posted by: MAModerate at November 07, 2009 09:45 PM (SVD0U)
28
MAModerate you are incorrect, "People of the Book" are only protected if they have submitted and have accepted their role as dhimmis. Any resistance or failure to pay the jizya removes that protection and they are often subject to all kinds of brutality. Even if it is only one person the entire community is often punished. Just ask the Christians living in Muslim majority nations.
Posted by: Scott at November 09, 2009 11:28 AM (6yHgW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Terrorist Attack on Fort Hood
There is breaking news of what sounds like a terrorist attack on Fort Hood.
Early reports are citing 7 dead, 12 wounded, and one shooter taken into custody and another still possibly on base. Some accounts claim there is a third suspect.
While there is no word yet on who is responsible, this sounds very similar to various plots by homegrown Islamic terrorist cells, such as the Willow Springs cell arrested in North Carolina in July.
One gunman may have been killed
Updates as they come in:
Number of wounded revised to 15, and perhaps as many as 20.
Fort Worth Star-Telegram says suspects were armed with M-16s. that could just as easily mean civilian AR-15s, as well.
The shooters are possibly soldiers?
Two suspects captured, four SWAT team members wounded.
FBI rules out terrorism. I think what they meant to claim is that this wasn't the work of an Islamic terrorist cell or an attack by domestic extremists. By any measure, this was a terror attack, no matter who the shooters or victims were.
Casualty figures have grown to 9 dead and 30 wounded.
12 KIA, 31 WIA, shooters confirmed as soldiers, at least one of which had a "Arabic-sounding name".
Briefing:
Twelve people were killed and 31 wounded in a shooting at Fort Hood on Thursday, officials confirmed.
Ford Hood spokesman Sgt. Tim Volkert said the shooting occurred at 1:30 p.m. A military briefing at 4 p.m. said three assailants, all soldiers, fired shots at the Soldiers Readiness Processing Center and the Howze Theater next to it.
The facts of the story have solidified. Thee was one shooter, an American Major who used two handguns. Details here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:41 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: Gen. Hood at November 05, 2009 03:48 PM (tUCgZ)
2
I second that - clearly an idiot.
Not nearly enough info to feed into your paranoid fantasies.
Posted by: Fed up with idiots at November 05, 2009 03:53 PM (lJSp8)
3
Hey buddy. Im stationed in Camp Liberty, Baghdad with 1CD, which is based out of Ft. Hood. Some of these shootings happened right down the street from where I used to live. Unsuprisingly, everyone here is talking about it.
From what I have gathered, the security restrictions were unusually lax today, because of some graduation ceremony. This would lend support to the theory of a terrorist attack, since deranged soldiers would not need to infiltrate the base to start with.
Theres also the multiple shooters angle: Technically, I suppose its possible two crazy Army gunmen would plan something like this, but it would be hard to co-ordinate. I mean, you ask your barracks mate if he wants to go on a killing spree; he responds by turning you in and you go to jail. Its hard to break that ice, although it is possible.
Again, this is all just idle speculation.
Posted by: Neal Murray at November 05, 2009 04:36 PM (CjwiL)
4
Why is ATF on the scene? The FBI I can understand, though with their record I doubt they would be able to find even the shooter who was killed.
I wonder how long it will be before they start calling for gun control. Ironic that it occured on a military base where guns are all over the place, but locked up.
Posted by: David at November 05, 2009 05:56 PM (PpoBw)
5
Shooter identified as Major Malik Nadel Hasan, a Muslim convert. What a surprise...not!
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/soldiers-killed-fort-hood-shooting/story?id=9007938
Posted by: Here you go at November 05, 2009 06:05 PM (dW44H)
6
ATF is on the scene because of the firearms hence, "alcohol tobacco and firearms (ATF)"
Posted by: deployed at November 05, 2009 06:56 PM (2bfgE)
7
This has home grown terrorism written all over it. There is no way a Major would just go postal on his fellow soldiers unless there was some sort of extremist motive. A Officer is taught from day 1 to take care of his or her troops at all cost. I'm not sure if this is official, but I've been told that this Major has not actually even been shipped once. If that is true, that would definitely rule out post traumatic stress. Even if he was shipped, it's still hard for me to believe that a Major would start to kill his fellow soldiers on a military base. Something tells me that this will not be reported as a terrorist attack though. Either because people don't understand that terrorism can be committed by people in the U.S., or just because it looks bad on someones political resume to have a terrorist attack happen on his or her watch. I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens.
Posted by: Scooby at November 05, 2009 07:03 PM (xF9MC)
Posted by: brando at November 06, 2009 02:20 AM (LjEkE)
9
Bob, you should update this post. The shooter used 2 handguns. At least that's the story from every outlet I've heard, including NPR news this morning (Friday, Nov. 6) as of 8:30 CST
Posted by: eric at November 06, 2009 09:55 AM (p7VhC)
10
Oh gee, haven't you heard that the poor Major suffered from PTSD by osmosis? I believe this was a terrorist act and O-ball-less needs to call it like it is. Mmm-mmm-mmm . . .
Posted by: Jill at November 06, 2009 02:37 PM (RwMPP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 29, 2009
Ghosts of Campaigns Past
Earlier this week I read and
commented upon Special Forces Major Jim Gant's proposal for winning the Afghan war,
One Tribe At a Time (PDF). Gan't proposla was based upon his highly successful engagement as the leader of a Special Forces A-team that won the confidence of and became regarded as part of a Pushtun tribe.
Gant's approach suggests using smaller teams of highly-trained and highly-supported soldiers and have them assimilate into Afghanistan's Pashtun tribes to combat the Taliban with minimal but immediate assistance, both monetary and military, as needed.
David Adams and Ann Marlowe reach a similar conclusion in the Wall Street Journal today, noting that more troops applied improperly actually seems to make attempts at providing security counterproductive:
We saw how this could work in the Tani district of Khost starting in 2007. By assisting an ANA company—with a platoon of American paratroopers, a civil affairs team from the U.S.-led Provincial Reconstruction Team, the local Afghan National Police, and a determined Afghan subgovernor named Badi Zaman Sabari—we secured the district despite its long border with Pakistan.
Raids by the paratroopers under the leadership of Lt. Col. Scott Custer were extremely rare because the team had such good relations with the tribes that they would generally turn over any suspect. These good tribal relations were strengthened further by meeting the communities' demands for a new paved road, five schools, and a spring water system that supplies 12,000 villagers.
Yet security has deteriorated in Khost, despite increases of U.S. troops in mid-2008. American strategy began to focus more on chasing the insurgents in the mountains instead of securing the towns and villages where most Khostis live.
The insurgents didn't stick around to get shot when they saw the American helicopters coming. But the villagers noticed when the roads weren't built on time and the commanders never visited.
It doesn't take much more more than a scan of the current headlines to know that the application of the current strategy is not working. We also have multiple sources with boots-on-the-ground experience suggesting what certainly sounds like the same approach to a much more intimate, smaller-scale engagement, with real-world results supporting their positions.
No doubt General McCrystal has his reasons for wanting 40,000 troops, just as Joe Biden has his own (quite daft) reasons for wanting to fight a drone war.
But generals and politicians have historically had problems correctly fighting the war in front of them, haunted by ghosts of campaigns past.
Let's hope our current commanders are capable of avoiding that trap.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:16 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 3 kb.
1
from a very old vet.screw all the strategy and tactics.kill all the poppies,and keep on killing them till nothing grows ,the offer food .no guns weapons or money.
Posted by: billie wagner at October 29, 2009 03:51 PM (BT/6v)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 27, 2009
The Generals Trap
Memeorandum is abuzz over
this article in the Washington
Post. It seems that a former Marine Captain with combat experience in Iraq who had joined the State Department in the Zabul province of Afghanistan resigned in September becuase of waht he viewed as a pointless war.
The official, Matthew Hoh, wrote in his letter of resignation:
"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan,"' he wrote Sept. 10 in a four-page letter to the department's head of personnel. "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end."
Mr. Hoh is far from being the only American with questions about how we are executing strategy in Afghanistan, and for that matter, in Pakistan. As Michael Yon has been warning for over a year, things in Afghanistan are not going as well as they have in Iraq. We're not winning. We may be losing. All that seems certain is that whatever we are doing now isn't working.
There are more opinions that I can cite on what people want us to do in Afghanistan.
There are know-nothing defeatists on the left that desire an American defeat as a mark against President Bush's legacy. Such a view is perverse, but not unexpected from those that became enslaved to a singular hatred over eight years that have turned them into little more than Gollum, trapped in what one fevered progressive blogger described as "one long, sustained scream."
Opposing them are those with more rational reasons for advocating for policies of withdrawal or various strategies that refocus on continuing the effort.
U.S. General Stanley McCrystal wants to commit a much larger American force of 40,000 to attack the Taliban in what some are referring to as the Afghan Surge, likening it to the military operation in Iraq that did much to bring the country to a relative level of stability and enabled U.S. forces to mostly withdraw to supporting roles.
Others such as Vice President Joe Biden, want to reduce the U.S. footprint within Afghanistan and snipe at Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists with Hellfire missiles fired from the ever-present Predator UAVs circling overhead in some area.
And of course, all of our engagement strategies hinge on collaborating with an Afghan government that means almost nothing outside of Kabul.
But there is no guarantee that either increasing our conventional ground forces nor reeling them back in and remotely targeted suspect foes will affect any sort of meaningful change in the remote regions of Afghanistan. The tribes have defeated and outlasted armies that have fought with much greater ferocity and less regard for human life for longer periods of time. The enemy knows that they do not have to defeat us in battle. They can simply afford to watch us burn ourselves out.
That is not to say that the war is unwinnable. We just need to take a fresh look at how the human terrain is different in Afghanistan, and rededicate ourselves to fighting the current war, and not fall into the ever-present generals trap of fighting the last war.
For all intents and purposes, the American war in Iraq is over, and we won. We deposed a dictator, foundered in a bloody insurgency and near civil war over a number of years, before alighting on a strategy that fit the war. Once those tactics were discovered and put into widespread use, the bulk of the insurgency collapsed or was coerced into giving up, leading us to a current state where American forces spend their time on base or in training roles, and the Iraqi government has become a more or less functional state. Terrorist attacks like the double vehicle bombings of several days ago still spread terror and mayhem, but no overtly longer threaten the stability of the state. There is now hope from politicians and generals of using the lessons learned in Iraq to fight the Afghan war.
But the commanders and politicians have learned the wrong lessons.
They focus on the strategy and tactics of military conflict and diplomacy between governments because that is how they are comfortable thinking. They seek to apply what they think they learned in Iraq, while forgetting how they learned.
They learned from "boots on the ground" who found out what worked by living with the population and learning that mastering the human terrain is far more important than building firebases.
One man who seems to understand the human terrain in Afghanistan better than most is U.S. Army Special Forces operator Major Jim Gant, who was deeply and personally embedded with his team in Mangwel, Konar Province.
Based upon his experiences in Afghanistan, Major Gant wrote about the concept of winning the war through tribal engagement in One Tribe at a Time (PDF).
Regular readers of Confederate Yankee know that I commented frequently about the conflict in Iraq during it's most trying times, but that I've been almost silent on Afghanistan. The reason is simple: I had few contacts there, and little understanding of the nature of the people or the conflict. I wasn't going to opine on a war that I simply don't understand in the slightest.
Thanks to One Tribe at a Time I have a far greater understanding of at least Major Gant's view of how to conduct the war. While I'm open to hear other opinions, his experience and the course he advocates sounds like an approach at least worth studying.
I have a suspicion that if we continue to listen to just the politicians and generals, we may once again stagger on with the wrong strategy, creating a war that we cannot win because our greatest adversary is ourselves.
(h/t Instapundit)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:06 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 978 words, total size 7 kb.
1
Iraq abd Afghanistan are as opposite as you can possibly get. Iraq has had a centralized national government off and on since the days of Babylon.
