(h/t: Ace)

Via the Guardian:

A press conference organised by the city council took an unexpected twist when the chairman of Birmingham central mosque, Mohammad Naseem, who is known as a moderate voice, attacked the way the bombings investigation had been carried out.
Dr Naseem said the government had given the impression Muslims were to be targeted. "Why do we not have an open mind about this?" he asked. "Terrorists can be anybody."

He had seen no evidence Muslims were responsible for the bombings and attempted attacks. He claimed the four men killed among others on July 7 could have been innocent passengers. [emphasis added]

UmÂ… yeah.

It kind of reminds me of that bit of stupidity in The Jerk:

“He hates these cans!” (get audio clip)

I liked this load better when Larry was flinging it with both hands last week.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

There seems to be a lot of second-guessing of Operation Kratos, the London Metropolitan Police policy of shooting suspected suicide bombers in an effort to save civilian lives. The policy became public knowledge this past Friday when a man wearing a heavy padded coat fled police towards a subway less than 24 hours after a series of failed suicide bombings on London subway trains and a bus. The British police fearing a suicide bombing attack, shot him eight times, killing him instantly.

Tragically, the man, Jean Charles de Menezes, turned out to be a Brazilian electrician guilty at most of having an expired visa and very bad judgment. Hindsight being 20/20, some people are now second-guessing the shoot-to-kill-to-save-lives policy of Operation Kratos.

Some question why Metro police did not try detain him earlier. Some wonder why he was not shot in an arm or leg to disable him if police thought he was a threat. Some could not understand why police would shoot him, repeatedly, once he went down. Perhaps even more people are incredulous that the police say they did nothing wrong even though an admittedly innocent man died.

In an effort to cut through some of the confusion, I thought it might be helpful to create a post explaining on a high level how suicide bombs work, and explaining the general philosophy of shoot-to-kill-to-save policies.

Jihad for Dummies: A Non-technical Primer

Leaving ideology out of the equation, the defining trait of a suicide bomber is the willingness to personally detonate an explosive device in an attempt to kill others, knowing they will die in the process. While suicide bombers can take many forms, from the WWII-era kamikaze pilots and suicide submariners, to truck and boat bombers, the most common form of suicide bomber is one wearing explosives on his person.

It's so easy, even a kid can do it.

Suicide Belts
As the picture above hints, a suicide belt is among the more popular options for would-be suicide bombers. It is easy to construct, carries a decent payload of explosives, and can be easily concealable under a medium-weight coat, providing it has sufficient padding to break up the tell-tell outline of explosive charges.

Please note that the explosives on a suicide belt can take up a large part of a bomber's torso.

A close relative of the suicide belt is the suicide vest.

Suicide Vests
Suicide vest are very similar to suicide belts in terms of explosive power, but, the construction of the vests tends to make them more concealable. If you compare the belt designs above (and below) this vest, you'll note that the belts tend to "print," or show very easily though clothing due to sharp edges and angles of parts of the device that tend to catch fabric and betray the presence of the bomb. A vest, as used here, does not print as much as most bomb belts tend to, and is harder for authorities to spot.

Again, note how much of the body that explosives tend to cover.

If you think bomber above looks vaguely familiar, it is because you've probably seen him before.

Set It Off
Suicide bombers may have a mind of their own, but the explosives do not. Bombs need detonators.

As the photo above shows, detonators don't have to be elaborate. The pipe-bomb belt in the photo above has a simple plunger-type detonator. The wire from the detonator to the bomb can easily be run down a shirt or coat sleeve to a bomber's hand, where it is easily concealed.

All a bomber has to do to end his life and the lives of dozens around him is simply clinch his fist, and bring his thumb down.

Game Over.

Applied Lessons
Now you know a little bit about how suicide bomb belts and vests are constructed and commonly detonated, you can begin to develop an appreciation of the situation Metropolitan Police must have encountered this past Friday morning.

Police staked out a group of houses because they have information that one of the failed suicide bombers from the day before may have a connection to this general location. The very next morning, an man fitting the general age range (15-35) of the average suicide bomber leaves the block of houses wearing a padded coat; quite unusual dress for a humid July morning. He is also carrying a backpack, which were known to have been used in all successful and attempted suicide attacks in London to date.

The man then boards a bus that the police know leads to a nearby subway station. At this point, police must begin to have strong suspicions that there may be a follow-up attack in the works. At the subway station, the man, for reasons as yet unclear jumps the turnstiles and begins running for a train, refusing police calls to halt. The police run after him. As he enters a subway car, he trips and falls.

Now imagine you are the police officer who has had his city attacked twice by suicide bombers in the past few weeks, including four times in the past 24 hours. Keep in mind that you know exactly what could happen if you shoot into a suicide vest. Keep in mind what exactly what could happen if the man on the ground has a detonator under his thumb. Know that if you fire one man will die. If you don't fire, dozens could die.