Afghanistan on the other hand has had a loose confederation of tribes from the beginning of recorded history. Every invader from Alexander,
Genghis Khan, Tammerlane, the British, and most recently the Russians, have easily conquered the country and taken it's capitol. They then spend years stamping out little local brushfires until they become frustrated and exhausted with their lack of progress and leave.
If the U.S. wants to establish a centralized democratic society in this country, all the above factors must be taken into account.
Militarily defeating the forces on the ground will not, in the long run work.
I recall a similar situation as recently as WW II in Yugoslavia where it took the Germans 3 divisions of troops to conquer the country and 18 divisions to occupy it.
Utilizing the concept of working with the tribes and assisting in creating a confederation of tribes is probably the only solution which would eliminate the democratic one man one vote concept.
After a generation or two of this type of governing body it may be possible for the tribes and people of Afghanistan to move toward a more democratic society.
The U.S. dictating the requirement for these people to have an immediate democracy is foolish and doomed to fail. We must remember these people have never had any other form of government than a King or Chieftan for all of recorded history. Give them time.
Paul in Texas
Posted by: Paul at October 27, 2009 08:17 PM (rCmYM)
2
Great post but very unrealistic. Afghanistan is the "graveyard of empires" and we have no business being there fighting an enemy who did nothing to us. The Taliban never attacked us, the Al Qaeda did and they've been gone for the last 7 and 1/2 years. We're now being seen as an empire propping up a corrupt government that steals elections and the President's brother is leader of one of Afghanistan's largest drug cartels producing poppies at pre-9/11 levels.
If you go back to some of Bin Laden's predictions of what we would do then and where we would be now, it would send chills down your spine.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 28, 2009 03:04 AM (bhNGz)
3
And now we have this revelation out today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw
We need to pull the plug on this disaster before it's too late. Concentrate all our intelligence and special operations to the Pakistan border and continue relying on the predators that with all due respect to our troops, have been by far more effective.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 28, 2009 03:26 AM (bhNGz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 28, 2009
The Guns of the Terrorists Next Door
As you may know, seven men in Willow Springs, NC have been detained on terrorism charges, and an eighth man is
still at large.
It's a bit shocking that Islamic terrorists could be hiding in plain sight in a small Southerner town, but that appears to be exactly the case.
And for such a small cell of just eight men, they seemed to be working on a sizable cache of weaponry according to the indictment, including 8 intermediate-caliber semi-automatic rifles, 2 battle rifles, a bolt-action rifle, and a revolver.
I've categorized them by name, type, and date purchased below:
Weapon | Type | Date Purchased |
Bushmaster M4A3 | AR-type semi-automatic rifle | Nov. 9 2006 |
Ruger Mini-14 | Semi-automatic rifle | Mar. 13, 2007 |
Mossberg 100 ATR | Bolt-action rifle | Nov. 3, 2008 |
Llama Comanche III | .357 Revolver | Nov. 3, 2008 |
Century Arms AK Sporter | AK-type semi-automatic rifle | Nov. 6, 2008 |
Ruger Mini-30 | Semi-automatic rifle | Nov. 11, 2008 |
Saiga .308 | Battle Rifle, Semi-automatic | Feb. 11, 2009 |
Century Arms Polish Tantal | AK-type semi-automatic rifle | Mar. 2, 2009 |
Century Arms C91 | Battle Rifle, Semi-automatic | Mar. 31, 2009 |
Century Arms M70B1 | AK-type semi-automatic rifle | Apr. 3, 2009 |
Ruger Mini-14 | Semi-automatic rifle | Apr. 3, 2009 |
S&W M&P15 | AR-type semi-automatic rifle | Apr. 3, 2009 |
The M70B1, which was not linked, is just another run-of-the-mill fixed-stock AK-style rifle.
You may note that the AR- and AK style rifles are what our politicians have labeled "assault weapons," even though they are not assault rifles by any military definition. Prohibitionists may be quick to point out that the AK- and AR- rifles were some of those banned under the Joe Biden-authored abortion known as the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. This is the same ineffective law that our President and Attorney General would like to have reinstated.
The Saiga 308 purchased by Boyd is built upon the exact same AK action, fires a cartridge with the same rate of fire and having both far more range and power.
The two Ruger Mini-14s and Ruger Mini-30 in this arsenal use the same cartridges and have the same range and rate of fire as the AK- and AR- pattern rifles, and they were never subject in any way to restrictions of the so-called "ban."
Nearly identical relatives of the Bushmaster M4 A3 rifle were available during the entire life of the so-called ban, and that if the Smith & Wesson M&P had been around at the time, a variant of it, too, would have likely been legal for civilian sale.
If Boyd had been interested in the other AK-pattern rifles that he amassed he could have purchased those during the ban as well, though he would have paid a premium for them. While illegal to import, the thousands already in circulation were entirely legal to buy and sell.
Tell me again how gun control "works"...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:05 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 443 words, total size 5 kb.
June 02, 2009
An Ideologue's World
The flash was blinding and disorienting, and Hassan dropped to his knees as a roar like the end of the world shook the ground under him. The sky over Jericho dimmed and he turned west to see a mushroom cloud rising above Tel Aviv... or where Tel Aviv once was.
A song began to rise in his heart at the death of the Jews, but it hung as he saw the contrails of high-flying Israeli jets streaking overhead toward Damascus and Tehran.
"The Shia have killed us all," he whispered, and he sat down to die.
For now, this vision of the end of the Cradle of Civilization— the realization of the so-called Samson option by a dying Israel in response to an Iranian nuclear strike —is fiction.
Our President, however, seems unwilling to take repeated Iranian threats to destroy Israel at face value, just as he ignores that nation's continued development of long-range missiles and nuclear warheads.
He pretends to believe that Iran has a need or desire for peaceful nuclear energy instead of the beginning of Armageddon. His is a childish belief of a man who has never been a leader but has always been an ideologue in a political movement cowed by an irrational and suicidal belief of moral equivalence between good and evil when it admits that they even exist at all. He says we cannot impose our values—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—on nations with murderous histories and hate-consumed cultures.
Better to let them live out their fantasies of genocide, no matter how many millions die, than be a man who has to make difficult decisions.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:57 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.
June 01, 2009
African-American Muslim Convert Guns Down Two Soldiers at Little Rock Recruiting Station
The political apparatus behind Homeland Security is obviously
not tracking the right extremists:
A Muslim convert who said he was opposed to the U.S. military shot two soldiers outside an Arkansas recruiting station, killing one of the soldiers, police said Monday.
"This individual appears to have been upset with the military, the Army in particular, and that's why he did what he did," Little Rock Police Lt. Terry Hastings said in a phone interview.
"He has converted to Muslim here in the past few years," Hastings said. "To be honest we're not completely clear on what he was upset about. He had never been in the military."
Hastings identified the man in custody as Carlos Bledsoe, 24, of Little Rock, who was going by the name of Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad.
It seems like it was just within the past few weeks—because it was—that another group of African-American Muslim converts attempted to carry out terrorist attacks against American citizens.
Has anyone heard of Homeland Security or the Justice Department issuing warnings to law enforcement agencies to be looking for signs of suspicious activity from this very specific pool of potential terrorists? Before they struck twice in the past two weeks, I mean.
I'd love to hear from those of you in law enforcement if such a warning had been issued.
I'd hate to think that our current Presidential Administration would rather ignore the uncomfortable realities of real terrorist threats in favor of playing to the comforting silence of identity politics... but considering President Obama's ties to certain terrorists/authors and the 20 years he spent in the congregation of a racial separatist church, I wouldn't put it past Dear Leader, either.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:04 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.
May 29, 2009
Obama Holds Israeli Helicopters and Weapons Integration Hostage, Benefiting Hamas and Putting Civilians at Risk
In a move that a cynic might note may be designed to save their
$900 million investment in Hamas, the Obama Administration has stepped in to
block the sale of six Apache helicopters to Israel and also stopped the integration of the Spike missile system with the Apache's millimeter wave radar.
The Obama administration has blocked Israel's request for advanced U.S.-origin attack helicopters.
Government sources said the administration has held up Israel's request for the AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopter. The sources said the request was undergoing an interagency review to determine whether additional Longbow helicopters would threaten Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip.
"During the recent war, Israel made considerable use of the Longbow, and there were high civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip," a source close to the administration said.
What a naked, ideologically-driven crock.
Obama's Administration, which apparently has little knowledge of or use for military systems, does not seem to grasp that the use of the Longbow's mast-mounted sensor suite enables it to more carefully select targets that other variants of the Apache, which in and of themselves are a better targeting, surveillance, and attack system than most alternatives.
Nor do they seem to grasp that the close air support function of helicopters with lighter weapons loads is less likely to cause the collateral deaths of civilians than other weapons systems that would have to step into the suppression role that helicopters typically occupy.
Artillery units (in Israel, typically 155mm self-propelled howitzers) fire salvos of "dumb" high explosive or incendiary shells that either burst above the target (spraying shrapnel over a wide area), point detonate on impact, or less frequently, on a time delay that lets them penetrate structures before exploding. But artillery is not designed to be a precision weapon, and Obama's decision could force the Israeli's to use this area weapon, directly putting civilian lives at risk.
The other option for the Israeli's if these Apache's are out of the picture are "fast movers" such as the F-15i and and F16i, fighter-bombers armed with bombs weighing hundreds or thousands of pounds. While they can be armed with precision weapons, the warheads on these munitions are typically larger than those of helicopter mounted weapons. Once again, this creates a situation where the Israeli's are boxed into a less-than-optimal weapons system and put civilians at greater risk of death because of an ignorant decision made by a neophyte's Administration trying to play hardball not with an enemy, but an ally.
The net result is that Obama's short-sightedness and inexperience is potentially leading to a situation that will increase the collateral damage of Israeli strikes, even if the strikes are carried out with the utmost care, because Obama has blocked the sale and integration of the most precise and surgical weapons system available to handle the threat.
Instead of being able to target a Hamas rocket team that has retreated into the garage of an apartment building with a Longbow's precision gunfire or a pinpoint missile strike, Obama's decisions may lead to Israel being boxed into a position where their options are to respond with artillery strikes that run the risk of bringing down the building and spraying everyone nearby with shrapnel, or bombing the building with fighter aircraft armed with bombs large enough to flatten the building and kill everyone inside it.
Obama stupidly thinks that by denying Israel precision-strike capable aircraft and precisions munitions integration that Israel might not fire on the Palestinian terrorists he's provided more money to than anyone but Iran. He thinks he's protecting his investment. Israel, however, does not suffer terrorist rocket attacks on it's neighborhoods and schools, nor should they.
Those innocent Palestinians that may die as a result of this shortsightedness need look no further for a culprit that then man who hides behind the fence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
(h/t Bookworm)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:05 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 673 words, total size 5 kb.
May 22, 2009
Shocker: NY Muslim Terrorists Were Losers, "Intellectually Challenged"
More is coming out about the four Newburgh men who were arrested in a plot to carry out attacks on synagogues in New York City and shoot down C5 Galaxy transport aircraft at Stewart ANG base in Newburgh.
You'll hardly find it surprising that the terror team is bunch of dead-end convicts who converted to Islam in prison, and that none are a threat to join Mensa:
One is a petty criminal who spent a day in 2002 snatching purses and shooting at people with a BB gun from an SUV. His lawyer calls him "intellectually challenged."
Three have histories of drug convictions, one of them for selling narcotics in a school zone. The man prosecutors portrayed as the instigator of the scheme said he smoked pot the day he planned to blow up the temples.
In other words, if they hadn't decided to become terrorists, they would have fit perfectly in ACORN.
As it is, one of the uncles of the suspects feels that he knows where to place the blame:
"The Onta I know wouldn't do something like this, but the new Onta, yeah," said Richard Williams, an uncle. "He wasn't raised this way. All this happened when he became a Muslim in prison."
It's interesting how people who convert to just about any other religion in prison—say, Christianity as a popular choice—come out of prison and often use their newfound zeal as a convert to make something out of their lives.
A blogger friend of mine recently remarked in a private email (hence no name) about how her brother turned his life around after going to prison and finding God there. The one-time petty criminal and recreational drug user is now clean and sober and found a work ethic that has amazed his sister. He now owns a commercial landscaping company. He recently purchased ten acres of land with a pond, and just started building a dream home with his new bride. All of this occurred just six years after he walked out of the prison gates with nothing but his faith and support form his family. He gives all the credit for his phenomenal success in such a short amount of time to God.
If James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen has been successful in their quest to carry out murderous synagogue bombings in Riverdale and managed to bring down a C5 Galaxy carrying even part of its full fuel load of 332,500 pounds—enough to fill more than six railcars—and managed to burn a massive swath of their hometown to the ground—perhaps the massive jet veering into the 2,700 student Newburgh Free Academy (which is very near a landing jet's flight path) in the worst, worst case scenario—they would no doubt give all the "glory" of their massacres to Allah.
It is interesting, and sometimes insane what adherents of different religions think brings glory to their God, and worth noting that what these converts would have lauded as the will of their God parallels what we would expect from the will of Satan himself.
As for Masjid al-Ikhlas, the mosque these men shared on Washington Terrace in Newburgh, I'd like to hope that they were not involved in the plot in any way, or were working with the authorities in bringing down this band of murder-minded misfits. If they were encouraging jihad, however, I hope the authorities shut them down.
There is a freedom of religion in this country, but that stops when the individual practitioners or promoters of the religion use it to destroy the lives of others.
Update: And radicals they are. Phyllis Chesler does some digging and reveals the radical Islamist roots fo Masjid al-Ikhlas.
Perhaps Peter King or another New York politician should consider finding a way to close such radical centers that seem to do little more than condone and organize criminals to become indoctrinated mass murderers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:52 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 665 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Bob
You hit the nail on the head vis-a-vis Prison and reforming. My neighbor in Florida did some 'hard time' and now is doing the same exact thing that the guy you mentioned. He owns his own landscaping company, and regularlly watches out for Household Six and the kinder. I always make time to have a few beers with him when I'm home, and withh the exception of one 'bad night' with his drug addled brother causing trouble, he's the perfect neighbor, and I trust him to watch over my family. Every time I have to leave, he asks that we pray together for my safety and that of our respective families. No matter where you find Him, The Father (Heavenly, Type One Each, Supreme, Unique, Mark One, Mod Zero) good things can happen...
Unlike the so called "Religion of Peace"
Posted by: Big Country at May 22, 2009 11:43 AM (H/RUP)
2
I find this a strange statement:
"He wasn't raised this way. All this happened when he became a Muslim in prison."
If he wasn't raised that way, why was he is prison in the first place? Just an observation as I read the post.
Posted by: Mickey at May 22, 2009 07:31 PM (lGntn)
3
OK, I don't live in NY. I live out West. But from what I have seen, what exactly are the odds of ANY politician from New York saying or doing anything that could be construed as being "anti-Muslim"? Between fear of PC consequences and fear of an actual physical application of "the Religion of Peace", I can't see any of that lot from either party doing anything. I'd love to be proven wrong.
Subotai Bahadur
Posted by: Subotai Bahadur at May 22, 2009 10:12 PM (+nvHm)
Posted by: clarisonic mia best price Sale at November 19, 2012 10:10 AM (5sVoc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 21, 2009
These Are the Terrorists In you Neighborhood
When I lived in Newburgh, New York I had a paper route that took me down Washington Terrace, an utterly forgettable section of road in an ugly part of worn-out town.
It's beena few years, but the mosque one source calls Masjid Al Jihad Al Akbar (the local paper calls it Masjid al-Ikhlas, but puts it at the same address) was a worn-looking Islamic Center on Washington Terrace that never seemed to have anyone around when I drove past. If news accounts are correct, the two-story building that may be the only mosque in Newburgh was most likely a link between four Muslim terrorists that were attempting to bomb synagogues in Brooklyn and try to shoot down aircraft with Stinger missiles at Stewart ANG base.
The FBI busted a homegrown terror cell late Wednesday night as the men sneaked around a Jewish temple in Riverdale planting what they thought was packages of C-4 explosives, sources told the Daily News.
The four African American men, three of whom were said to be jailhouse converts to Islam, also allegedly had what they believed was a working Stinger missile in their car.
Officials said they hoped to shoot down a plane at Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh in Orange County.
Sources said the four men were arrested after a year-long investigation that began when an informant connected to a mosque in Newburgh said he knew men who wanted to buy explosives.
FBI agents posing as militants sold them what they thought was 30 pounds of C-4 and a plane-downing Stinger missile.
The weaponry was all phony.
The ANG plane most often flown out of Stewart is the massive C5 Galaxy, on a predictable flight path that would make the plane a relatively easy target as it came in for landings from any of a hundred possible launch sites along Route 17K or Route 300, with easy escape routes to nearby interstates just minutes away.
I remember that after 9/11 some locals grumbled about wanting to burn down Masjid Al Jihad Al Akbar. In retrospect, if it is the mosque where terrorists came to plot, then finding some way to shut the mosque down certainly seems like an idea worth considering.
Update: Confirmed. The mosque's imam is an ex-con who di d a 12-year stretch for robbery and is the protegee of another Imam who was fired for praising the terror attacks of 9/11.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:09 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.
March 08, 2009
Hustled: How Obama Deceived America About a Drawdown in Iraq and a "Surge" In Afghanistan By Playing With The Lives Of American Soldiers
This post from milblogger Greyhawk is a must-read.
It is relatively rare when we see a situation where people from both ends of the political spectrum and all points in between can unite for any reason, but using the lives of soldiers as political props is certainly one of them.
Here's the summary:
President Obama, apparently seeking to keep the anti-war left firmly under his spell, announced that he was drawing down American forces in Iraq, and was instead diverting forces who had trained specifically for an Iraqi deployment to Afghanistan.
Less than a month later, another unit's scheduled deployment to Iraq is sped up, in order to keep the same number of Stryker brigades in Iraq as there would have been if he hadn't shipped the other unit to Afghanistan.
The President ordered a unit that had trained for ten months specifically for the Iraqi mission to another part of the world that speaks a different language and has entirely different cultures. There is no easy way to determine on a Sunday night how many tens of millions of training dollars and man-hours Obama wasted by shifting this Stryker brigade, but if the Iraqi theater really didn't need them, it at least could have been understandable.
But the Iraqi theater clearly did need a Stryker brigade, and he planned on sending one all along.
We know this because just as soon as the Obama White House sold the drawdown story to the media and the anti-war left, he immediately and quietly ordered that another Stryker brigade—one that is no doubt capable, but one that didn't have the specific, intensive training of the unit diverted to Afghanistan— rushed to Iraq months ahead of schedule in order to keep the same number of Stryker brigades (two) as there has been the entire time.
There is no drawdown of Stryker brigades in Iraq.
President Obama lied to the American people.
He tried to con those who are against the Iraq war into thinking we were actually drawing down our capabilities there, when all he actually did was use a street-hustler's sleight-of-hand, having us watch one hand moving a unit out of Iraq, while using his other hand to deftly slide in another.
To borrow a phrase: you been lied to. Bamboozled. Run amok.
By a hustler who's been playing you the entire time.
And for those of us who know people in the military, be they friends or family, you should be absolutely livid at the callous disregard with which our punk of a President used the lives of two entire brigades of soldiers and their families as pawns.
The military life is never easy. Not ever. Our troops and spouses know that, and the kids, well, they learn to cope as best they can. There is always pride, but always uncertainty, and little things can make a difference for both the morale of the soldiers and those who carry on in their absence.
Knowing that our soldiers are highly trained for a specific mission makes them feel more confident of success, and more confident they'll have a better chance to come home. Having nearly a year's training wasted—and then finding out several weeks later that all that training was wasted because of political theater orchestrated to benefit your selfish Commander-in-Chief—well, I can only assume that hurts morale. Not just the morale of the troops, mind you, but that of their families, to see how little he cares about those he commands. And that's just the 5th Stryker Brigade.
The 4th Stryker Brigade's soldiers are being rushed to Iraq to keep two Stryker Brigades there. Did they get in all the specialized training they needed? They'll no doubt rush to get it done. But are those soldiers and their families being cheated of time together because Barack Obama is using them to play a cynical political game where he tries to lie to America about the wars we're fighting?
Absolutely.
Anyone who has done any research into who Barack Obama is, instead of who he likes to claim who he is, can't be very surprised that he would so cynically manipulate others for personal political gain.
What is surprising is how brazen his abuses are, and how quickly they've come.
Update: "It looks as if the Obama administration is so self involved, the only game itÂ’s playing is a shell game with itself and the American people."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:17 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 781 words, total size 5 kb.
February 24, 2009
Obama Administration Supports Hamas Rebuilding, While Shorting Anti-Terrorism Funding in Pakistan
We're still fighting a war against radical Islamic terrorism, and it already appears that our inept President
has forgotten which side he's supposed to be on.
The Department of Defense's Security Development Plan for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, like the administration's $900 million Gaza aid plan, is directed at the heart of a terrorist haven. But the DoD initiative is directed at curtailing and/or cutting off terrorists from narcotics funding and undermining their stranglehold on and, to the degree that it exists, popular support of the local populations there. An alternative.
The Administration's Gaza reconstruction gift contains none of these counterterrorism dynamics. Not a one. There is but one ultimate distributor in Gaza: Hamas. The Obama administration can claim that "the aid would not go to Hamas but that it would be funneled through nongovernmental organizations," but the fact of the matter remains that the Hamas terrorist organization that dominates Gaza stands to gain from every penny. It most certainly will not be hindered. That equation is nowhere in the calculus.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:20 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sheesh. Here I've been worrying about the economy... he's gonna get us all killed, so I guess it doesn't matter how low the stock market drops.
I wonder how much burkhas cost?
Posted by: jana at February 24, 2009 12:48 AM (vSRlG)
2
I am happy you qualified your statement with "Supposed to be on."
This guy and his cabinet is, and will continue to, throwing over all allies in his effort to cow tow our enemies. I would have said Muslims but their are in fact some Muslims who do not aspire to the subdjugation of all other religions. Muslims does not cover the love of Russia and Venezuala.
Posted by: davod at February 24, 2009 03:35 AM (GUZAT)
3
Obama knows very well whose side he's on, and it's been showing since before he got elected.
And that side is NOT the side of those who fight Islamic jihadism (or any terrorism against freedom, capitalism, and the American Way).
Posted by: J.T. Wenting at February 24, 2009 08:39 AM (oU0J/)
4
God forbid we help the victims of Israeli state terrorism instead of subsidizing Israel's white phosphorus and cluster bomb stockpiles.
Posted by: AJB at February 24, 2009 10:30 AM (L5Gpb)
5
The Palis are "victims" of their own stubbornness and stupidity.
Posted by: PA at February 24, 2009 01:18 PM (Ygf78)
6
"white phosphorus and cluster bomb stockpiles"
I'm familiar with this lie. For the record, Ricin and Sarin are WMDs, WP and Cluster bombs are conventional. Not the other way around.
It's like these people are on autopilot. They don't even think about the objective truth of what they're saying, or how it relates to the post.
They just yell WP as though it's some shield against careful thought.
As for the substance of this post, I agree. I don't think that funding Hamas will help Palis, Isralis, or the US. Tax payer money to fund jihad! Wheeee!
Posted by: brando at February 24, 2009 01:58 PM (qzOby)
7
Has forgotten? That assumes he knew.
Posted by: zhombre at February 24, 2009 04:58 PM (cuXMy)
8
"our inept President has forgotten which side he's supposed to be on."
He has known which side he is on all along. We must all remember that he isn't always on OUR side. This just reveals how he isn't going to put the USA first if it interferes with HIS plans. We know what some of those plans are. Wait until he teams up the the UN and I think we will see what his REAL PLANS are.
Posted by: Smorgasbord at February 24, 2009 05:35 PM (7wBTD)
9
Obama's past that the MSM ignored and continues to ignore tells us exactly what side he is on. It is now beginning to peep through the Democrat propaganda machine fed to the uneducated voter through the media during the election and now every day since the moment he was sworn in.
Hamas endorsed him yet he received most of the Jewish vote in America. Now they are surprised?
Posted by: SKAY at February 28, 2009 07:05 PM (ilmLh)
10
Even if the aid did not go through the thoroughly corrupted UN organizations and went directly to the people of Gaza (the same ones who willingly allowed Hamass terrorists to use their homes for missile shelters and bomb factories), Hamass would have a list of the people receiving the monies and would send its terrorists to each of those homes for a cut of the money received like Mafiosos.
There is no way to keep the monies out of Hamass' hands and the Administration has to believe we are too stupid or gullible to know that. This is a billion dollar gift to a genocidal organization (indeed, since dollars are fungible) every dollar Hamass doesn't have to spend to repair the damage it caused its constituents is a dollar it can spend building rockets and attacking Israelis. This must be that fabled intelligence and soft power that we marvelled at during the democrap campaign.
Posted by: eaglewingz08 at March 02, 2009 10:45 AM (RdRrk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 20, 2009
The Testing Begins
One thing America's enemies expect in Barack Obama is weakness, and they
aren't wasting any time testing him:
Right now, man, lately, we've been under some INSANE level of incomingÂ… like compared to 2004, not so much, but considering that when I got here, it'd been over 9-10 months since any, mind you, ANY rounds hit, and for like 3 days/nights in a row we've had between 2 to 4 incoming rounds.
Expect an uptick in attacks on American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and perhaps elsewhere as terrorists and tyrants probe the incoming Obama Administration to see what the 44th President is made of.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:37 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.
1
America meet your new president Mr. Milqutoast
Posted by: Fearless at January 20, 2009 09:51 PM (iBQbQ)
2
The real test will be when Americans are killed on American soil. Please fogive for what I am about to say - but what will Obama and his extreme liberal koolaid drinkers do when the drive-by media report on a large mushroom shaped cloud forming over an American city. hmmmmmmmm
Posted by: mixitup at January 20, 2009 10:28 PM (yWxFy)
3
Mr. Obama is made of indecision.
Posted by: Teleprompter Messiah at January 20, 2009 10:56 PM (kTFE5)
4
Talk about grasping at straws with a heads I win tails you lose argument. Who exactly was being tested from 2001-2008 by 9-11, Afghanistan and Iraq, and how is the fact that the testers are still alive, well and testing 8 years later laid at the feet of Obama on his first day in office?
For 8 years and 8000+ American lives, the testing proved Bush and Co were on the right path. Suddenly the testing proves Obama is weak. Get over yourselves.
Posted by: John at January 20, 2009 11:56 PM (MAjZZ)
5
"Get over yourselves." That's really not fair, nor a very constructive thing to say. The difference is that we were promised that the whole world would instantly stop being terrorists when The One is sworn into office.
America has come through on our side of the deal.
The terrorists have not.
And I still want my unicorn.
Posted by: brando at January 21, 2009 12:07 AM (gNIlp)
6
Bush certainly left Obama a safer world--but no one could leave a safe world. I expect Obama to be tested by our enemies. Some of the things Obama has said makes me hopeful that he will not leave us less secure.
otoh, if Americans on US soil dies of Islamic attack--leaving out the lone nutcases that we can never eliminate--then Obama and the left will be run out of town on rails.
But Obama knows that and has no intention of letting it happen. He wants a second term and a place in the history books. I trust in Obama's self-interest.
Posted by: iconoclast at January 21, 2009 12:09 AM (4+pxq)
7
Juggy is made up of equal parts of "hope", "change", and "Bravo Sierra"......
however, of those components, only one has any substance to it, which explains why he's risen so high.
gold sinks, schise floats......
we are *SO* screwed.
Posted by: redc1c4 at January 21, 2009 02:15 AM (sT30R)
8
The important crisis will be the second one. Obama will either overreact or under react to the first. He will do the opposite to the second, in an attempt to avoid the criticism of his previous action ( or inaction ).
The second crisis will either bring us to the brink of war or of surrender. It will be the real test for the country.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at January 21, 2009 03:57 AM (G/joL)
9
Unless you have a death wish you should avoid international air travel and ocean cruises for a while, well for a long time if Hussein O is stupid enough to close Gitmo and/or release the terrorists. I remember pictures of Americans hitting the tarmac and the water after being shot in the back by members of the religion of pieces and marine bodies being dragged in the streets. They're still finding peices of bodies from blown up aircraft in Scotland and NYC. For 7 years it's been a no-no to screw with America. Now the door is wide open for several free hits. Even an uptick in deaths in Iraq will signal a major Hussein O failure. You think he's saved GWB's phone nunber on his blackberry toy.
Posted by: Scrapiron at January 21, 2009 08:57 PM (I4yBD)
10
Day Six and instead of waiting til tonight, we took some hits today in broad daylight... this shytte is getting old... (I just thought I'd throw that out there as I can't access my blog today.)
Posted by: Big Country at January 22, 2009 07:09 AM (vuy4X)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Hope. Change. Explosives.
I'm hoping
this is a hoax:
A Massachusetts man stopped by police along the New Jersey Turnpike amid a suspicion that he was taking explosives to Washington, D.C., prompted a 25-mile closure of the highway east of Philadelphia on Tuesday evening.
At about 6:30 p.m., New Jersey State Police closed the turnpike at exit 1 through exit 4 as a precaution. State troopers, FBI agents and turnpike officials continued to investigate along the highway that leads south to Washington.
New Jersey State Police spokesman Sgt. Stephen Jones said troopers took a 27-year-old man into custody following a car stop in the southbound lanes of the turnpike near Exit 3 in Woodbury Heights.
Know who this benefits?
Mitt Romney.
Update: false alarm.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:28 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Link has a double http://
Posted by: Just Askin' at January 20, 2009 10:38 PM (esv00)
2
I don't know if it's a hoax, but I was one of the unfortunate individuals stuck on the turnpike for well over 2 1/2 hours just north of the stop. Sounds like someone who didn't like him called in a bum tip. Or maybe he was running his mouth about things he was supposedly going to do and someone found it a bit disturbing.
I'm eagerly awaiting the details which will explain why it took me 3 1/2 hours to get home last night.
Posted by: Mike Gray at January 21, 2009 10:46 AM (kZVsz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 07, 2009
Another Leftist/Islamist Lie Up In Smoke
It doesn't seem that we can have a conflict in the Middle East without pro-terrorist Islamists and Leftists in the world declaring that white phosphorus (WP) is a chemical weapon, and that the military force using WP is guilty of a "war crime" or "atrocity" for firing white phosphorus shells—never mind that that Islamist force targets civilians, uses their own population as human shields, and commits rape and torture with barbaric impunity to those they suppress.
Such apologist claims, almost without exception, based upon either radical politics, gross ignorance, or a combination of the two. In either event, these shrill claims are decidedly false.
A typical case of ignorance is the one I cited several days ago in the Pacific Free Press where the headline called the use of White Phosphorus by Israeli forces in Gaza the " War Crime du Jour."
Likewise, "Cernig," posting at Crooks & Liars, posted an equally inflammatory, fact-free and generally unhinged rant on the subject:
And there are good reasons to believe that the IDF is simply lying as part of a propaganda war it admits has been eight months in the planning: the use of indiscriminate white phosphorus airbursts, in contravention of international law as it is understood everywhere except the US and Israel (the 1980 Protocol III to the Convention on Conventional Weapons containsa blanket restriction on dropping incendiary weapons from the air against military objectives "located within a concentration of civilians"
; the way in which the IDF is throwing explosives around so freely that almost as many of its people have been killed by its own "errant' tank shells as by enemy action.
Like most Leftists, Cernig is quick to pick and choose his atrocities of choice, completely ignoring that Hamas purposefully targeted Israeli civilians with thousands of rockets and mortar shells, in order for him to attack Israel by purposefully (and ignorantly) misconstruing what the laws of land warfare are, and what white phosphorus munitions are being used, and how.
The Israelis are not firing White Phosphorus incendiary weapons into Gaza.
This photo from Gil Cohen Magen two days ago shows Israeli 155mm M825A1 white phosphorus shells, with "M825A1" written clearly on the sides. I've cropping the image to focus on the M825A1 shells.
Update: A higher-resolution crop showing the shell markings more clearly.
Likewise, this photo posted today shows more Israeli 155mm M825A1 shells near a self-propelled gun.
Clearly, Israeli forces are using 155mm M825A1 white phosphorus shells in Gaza. But the white phosphorus shells they are using in Gaza are not incendiaries, and they are not being used in any way that can possibly be misconstrued as illegal.
Why?
Because the M825A1 is a smoke round.
From Global Security:
The M825 is a 155mm Smoke projectile used to provide screening or marking smoke. It is a separate loading munition using a hollow forged steel shell. The shape is ogival with a boat tail for aerodynamic efficiency and a welded steel baseplate. Close to the base is a gilding metal drive band protected by a grommet until just before loading.
The M825 White Phosphorus (Felt-Wedge) is a 155mm base ejection projectile designed to produce a smoke screen on the ground for a duration of 5 to 15 minutes. It consists of two major components, the projectile carrier, and the payload. The projectile carrier delivers the payload to the target. The payload consists of 116 WP-saturated felt wedges.After ejection, the WP felt wedges fall to ground in a elliptical pattern. Each wedge will then becomes a source of smoke. The projectile is ballistically similar to the M483A1 DPICM family of projectiles.
Smoke ammunition is a limited asset. Since ammunition requirements vary with each mission, observers should know the amount and types of smoke ammunition available and how many minutes of coverage it can provide. Extensive, planned smoke employment should be coordinated early with firing units to allow for redistribution or requisition of ammunition.
That's the short version.
The full article goes into far more detail about the nuance about the difference between the use of "quick smoke" and "immediate smoke" for battlefield missions, but one thing is painfully obvious—these are artillery shells and they contain white phosphorus, but they are not incendiary weapons, and they are not, by any remote measure, illegal to use in Gaza or anywhere else. They are smoke shells, used to create smoke screens.
The kind of white phosphorus artillery shells used as incendiary munitions are those called burster-type white phosphorus, and Global Security explains the difference between the incendiary and smoke rounds in sufficient detail .
The airburst Cernig and other terrorist apologists laments as an illegal attack is instead how a smokescreen is created to protect advancing soldiers. It is decidedly not an incendiary weapon, is decidedly not illegal, violating no laws or conventions.
Make no mistake—these apologists, Islamists and Leftists alike, are lying, pro-terror shills.
* * *
Few nations on Earth exercise as much care in waging a "humane" war as does Israel and the United States.
In this present conflict in particular the IDF has gone to extreme lengths to reduce collateral damage, from the careful selection of targets, to using precision-guided state-of-the-art weaponry to maximize the accuracy of their strikes, to using distinct weapons systems designed with different capabilities to use the absolute minimum of force to destroy terrorist targets, to even going to the extreme of phoning civilians near terrorist targets in order to evacuate them prior to attacks.
As Victor David Hansen notes, Israel has gone to historical lengths to protect a hostile civilian population, even as those hostiles openly back and publicly cheer terrorist attacks—more than 6,000 in recent years—that purposefully target Israeli civilians.
There is no moral middle ground here, but one of the most clear-cut battles between good and evil mankind is likely to ever see on this mortal plane.
If you side with Hamas, you side with evil.
Perhaps, then, I shouldn't be so surprised that so many of Hamas' apologists are so willing to lie for them.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:30 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1016 words, total size 8 kb.
1
Then there are those of us from the Vietnam era who see nothing morally wrong about using willie peter on enemy positions and not just as marking rounds for artillery spotters.
Rules in warfare, when my life is at stake? I don't think so.
Posted by: Rex at January 07, 2009 01:33 PM (W309r)
2
WP is indeed a smoke producing agent. When I was in the army our M60 tanks could shoot WP shells, and I think my tank carried a couple rounds. But you get smoke from burning, and WP burns on contact with air, so if you get it on you, you need to douse it with water and then pick off the bits of WP from your flesh or it will keep burning. So, its purpose is smoke but a side-effect is burning. I agree, it is fine for the Israelis to use them for their intended purpose or laying down smoke, and if some Hamas members get burned, well... maybe they ought to stop murdering people, then they won't run that risk
Posted by: Brad at January 07, 2009 01:54 PM (NTFbl)
3
Wonder what would happen if Hamas somehow managed to fire white phosphorus rockets? Surely then the left would finally condemn them, right? /sarc.
Posted by: Vaultenblogger at January 07, 2009 01:58 PM (HG6DM)
4
In Vietnam, my platoon was ambushed several times. To counter the threat, we were given 3 mortars. To turn a Willie Peter round into an airburst WP round was simply a matter of replacing the detonation fuse with a timing fuse. We practiced a bit to get the right time and elevation and charges to burst over the trees that lined the road where we travelled. The last ambush we had stopped immediately after we shot off a couple of these airburst WP rounds. Very effective at saving lives, namely ours.
Posted by: Mike at January 07, 2009 01:59 PM (toXTX)
5
Personally, I think Israel should drop cluster bombs, WP, napalm and thermobaric bombs on those large gatherings of Hamas when they have funerals or political rallies. Same thing with hezbollah.
Posted by: SamIam at January 07, 2009 03:21 PM (jl7C/)
6
Unhinged is the polite way of saying it.
Posted by: Jack at January 07, 2009 04:48 PM (Z1UDt)
7
Not that anyone notices anymore but you cannot have a warcrime wunless both combatants are geneva convention signers *and following the conventions*. As soon as one side declines to follow the rules the other is freed of any obligations as well.
Posted by: rjschwarz at January 07, 2009 04:49 PM (gk04J)
8
And these people are picking sides. That is something they don't seem to want to admit.
I call this "Che chic" --- it is a Western (intellectual) society form of flagellation. They pat themselves on the back for being big enough to demonize the "us" while bending over backward to ignore the reality of the "other" ---- which means in reality that they champion the other - no matter how grotesque.
So, the Palestinians are just another of those poor, downtrodden masses, yearning to be free, trampled on by the rich, democratic, industrial-capitalist world order --- and as such victims of all that made the Che chic-types free (like capitalism and democracy and industrialization) ---- whatever this "other" does must be excused. ----- while the state of Israel - by being too much aligned with the world order - must be condemned.
It really isn't about championing the Palestinians. It's about making themselves feel better for being "progressive" -- which means attacking the foundations of their own (Western) societies.
But -- it still - in the end - champions the likes of Hamas....
Posted by: usinkorea at January 07, 2009 06:07 PM (lK2Wx)
9
Well, even so-called "conventional" ammunition uses
chemical propellants. Ergo, they are by definition chemical weapons.
Ooh, more war crimes!
Roofing nails packed into semtex vests, of course, are exempt from any arms agreements.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at January 07, 2009 11:14 PM (Vcyz0)
10
White Phosporus is considered a chemical round because way back when Christ was a Corporal, smoke screens were part of the job of the Chemical Warfare Service, usually with 4.2 inch Chemical Mortars, an improvement on the old British Four Inch Mortar that was smoothbored rather than rifled. That gray green color of the shell body indicates a chemical round and the yellow stripe indicates an explosive bursting charge for it. That's mostly by tradition and long ingrained habit, otherwise they'd paint the things red like any other incendiary device like tracer ammo.
White phosporus is an incendiary agent. It burns, and it does cause some horrible wounds. As Brad noted, our tanks were loaded with a few as a part of our basic ammunition load, along with SABOT, HEAT, HEP and BEEHIVE. As trained, WP was considered to be appropriate only for screening and antimaterial use.
We also considered it to be excellent for taking out SAGGER, (Soviet 9M14M Malyukta antitank missile) operators. Suddenly becoming a crispy critter, tends to take the motivation out of the hardest of the hardcore. Fire has always been a good psychological weapon.
I don't know whether the Israelis are using their SMOKE rounds legally or not. I'm not there and like most other people reading about the current incursion or watching it on television, I can't comment on what they're doing because of that.
I do know that if I had to deal with snipers or Engineer Tank Killing Teams or other people who were trying to kill me, I probably wouldn't be terribly fastidious about what I used on them, since I'm not infected with the Martyr's Disease. I want the other guy to die for his country, not the other way around.
I'm not sure that I'd use smoke for screening in Gaza though. Too heavily urbanised and what screens an enemy from me, also provides cover to an enemy, even with Thermal Imaging Sights. Concrete will hold and reflect a lot of heat and if it's daytime, that lowers the contrast of the target in question some.
Bottom line though, is that we all ought to take a wait & see attitude on this, especially when you consider the fact that lawyers are hip deep in our wars now, and what people do either establishes a precident or violates one with the possibility of being prosecuted. And whatever's happening there might well create precident to be used against our guys one day.
David Drake made the best point on the subject, when he noted that whenever you send out a guy with a gun to solve your problems, you've created a policy maker and when it's his ass on the line, he's gonna do whatever he thinks that he has to in order to get it done and stay alive. People who expect otherwise are either delusional or lying. Pick one.
Posted by: Michael Shirley at January 07, 2009 11:43 PM (u0eeD)
11
spare the gas, spoil the jew (and all their white-trash inbreed buddies).
Posted by: Irving Shapiro at January 08, 2009 02:03 AM (dFdb0)
12
Steve wrote:
Well, even so-called "conventional" ammunition uses chemical propellants. Ergo, they are by definition chemical weapons.
Ooh, more war crimes!
It's worse: human beings are powered by chemical reactions. They are also biological. The average Israeli soldier is quite a weapon in himself, so by sending troops into Gaza, Israel is using chemical and biological weapons against Hamas!
You may scream in panic and outrage now.
Posted by: Patrick Chester at January 08, 2009 02:31 AM (RezbN)
13
First of all, EVERY weapon is a chemical weapon. Guns use gunpower, a chemical. Even a kitchen knives are made of chemicals.
White phosphorus is also a chemical weapon. But it is not a chemical weapons banned under the Convention on Chemical weapons that "Cernig" mentions above. Whether it is simply a smoke round or not, doesn't matter.
Cernig uses sleight of hand to claim it's banned for use in "objectives located within a concentration of civilians". But EVERY weapon in the world is banned for use against civilians - there is nothing special about that, and that's why his posting was complete nonsense.
Posted by: John Rohan at January 08, 2009 03:55 AM (Xtvxj)
14
On another subject; I have noticed that the media's pictures of dead children that I have seen are a bit unreal. The supposedly dead children are not bloodied in any way. That is not to say that children are not victims, but I expect the green helmeted man to appear shortly. I don't have any confidence in the reporting by the Gaza stringers nor the Western media either.
Posted by: amr at January 08, 2009 07:27 AM (I4yBD)
15
Personally I'd have no issues with the Israelis going "old school warfare", which would entail pretty much wiping Gaza off the map. That's how wars were once fought and that's how the Islamists are fighting. I believe Sun Tzu said never leave an enemy at your back, and that is basically what Israel has done, except no matter which way she turns there's an enemy at her back.
We imagine ourselves and the world to be so civilized when in fact the majority of the nations/cultures/population is FAR from it. You deal with the uncivilized on a level they will understand. From a position of strength and the promise of utter obliteration.
Posted by: Scott at January 09, 2009 09:16 AM (mqy6N)
16
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the -
Web Reconnaissance for 01/09/2009 A short recon of whatÂ’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Posted by: David M at January 09, 2009 12:24 PM (gIAM9)
17
A little lesson on terminology might help keep this thread focussed.
Today's lesson is taken from the Chemical Weapons Convention, which entered into force 29 April 1997.
Reading from Article II (Definitions and Criteria), paragraph 1: "'Chemical Weapons' means the following, together or separately: (a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention..."
Moving now to paragraph 9 of the same article: "'Purposes Not Prohibited Under This Convention' means: [...] (c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare;"
Put them together and what have you got? (No, not 'Bibbity boppity boo') You've got this: Phosphorous (white or red, and there are munitions that use both), if used for military purposes not involving poisoning people, is not a 'chemical weapon' (burning people, by the way, is not the same as poisoning them - and I've yet to hear the morons bleating about phosphorous burns complain when a soldier gets ripped apart by fragments of white-hot steel from an exploding IED). A lead bullet doesn't constitute a chemical weapon when you shoot it into someone, even though lead is toxic. You're not using lead to poison the person, after all; you're using it to makes holes in him. There's a difference.
Phosphorous is also used as an illuminating agent in tracer rounds. Does that mean that every 5th bullet that comes out of a .50 calibre machine gun is also a 'chemical weapon'?
The definition of a 'chemical weapon' in the Convention is intent-based; if you're not intending to poison people with a given substance, then the substance is not a 'chemical weapon', no matter how toxic it might be. Generating smoke is clearly a purpose not prohibited by the CWC, which means that WP smoke rounds are not chemical weapons. Many of the other very toxic chemicals used by militaries are also not 'chemical weapons' because they're not used "to cause, through chemical action on life processes, death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to humans or animals" (Art II, para 2).
Let's keep it real, here, or pretty soon the Huffington Post will be trying to ban toothpicks because wood is made of cellulose, and OH GOD, THAT'S A CHEMICAL TOO!
By the way, Israel - like its neighbours, Egypt and Syria - is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and therefore is not bound by its provisions. Something to think about.
Posted by: Arms control guy at January 09, 2009 12:32 PM (JO1Py)
18
I hope the administrator of this website respects free speech because this may test some of the views I've read. The use of WP gets complicated.
Assuming the 116 each, WP saturated felt wedges released by a 155 mm M825A1 WP smoke projectile can cause burns deep into tissue if it lands on a person... assuming burning WP is extremely difficult to put out when it gets on the skin (remember from basic training?)... assuming that, unlike other burns, painful chemical burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area can result in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multi-organ failure . . . assuming that half the human being on the ground in Gaza are civilians ... assuming half the civilians are children ... assuming you wouldn't want your child to experience a M825A1 round fired over their head at, say a 4th of July celebration ... then why is it okay for the country of Israel to do so?
This is not a high school football game where you yell "kill 'em." There are real, live, innocent children on the ground (and their mothers) and, be honest now, while use of WP rounds may be legal in warfare, is use of them in a densely populated civilian area, (knowing they likely are harming innocent civilians, including by the way, Palestine Christians), the moral way for a civilized nation to conduct a military operation?
Am I aware that Hamas has fired their rockets into civilian areas? Yes. Are you aware they have killed less than 10 people? Are you aware that use of disportionate force can be considered a war crime?
I agree with the argument made by the Israelis that we would not tolerate Mexico firing rockets on San Diego for as long as they have tolerated it from Humas. They make a good point.
I know eliminating the Hamas problem the moral way would cause a few more casualties on the Israeli side. Isn't the moral thing what the good guys do? Everyone knows Humas is outgunned a thousand to one in this conflict. Why can't Israel show a little moral restraint expected of a civilized country???
Unfortunately, military forces often must take place in civilian areas. Military Law only regards as criminal those deaths or injuries to civilians in a war zone that are caused by deliberate (i.e. not accidental) attacks on civilians by military forces, "OR" by grossly disproportionate use of force, in EXCESS of what military necessity provides for, against a military objective in close proximity to civilians or civilian buildings. Oops!
This is just my $.02. God bless you and your children and all the innocent children we are obligated to protect.
Posted by: Retired 28 year U.S. Army Vet at January 10, 2009 07:04 PM (BCjkl)
19
Human Rights Watch is now slandering Israel on this one and the AP & Haaretz are spreading that story. Marc Garlasco for HRW is the same fellow that supported the slander of Israel on the "Gaza beach massacre" a few years ago
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054532.html
Rights group: IDF using white phosphorous bombs in attacks on Gaza
By The Associated Press
Tags: hamas, israel, israel news
Human Rights Watch said Sunday that Israel's military has fired artillery shells packed with the incendiary agent white phosphorus over populated areas of Gaza, including a crowded refugee camp, putting civilians at risk.
Researchers from the rights group said they witnessed hours of artillery
bombardments on Friday and Saturday afternoon from Israel's border in which shells burst over the Jebaliya refugee camp in northern Gaza, sending out trails of burning smoke that indicates the shells contained white phosphorus.
The substance can cause serious burns if it touches the skin and can spark fires on the ground, the rights group said in a written announcement calling on Israel not to use it in crowded areas of Gaza.
Military spokeswoman Major Avital Leibovich refused to comment directly on whether Israel was using phosphorus, but said the army was using its munitions in accordance with international law.
Human Rights Watch said it had no way to investigate whether anyone was
injured on the ground because its researchers have been barred by Israel from entering the territory.
Associated Press reporters in southern Gaza on Sunday saw several patients at Nasser Hospital in the town of Khan Younis with serious burns that the chief doctor said might have been caused by phosphorus. He said, however, that he did not have the resources or expertise to say with certainty what caused the wounds.
One of the patients, a young man, had severe burns that left skin on his face and body peeling off in places.
White phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon, and militaries are
permitted under laws of warfare to use it in artillery shells, bombs and
rockets to create smoke screens to hide troop movements as well as bright
bursts in the air to illuminate battlefields at night.
"Israel is not party to a convention regulating its use. Under customary laws of war, however, Israel would be expected to take all feasible precautions to minimize the impact of white phosphorus on civilians," Human Rights Watch said.
"What we're saying is the use of white phosphorus in densely populated areas like a refugee camp is showing that the Israelis are not taking all feasible precautions," said Marc Garlasco, a senior military analyst for the rights group. "It's just an unnecessary risk to the civilian population, not only in the potential for wounds but also for burning homes and infrastructure."
Garlasco was among researchers on a ridge about a mile (1.5 kilometers) from the Gaza border who observed the shelling from a 155mm artillery unit.
Some of the burning trails of smoke caused fires on the ground that appeared to go out after a few minutes, said Garlasco, who formerly worked at the Pentagon where he was in charge of recommending high-value targets for air strikes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Each 155mm shell contains 116 of what Garlasco described as wafers doused in phosphorus that can be spread over an area as large as a sports field,
depending on the height at which it detonates. The phosphorus ignites when it comes in contact with oxygen.
Human Rights Watch has not been able to confirm whether there have been any civilian casualties from phosphorus. The group has a consultant working for it inside Gaza but he has been unable to move around due to the danger. Foreign journalists have also been barred from entering Gaza.
An AP photographer and a TV crew based in Gaza visited Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis on Sunday and recorded images of several burn patients.
One of them, Haitham Tahseen, recalled sitting outside his home with his
family in the morning when something exploded above them.
"Suddenly, I saw bombs coming with white smoke, said the man, whose burned face was covered with medical cream. It looked very red and it had white smoke. That's the first time I've seen such a thing."
His cousin, in another hospital bed, was more severely burned, with patches of skin peeling off his face and body, and had to be wrapped with thick white bandages.
The hospital's chief doctor, Youssef Abu Rish, said the burns were not from contact with fire, but he couldn't say what sort of substance caused them. He said information he collected on the Internet indicated it could have been white phosphorus.
Garlasco said photos published Thursday in British newspaper The Times showed Israeli units handling American-manufactured white phosphorus shells with fuses on them.
Israel used white phosphorus in its 34-day war with Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006. The U.S. military in Iraq also used the incendiary during a November 2004 operation against insurgents in the city of Fallujah.
Posted by: Honest Reporter at January 11, 2009 04:27 PM (KXZxq)
20
Some call this doofus posturing of the left "Che Chic". I just call it by its rightful name, horseshit.
Posted by: Mike Myers at January 11, 2009 08:16 PM (UHTK+)
21
Are you aware that use of disportionate force can be considered a war crime?
I would expect a 28 year veteran to know that the assessment of 'proportionate' or 'disproportionate' is based on if the civilian casualties inflicted are reasonable with regards to the objective the operation was intended to achieve.
It most definitely does
not mean you only get to inflict as many casualties on the other side as you have sustained.
I would also expect that a 28 year veteran would know that the presence of civilians very explicitly does
not make it illegal to attack a military target- and positioning civilians in proximity to such a target is a war crime by the party that puts the civilians in proximity to the target.
This is basic stuff.
As far as the children are concerned, it's a damn shame their parents didn't do a better job of finding people who aren't murderous lunatics to run their country. Now they get to deal with the consequences. Hopefully they will do a better job next time. For their part, the Israelis seem determined to reduce the number of murderous lunatics in Gaza.
Posted by: rosignol at January 12, 2009 12:39 AM (aAePs)
22
Retired 28 &c,
"OR" by grossly disproportionate use of force, in EXCESS of what military necessity provides for, against a military objective in close proximity to civilians or civilian buildings."
You raise a point, sir.
However, isn't the idea (and I say this as one with no military experience) to make sure the balance of forces is grossly disproportionate? This strikes me as similar to the argument that the rockets fired by Hamas into Israel on a daily were not terribly accurate and therefore the Israelis are being mean by being more accurate and effective.
Israel is at war against an existential threat. They are trying to win that war. The way to win, really win, any war is to kill enough of the other side that the survivors sue for peace-on your terms-to stop the killing. The civilians elected the savages to run the government. I don't like to say it, but they have only themselves to blame for the consequences.
Posted by: irish19 at January 12, 2009 01:40 AM (6aeB2)
23
Existential treat? Here's an old article about who Israel considers an existential threat: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1128/p06s01-wome.html
Is Gaza an "existential" threat to Israel? Absolutely not. Is Iran? Absolutely. Would Israel like to bomb Iran while we have troops in Iran? I don't know but some sources think so: http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2009/01/11/us_denied_israeli_bid_for_bunker_buster_bombs/
(You may also want to read the reader comments below it). If Israel is allowed to employ unrestrained military force in the region, will our 140,000 troops in Iraq be at risk? Will we ever get out of there?
We put the cost of the Iraq war on our credit card, meaning your kids pay for it. Who pays for the next one, your grandchildren? We're not just talking about the children of Gaza, we're talking about OUR children.
Look guys, Israel is our ally, but are they concerned with our best interests? Would it serve their purposes if the U.S. keeps troops in the middle east "FOREVER?" How could they make this happen? Maybe the unrestrained use of force against Iraq, which the Bush administration is trying to prevent. If we continually accept Israel's use of unrestrained force, will it serve our country's needs?
I seriously doubt we can EVER get out of Iraq if Israel is allowed to conduct unrestrained military operations. Isn't it time we consider our own interests.
Again, just my $.02 which is about all ANY of us will have for retirement if we keep paying for wars on credit. The United States is now in about the same condition as England after WWII, out of resources. Think about it.
These are only my thoughts. I don't intend to enter an endless debate, so I'm signing off.
Blessing to all of you. I know each of you is doing your absolute best to be a good citizen of our country and has it's interests at heart.
Posted by: Retired 28 year U.S. Army Vet at January 12, 2009 03:16 PM (fr0IU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 06, 2009
Sacrificial Wolves
It was only a matter of time—Israeli counter-battery radar isolated Hamas mortar shells as they rose, and a computer algorithm quickly did the geometry and isolated the GPS coordinates of the launch location before the terrorist-fired bombs even began their descent.
Israeli counter-fire aimed at the launch site was likely in the air before the Hamas-fired shells impacted near their target of Israeli civilians.
When the Israeli shells impacted the Hamas launch site—a school—the terrorists got just what they wanted.
Israeli forces fighting Hamas in the Gaza Strip struck a school run by the United Nations, killing at least 30 Palestinians hiding in the compound, a UN official said. Israel said it was returning fire from the school.
Christopher Gunness, a spokesman for the UN Relief and Works Agency in Jerusalem, said in a phone interview he could confirm 30 dead and 55 injured, 15 critically, as the result of three Israel artillery shells hitting the school in northern Gaza.
The Israeli army said in a faxed statement late today that its investigations showed that "among the dead in the school were members of the military wing of the Hamas terror organization and a cell firing rockets and mortars at Israeli forces in the area."
Time and again, Hamas terrorists have fired weapons from schools, residential areas, hospitals, and mosques. Often these same sites have been used to store weaponry as well.
An Isreali drone captured a similar Hamas mortar attack launched from the exact same U.N. school two years ago.
Anti-Israeli hypocrites in the worldÂ’s media and Islamo-fascist states constantly cry that Israel is guilty of "war crimes" for returning fire against the aggression of various state-sponsored Islamic terrorist groups along its borders, and no doubt will rally against todayÂ’s casualties as an example of such.
What they will not admit—and perhaps ideologically, cannot—is that it is Hamas that is clearly guilty of multiple war crimes by any objective measure, as they continually embed militant forces inside civilian structures, population centers, and fire weaponry from within civilian enclaves that they use as human shields.
Perhaps equally as shameful is that the naked hatred of Palestinian culture towards Isreal is so extreme is that even non-combatants are more than willing to have themselves used as human shields, as they view the deaths of their own population as martyrs in a media war as an acceptable cost of attempting genocide against their Jewish neighbors.
Hamas militants did not have to force themselves into this school that recent reports suggest doubled as a weapons depot and firing position, nor in any of the dozens of residential neighborhoods, schools, mosques, and hospitals theyÂ’ve illegally weaponized in decades of terrorism. No, they were accepted willingly by Palestinians equally as bent on the destruction of Israel.
Indoctrinated by terror-loving, Jew-demonizing characters from birth on Palestinian television in a culture that lives to hate, fight, and die, there are no innocents here.
The high number of casualties in this particular incident suggests a similar patterns as in previous conflicts. Adoring Palestinians stood too close for too long after their terrorist heroes fired mortars at Israeli civilians. The Palestinians gathered around the launch site to watch munitions being fired against Israel simply didnÂ’t anticipate the speed and accuracy of the Israeli response, and Israeli counter-battery fire detonating additional Hamas weaponry at the school only made the carnage worse.
There is a simple way out of such constant death and misery in Gaza for the Palestinians, a solution the Israelis had hoped for in 2005 when they pulled out of Gaza, giving the Palestinians a chance to form their own state, with their own government.
Instead of prospering and building a future for their children, they squandered their chance, choosing agony and a futile, constant war against an Israeli state that gave them a clear chance for peace and prosperity.
Hamas responded with violence.
All the dead of this war are on the heads of Hamas and the Palestinians that embrace and support them. There are no innocent lambs being slaughtered in Gaza.
Only the deaths of wolves.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:12 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 684 words, total size 5 kb.
1
My brother and I used to love tormenting hornets. We would throw rocks, hickory nuts or other stuff at their nests. We would hide and watch them buzz around for a few minutes and they would go back to their nests and buzz for some time there.
Then we decided to pop a big one with a .22 rifle. The hornets zeroed in on us and I got nailed several times until we outran them. My brother got nailed also. Guess what? We went back much later, picked up our rifle, and never messed with hornets again. We survived, and there are as many hornet nests as ever.
You probably guessed the moral of this true story. You do what happened before and on 9/11/01 and you have consequences.
You rocket and mortar attack your neighbor and then increase attacks you get stung big time.
Kill them Israel, and let God sort them out. Palestinians, you really don't want this at home. get your kids out of this.
Posted by: Marc Boyd at January 06, 2009 11:38 PM (Zoziv)
2
BTW I am an old Veteran and speak from many years experience. God bless America and our serving Volunteers. You guys are the Best!
Posted by: Marc Boyd at January 06, 2009 11:43 PM (Zoziv)
3
I sympathize with Israel and also deplore the civilian deaths.
Not to make light of those innocents killed in this, but if your town was under attack, why were you sending your kids to school (especially one where Hamas was hiding). I mean, if my town was being attacked I would grab the kids and head for the basement (if I had a basement that is).
Posted by: Anthony at January 07, 2009 09:25 AM (hMQke)
4
Looks like the "Baby Milk Factory" gambit has finally run its course. If the whole country is a Baby Milk Factory and yet it errupts rocket and mortar fire regularly, well, then the Baby Milk Factory has got to go, Baby Milk or no Baby Milk. Has anyone noticed that now that the Grads have hit the fan that you never hear how Hamas is the elected representative of her constituents anymore? I seem to remember when the talk was about how Hamas can become a partner for peace since the pullout, being finally a legit gub for the Palis. Its what they always wanted, right? Did Hamas get the Barack treatment? Oh no, there was never any need to hide the true intent of Hamas. Not from the Pals anyhow. Their program of jew extermination was a real winner electorally. Unintended consequences bite even in the dusty stalls of Gaza.
Posted by: megapotamus at January 07, 2009 11:26 AM (LF+qW)
5
For 8 years Hamas has been firing rockets into Israel from civilian positions. For 8 years Israel has been told to wait and talk to them. Israeli patience has ended. And now Hamas is getting back its just deserts.
The teacher at the school who was in charge of rockets was fired by the UN. But that was after years of using the school (with the administration's knowledge) to fire rockets.
Posted by: Katie at January 08, 2009 12:23 AM (fYJgw)
6
Anthony,
Their one of two options in hamas territory, they are either all civilians or they are all muslim fanatics seeking death, the latter is the correct answer in case you don't get it.
Evan
Posted by: Evan at January 08, 2009 07:58 PM (sIJnp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 31, 2008
Ending Gaza
Let's put this bluntly: the Gaza Strip is a failed non-state run by terrorists pledged to genocide and dreaming of a second Holocaust. It has no discernible reason to exist other than to hate; no notable exports greater than the crude rockets and mortars targeting Israeli civilians for merely daring to exist.
Lets end it. It was a mistake. It's time to close Gaza.
Empty the 1.4 million Gazans living in squalor into the surrounding Arab nations who helped make it a modern Hell. Send them to Egypt. Syria. Jordan. Lebanon. Let these nations deal with the extremism they've midwifed by absorbing the bastard Arabs of the Middle East into their own societies.
Granted, such a repatriation will be welcomed by neither the Arabs of Gaza nor the nations who have to host the violent illiteracy and religious extremism they helped create.
But it is the only viable long-term solution for peace.
And an idea long overdue.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:19 AM
| Comments (36)
| Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I agree, Gaza should become a buffer zone with nothing allowed to grow or be build over ankle high. A massive carpet bombing campaign should do the trick and close the rat holes the Mooslimes have dug all over the land of murder and rape.
Posted by: Scrapiron at December 31, 2008 11:49 AM (I4yBD)
2
I second the carpet bombing idea. . . I am just not sure they should let them out of the area first. The terrorists living there will just fight from their new home if given a chance. . ..
Posted by: JD at December 31, 2008 12:20 PM (VyXDV)
3
Good idea, but I think all those countries will resist violently. They know what has been created and will resist. But that would be nice to see.
Posted by: Federale at December 31, 2008 12:54 PM (H1JJq)
4
lots of empty land in Saudi Arabia......
Posted by: redc1c4 at December 31, 2008 01:06 PM (vLw7K)
5
With one small difference I will agree totally. Just substitute "palestine" for Gaza.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at December 31, 2008 01:18 PM (nHlbs)
6
One Israeli nuke-- send those
chernozhopi straight to Hell.
Posted by: Ivan Ivanovich Renko at December 31, 2008 01:23 PM (RABxQ)
7
Proposal for a durable cease-fire: Give the Hammies one week. Count the number of rockets fired over the border in that week. Destroy everything, animate or otherwise, starting from the boarder and proceeding one meter west for every rocket during the baseline week. Repeat as necessary with a multiplier of two, then three and so on. Even if no one has the stomach for that (yet) stop feeding these scum as well as providing them energy, medical care and whatever else is the largess of Israel, the US and the UN. These pukes are pirates at best. Anyone with a claim to being a "moderate" Palastinian had best demonstrate that through deeds, pronto.
Posted by: megapotamus at December 31, 2008 02:06 PM (LF+qW)
Posted by: Vaultenblogger at December 31, 2008 02:38 PM (HG6DM)
9
While we're at it, make sure we deal with the Cynthia McKinneys attempting to aid the terrorists.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at December 31, 2008 02:51 PM (M+Vfm)
10
Yeah, did McKinney's canoe get searched? I wonder if it was all baby-milk and Band-Aids.
Posted by: megapotamus at December 31, 2008 03:10 PM (LF+qW)
11
"But it is the only viable long-term solution for peace"
Indeed. It could almost be called the "Final Solution" to the "Palestinian Problem".
Cheers
Posted by: Oyka at December 31, 2008 03:38 PM (qb2YA)
12
Oh, I know I know hear me out...Maybe you should suggest that we round up all these Gazans...perhaps COCENTRATE them all together in one spot (a camp or camps if you will) or in several places.
Genius!!!!
Posted by: Oyka at December 31, 2008 03:48 PM (qb2YA)
13
Oyka -
Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan already do just that. And since they have no birthright citizenship laws, children born in the CONCENTRATEs have no Lebabon, Syrian, or Jordanian citizenship.
Boy that sucks, huh?
Posted by: Adriane at December 31, 2008 04:05 PM (W7nzI)
14
Mega, makes no difference to me if it IS all baby milk and bandaids. Aiding and abetting the terrorists, is aiding and abetting, no matter what it is you're shipping to them.
Cynthia McKinney should be IMMEDIATELY placed under arrest upon touching US soil.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at December 31, 2008 04:18 PM (M+Vfm)
15
Cato the Elder had the right idea:
"Carthage must be destroyed."
The words are supposed to be have been repeated by Cato at the end of every speech he made in the senate, after his visit to Carthage in 175 B.C., when he became obsessed by the military threat posed by the city. It was eventually destroyed by Rome at the end of the Third Punic War in 146 B.C.
Contrary to legend, the soil of Carthage was not sown with salt.
The Palis should suffer Carthage's fate. But it won't happen.
Posted by: miriam at December 31, 2008 05:16 PM (p7QDM)
16
Kill everybody and let god sort them out seems to be your line.
No wonder the rest of the world things you are crazy, still as Bush has the man from Manchuria has wrecked your economy you wont be able to kill as many people in 2009 as 2008.
Posted by: Derek Wall at December 31, 2008 07:12 PM (EWJ1+)
17
Great idea, but won't work because the presnt situation is exactly what the Arabs states want it to be. They invented the notion of "Palestine" as a proxy for their continuously failed wars of extermiantion against Israel. Not only do the hapless Palis do all the bleeding and suffering and dying on their behalf, but Israel gets transformed from David into Goliath and instantly becomes a bully in world opinion, for the heinous crime of defending itself.
Derek, we don't give a rat's ass for the opinion of what you delusionally claim is "the rest of the world." You're a bloody handed accessory to genocide, feel free to STFU - or better yet, go stand in front of a Hamas missile factory as a subhuman shield.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at December 31, 2008 07:32 PM (Vcyz0)
18
Killing the Palestinians won't solve the problem. It will only infuriate the Arabs, who will then become an even greater problem than the Palestinians.
No, the only solution is to kill them all, Palestinians and Israeli's alike - just sterilize the whole area and start over with the Amish.
Posted by: M. Onan Batterload at December 31, 2008 10:07 PM (bV7Pv)
19
Kill everybody and let god sort them out seems to be your line.
Did you read that somewhere, Derek? Did you read the post? What does it say? As for your second sentence, don't drink and type. It never works out well.
Posted by: Pablo at December 31, 2008 11:13 PM (yTndK)
Posted by: UNRR at January 01, 2009 11:21 AM (uKBSQ)
21
The great irony is that the Palestinians could be rich if they wanted to be. If they took all the aid money they receive and used it to build an infrastructure and businesses instead of spending it on munitions and feathering the nests of Hamas leaders, they'd be leading very comfortable lives. Consider Gaza - that is prime beachfront property. And the Pals took it over and trashed it.
But peace and prosperity isn't what they're interested in - not when there are Jews around to kill.
Never have a people been so undeserving of sympathy - and yet the murderous SOB's get it from moronic tools the world over. Why? Well, let's put it this way - the Palis are very, very fortunate to have the enemies they do. If other Arabs were killing them, nobody would pay attention or give a damn.
Posted by: Donna V. at January 01, 2009 10:14 PM (rTyiR)
22
Saudi Arabia needs foreign workers....half of the O/S foreigners could then be released to return to their homes.....problem is, the koran forbids having muslims as slaves and that messes up the Saudi plan. Guess they'll have to send them all to Lebanon. Lebanon is a palestinian controlled Iranian puppet now anyway and the thugs from Gaza and the West Bank would fit right in(after, of course, a bunch of gangland style killings and suicide bombings to sort out the heirarchy). The remaining Labanese that haven't yet moved to Dearborn, Michigan or Chicago will have to hash out living arrangements for the rest of the palestinians. That will give Israel a couple years of respite to salt the borders with minefields and resettle Gaza and West Bank with settlers. Cool plan eh?
Posted by: Tonto at January 02, 2009 11:53 AM (Qv1xF)
23
Tonto,
As a 2nd generation American whose paternal grandfather (and his father and grandfather) emigrated from northern Lebanon, I take exception to sending more murderous blankety-blanks to one of my ancestral homelands.
Of course, if it leads those blankety-blanks to their ultimate doom I'm all for it
Posted by: PhyCon at January 02, 2009 12:19 PM (4od5C)
24
Prior to the 1967 war, Gaza was part of Egypt (or at least administered by Egypt) and the West Bank was administered by Jordan. In the Camp David accords, Egypt wanted the Sinai back (minus settlers) but didn't demand/ask for Gaza as far as I can tell.
So whose fault is it the arabs in West Bank and Gaza don't have a country?
Posted by: iconoclast at January 02, 2009 01:15 PM (ddU4M)
25
The funny thing, iconoclast, is the timeline.
So, in 1967, Gaza was part of Egypt, and the West Bank was part of Jordan.
But when was the Palestine Liberation Organization (dedicated to liberating Palestine) founded?
1965!
So, what, exactly, was the PLO seeking to liberate?
All of a sudden, it would seem that the PLO, and the Palestinians in general as well as their Arab backers, weren't so much interested in liberating Gaza and the West Bank, as Tel Aviv, Haifa, and all the other parts of Israel,
pre-1967.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at January 02, 2009 01:34 PM (6FBvO)
26
Your sense of justice might work if your reasoning wasn't so skewed. Too bad Palestinians have higher literacy rates than some U.S. cities. Too bad Hamas was supported by Israel to counterbalance the PLO - the same Israel that bombed US and UK targets in Egypt to gain support in the Lavon Affair. I tip my hat off to you Neo-Nazis, er I mean Neo-Cons, nevertheless.
Posted by: b at January 02, 2009 11:11 PM (JoSSB)
27
So you want a genocide? Stay classy, should get you back into power real soon.
Posted by: WOW at January 03, 2009 11:50 AM (6oxG5)
28
WOW, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Everyone "knows" that civilians are just packed into Gaza, right? And the Israelis are armed with a full arsenal of modern weapons, from F-16s and cluster munitions to multiple launch rocket systems.
So, how many casualties have there been in the past five days? Five hundred? A thousand?
This must mean that the Jews are some of the most incompetent genocidal murderers out there, because with this massive arsenal of weapons, they can't kill more than 100-200 people a day! And this, with minimal anti-aircraft barrages and no SAMs from Hamas.
It almost raises the question, given this incredible level of incompetence, why Hamas hasn't liberated all of Israel by now!
That, or maybe your terms and concepts are wildly out of whack.
Naaaahhhhh.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at January 03, 2009 12:45 PM (6FBvO)
29
Moderate Palestinians?
I think they all left for more stable, secure places long ago. Only the terrorists and those too poor to leave are left now.
Posted by: AngryConservative at January 03, 2009 09:01 PM (jSsV8)
30
Nice try, Oyka. Sorry, but I for one refuse to play this game of goal-post shifting.
You start the fight, you're gonna have to pay for it.
The Palestinians fire rockets at the Israelis, they're going to pay for it. To throw the first punch (or several dozen or several hundred over several years) and then to cry "Foul!" because the other side shellacks you is nonsense.
If you break my little finger every week, does this mean that I am not allowed, after a year, to do more than break your little finger?
That is neither just, nor supporting the concept of deterrence.
That's just the philosophical problem w/ your "argument." That doesn't touch on just how many of those "civilians"
are Hamas (at least you admit that many of them are). That doesn't touch on how Hamas is based AMONG civilians. That doesn't touch on how Hamas refuses to allow wounded Gazans to get medical care
even in Egypt. (Whose fault is that, Oyka? The Zionists?)
By this "logic," the US should have stopped after the several thousand sailors killed at Pearl Harbor had been equaled by the number of Japanese killed?
But somehow, from your previous comments, I suspect you don't actually give a fig about the sons of apes and pigs. I don't think you give a fig about how Hamas brought the fire down upon Gazans, nor about how they have had no regard for Gazan casualties.
Which is why I won't bother wasting time with you.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at January 04, 2009 12:41 AM (Wrs4H)
31
Oyka,
Lurking is correct. If one country starts a war, no sane individual is going to listen to them when they complain about losing the very war they started.
If Mexico was shelling El Paso on a daily basis, I would expect that the USA would do more than just lob a few grenades back over the Rio Grande.
Posted by: Angry Conservative at January 04, 2009 06:40 AM (jSsV8)
32
Oyka, what would a "proportional" Israeli response look like? Should they just fire back into Gaza, rocket for rocket, mortar for mortar? Or should they just kill/maim a Gaza civilian for each Israeli that suffers the same fate?
Posted by: Pablo at January 04, 2009 12:45 PM (yTndK)
33
The only problem with the idea of putting the Palestinians elsewhere is that there is no Arab government that would be willing to accept them. They have already been booted out of Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt because they became involved in those countries internal political processes. Their purpose was to de-stabilize those countries, and install a Pro-Palestinian government. Needless to say, the rulers of those countries had some issues with such plans.
The fact that that Hamas-led Palestinians are openly associated with and backed by Iran (Persians, not Arabs), makes Arab nations even less likely to accept them.
Posted by: Dan at January 05, 2009 06:34 AM (bEM7/)
34
The Arabs in the other countries don't give a rat's arse for Palestinians...if they did, they would simply repatriate them willingly, but they don't care.
I say Israel goes all the way, wipes out Hamas and Fatah, and whoever wants to live in peace can live under Israeli rule. Their life will be astronomically better under their care than under the current terrorist regime who have done nothing to promote the well-being of Palestinians.
Posted by: Richard Romano at January 05, 2009 04:17 PM (kycO9)
35
"Hamas launches simple rockets that manage to kill few over a few years"
No doubt, a foolish, university educated leftist, taught well by his/her professors.
Posted by: Richard Romano at January 05, 2009 04:19 PM (kycO9)
Posted by: Henry at January 07, 2009 09:11 AM (2wkck)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 30, 2008
IDF Starts Gaza YouTube Channel; Already Hit With Terms of Use Violations
The Isael Defense forces have
started a YouTube channel to show the precision and care they are taking in destroying Hamas terrorist weapons dumps smuggling tunnels, and rocket launching sites located in residential areas by the terrorists. Hamas places the sites among homes and school in hopes that innocent civilians—particularly children—will be killed. Hamas can then use Palestinian and Arab cameramen with sympathies towards their cause to take pictures of the dead and wounded civilians for Hamas' propaganda war, which is typically waged via cameramen from Reuters, AFP, and the Associated Press.
Typically, as in the 2006 war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, these photos are stage managed to varying degrees, while a few are occasionally staged.
Some photos are staged by physically manipulating scenes for news photographers to photograph, though the primary way Hamas manipulates the media is to tightly control their access, limiting photographers to areas where they can take generally only take pictures of dead and wounded civilians and Hamas &qout;police," never allowing them access to photograph bombed weapons smuggling tunnels, missile launching sites, and other legitimate military targets.
The IDF YouTube channel is a vital dissemination tool to counter the propaganda photos staged by Hamas and willingly participated in by the world's media outlets, and so it is perhaps no real surprise that the channel itself is already under attack.
Several of the videos showing the Isreali Air Force hitting Hamas rocket launching sites with GBU-39 precision-guided bombs have been flagged by pro-Hamas (or at least anti-Israeli) users and momentarily removed for terms of use violations before being restored. Some have been removed and have not been restored. Expect this online battle to continue, and perhaps intensify.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:57 AM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.
1
The American press has been doing the same thing to us for years, working the message till it no longer resembles the truth. The MSM is the counterpart to Hamas, Conservative websites are the counterpart to the IDF.
We have to teach our children how to go find the truth now. It does not appear at the simple flip of a TV on button.
Posted by: JK at December 30, 2008 12:37 PM (Z7PN0)
2
Seems like a "TrueTube" service is needed.
Posted by: Kevin at December 30, 2008 12:48 PM (roJck)
3
The IDF should start a channel at LiveLeak instead.
Posted by: Craig at December 30, 2008 12:51 PM (mEJO6)
4
As a beginning, you see the shortcomings of you tube.
The IDF needs to start a site owned by the Israeli government, hosted on hardware they own, and hooked up to backbone they control (leased to Israeli government)(, and protected from hackers by Israeli employees (government or contract)
If they can find reliable hosting elsewhere, they can always redirect the links later. (and if the hosting doesn't prove reliable they can take it back "inhouse").
Probably a distributed node network architecture, but all the hardware should be in Israel or Israel's embassies.
yanking utility service to embassies because you don't like what they are saying violates "international law".
Posted by: J'hn1 at December 30, 2008 12:55 PM (+A1UB)
5
Good to see the IDF following MNFIRAQ into cyberspace!
Posted by: desertdweller at December 30, 2008 12:58 PM (26nvS)
6
The IDF should start a channel at LiveLeak instead.
No, use both.
Demonstrating what YouTube won't show is just as important as the video itself.
Posted by: edh at December 30, 2008 12:59 PM (OjT5k)
7
Why doesn't the IDF just buy YouTube or start their own video hosting site. They could call it "JewTube"
(don't flame me, folks, it's just a joke. OK?)
Posted by: Ralph Gizzip at December 30, 2008 01:01 PM (9UpXS)
8
there's an MIT website which features all video that's been deleted by YouTube -- called YouTomb -- available at youtube.mit.edu (I haven't yet checked the YouTomb site for any youtube deleted IDF videos).
Posted by: J.S. at December 30, 2008 01:01 PM (P7eMS)
9
correction: make that "youtomb.mit.edu" (for deleted YouTube videos).
Posted by: J.S. at December 30, 2008 01:03 PM (P7eMS)
10
"it's just a joke. OK"
and a funny one at that.
Posted by: Boyd at December 30, 2008 01:05 PM (0hVL5)
11
Ralph, it was a lousy joke.
Posted by: Graham at December 30, 2008 01:05 PM (lxgQ7)
12
That's what they did to me too. Censored by the Obamabots. This is a big problem that Google needs to figure out ASAP.
Posted by: cakesecret at December 30, 2008 01:05 PM (uUGtX)
13
The IDF YouTube channel will be back up and running momentarily.
The AP is now reporting that beautiful Mossad agents have infiltrated YouTube HQ, seduced the staff, and incapacitated them all with poisoned lipstick.
Posted by: driver at December 30, 2008 01:50 PM (25C9v)
14
They could also try Blip.tv
Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) at December 30, 2008 02:42 PM (UrQ4c)
15
What? The media is allowing itself to be manipulated by one side of a political argument? I'm shocked, shocked! What are professional journalists doing to maintain their independence? They are professionals, aren't they? Hello? Hello? Anyone there? Hello? Oh, boy....
Posted by: Ed at December 30, 2008 02:51 PM (PCF7a)
16
RE
don't flame me, folks, it's just a joke. OK?)
Posted by: Ralph Gizzip at December 30, 2008 01:01 PM
It's a type of joke that an antisemite would make.
Posted by: TT at December 30, 2008 02:55 PM (1IhU+)
17
So much for "don't be evil".
Posted by: Vaultenblogger at December 30, 2008 03:21 PM (HG6DM)
18
It could also be a comment that a Jew might make. I see no harm.
Posted by: Eric at December 30, 2008 03:28 PM (rawx6)
19
the problem with the suggestions of other video hosting sites is that they don't get the traffic Youtube does. If the IDF wants a lot of people to see its material, especially people who aren't already pro-Israel, Youtube is the place to be.
On Youtube you can post a video as a response to another video. The IDF should do that with every jihadi video.
Posted by: Yehudit at December 30, 2008 03:33 PM (0Tzs7)
20
I agree with Yehudit. I think the public relations war is almost as important as the real war against Hamas.
The IDF cannot rely on the international media since they are being led by the nose and are only reporting one side.
So you will always get stories where the IDF are commiting atrocities while Hamas are freedom fighters. So the IDF needs to counterattack on land as well as in cyberspace.
Posted by: Joemama at December 30, 2008 04:30 PM (MIJuy)
21
I worked at Youtube owner Google for a year as a contractor. The political leanings of the majority of the employees was so extremely leftist that it was a bit uncomfortable for a moderate such as myself.
I am completely not surprised that the politics of the employees affects what is considered acceptable.
Posted by: Ogre at December 30, 2008 04:46 PM (mqYab)
22
There IS a website called "Jewtube.com" and it appears to have Jewish and Israeli related video content on it.
Posted by: Bob in Houston at December 30, 2008 05:08 PM (sSr5k)
23
I occasionally post vidblogs, and the most recent one I posted on YouTube was posted to be seen, but for some reason the "email" option was shut off (not because I did it...I tried to change it and it wouldn't let me). It was about the dangers of gun control. Friends had to pass it around the long way because YouTube deliberately shut off that feature for that particular vidblog.
Censorship takes many faces.
Posted by: MelMaguire at December 30, 2008 06:39 PM (sBm2i)
24
How would someone in their right mind still believe they would get a fair shake from youtube?
Is this an example of Israeli intelligence?
Posted by: papertiger at December 30, 2008 06:52 PM (VFSPG)
25
Does anyone know the link to the IDF channel?
Posted by: Jax at December 30, 2008 10:09 PM (evI68)
26
Two of the deleted IDF YouTube videos are now available via
Powerline. The site is sluggish and the videos load v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y, probably because of the number of users attempting to view them.
The videos show the degree of care the IDF exercises in singling out active Hamas members, especially when compared to the indiscriminate rocket attacks by the terrorists.
Posted by: Just Askin' at December 30, 2008 10:11 PM (esv00)
27
I suspect that if you look at the terms of use very closely, you'll find that being a zionist, advocating zionism, and portraying zionism in a positive light are per se terms of use violations.
But there's nothing in there about chopping off heads.
Posted by: Deuce Geary at December 30, 2008 10:27 PM (rZoaz)
28
I saw something very interesting today on
current TV. That's Al Gore's network where they play homemade (and otherwise) videos that pass the youtube filters. Only 100% AP, Google, Youtube, DNC, approved content, all the time.
What I saw was a twenty minute spot devoted to a masked Hamas fellow building a rocket, then shooting it at Israel.
It was produced by Collective Media.
Posted by: papertiger at December 31, 2008 10:05 AM (8lx0N)
29
Videos of IDF striking Hamas
Here are some videos of the IDF bombing Hamas military targets. Reportedly, some of these videos have been removed from youtube.
Posted by: The Intellectual Redneck at December 31, 2008 10:27 AM (FMXM9)
30
Jihadi videos and antisemitic videos ok on you tube, pro Israel truthful videos verboten. Google should be ashamed of itself, but that would require a conscience.
Posted by: eaglewingz08 at December 31, 2008 11:24 AM (qh8b9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
217kb generated in CPU 0.0379, elapsed 0.1491 seconds.
65 queries taking 0.1217 seconds, 372 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.