Oh, and you have about second to make your decision

Glance quickly at the dozens of fearful citizens around you... what do you do?

Dozens of lives versus one. A Devil's Choice, but a choice that had to be made, and in this context, it appears the decision was made correctly.

Update: This post's description of suicide vests has drawn the attention of Clinton W. Taylor of The American Spectator, in an article called Prometheus, Deterred. I'd encourage my readers to check out Mr. Taylor's article. I'd also encourage A.S. readers to visit the front page of this blog for more breaking content.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:01 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1015 words, total size 6 kb.

Via Instapundit:

"Let's support our troops. Bring them home." Please don't ever say those words again. Nothing is so disheartening to our troops who are in harm's way than to hear our own citizens say things like that.

On June 16, 2004, I willingly said goodbye to my wife and parents in a parking lot at Fort Drum, N.Y., not knowing if I would ever see them again. I don't expect any kinds of praise for this or special thanks because that is my job, and I knowingly volunteered for it. I never would have done that if I did not believe that I was defending this great country of ours and all those in it.

Read the whole thing.

Lt. David Lucas, who wrote this editorial, won a Bronze Star for his role in a dramatic hostage rescue.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

London Metropolitan Police are now saying that the south Asian man wearing a heavy coat on a muggy warm day who ran from police into the Tube the day after botched suicide attacks, tripped and was shot in the head is not related to the recent rash of Islamic terrorism.

Via BBC News:

A Scotland Yard statement read: "We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell Underground station by police on Friday 22nd July 2005, although he is still subject to formal identification.

"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005.

"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."

How should I respond?

You don't give children matches. You don't attempt to rewire your house without shutting off your electricity. And you certainly don't run from police when dressed suspiciously like a suicide bomber who attacked the same area the day before. Stupidity kills.

So does the unwillingness to follow established doctrine.

Operation Kratos, the operational plan and training of Metropolitan Police officers by the world's foremost experts on suicide bombers, failed yesterday. It did not fail because the man shot turned out to be an idiot rather than a suicide bomber. It failed because the man penetrated the perimeter and made it to the train before being shot. He never should have made it that far.

Commuter Mark Whitby captured the attention of the media yesterday with his dramatic recreation of events:

“As the man leapt on the train I looked at his face. He looked just like a cornered rat ... like a cornered fox, absolutely petrified.

“Then he tripped. One of the police officers was holding a black automatic pistol in his left hand. They held it down to him and unloaded five shots into him — bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.

“Five shots and he's dead. It was no further than five yards from me. It was like a nightmare — a very distressing sight.”

Some are sure to vilify the police and their commanders for the decision to employ shoot-to-kill/head shot tactics, just as they would assuredly blame the authorities for not firing fast enough if the dead man had been a terrorist and had been able to detonate a bomb as he was falling. Mrs. Whitby would have found the situation far more distressing if she was spending today waiting for a call from the corner's office that they'd been able to locate the majority of Mr. Whitby.

Terrorism is a dirty business, and unfortunately, fighting terrorism can be bloody as well. It takes courage, dedication, and quick reactions. The Metropolitan Police failed yesterday, not because they lacked courage or dedication or because they shot the wrong man, but because they did not shoot him fast enough.

Operation Kratos, the shoot-to-kill policy designed to save London commuters from suicide bombers is a sound, intelligent policy, but it cannot work if the police are going to second-guess themselves.

Real suicide bombers are likely to take advantage of yesterday's justifiable shooting and the hesitation that might creep into the mind of the next Metropolitan police officer that is faced with a similar situation.

Everyone knows that the police are deadly serious now. The next suspect to run toward a bus or subway will likely be a terrorist intent on finishing his mission as he dies.

I have a bit of advice for the London Metro police offices on call that day: squeeze, don't jerk the trigger. You may kill indeed kill someone who isn't a terrorist... but if you're wrong and don't fire on a real terrorist, hundreds could pay for your hesitation.

Sight. Squeeze. Save lives.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:08 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 637 words, total size 4 kb.

1 The cops were undercover, wearing plain clothes. If you're in jolly old England, unarmed by law, and some chav looking guys, with a different amount of melanin from you, start yelling at you and waving a pistol what do you do? Run! Looking scared is optional but fits the scenario.

Posted by: marc at July 24, 2005 01:54 PM (jK/B+)

2 Marc, you forget to mention that the three plainclothes cops were accompanied by an estimated 15-20 uniformed cops also involved in the chase.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 24, 2005 02:09 PM (0fZB6)

3 It would change my mind if the cops were in uniform. The BBC link in this post says "Witnesses report seeing up to 20 plain clothes police officers chase a man into Stockwell Tube station" (quote from the graphic at the bottom). And the "Sun" just says "at least 15-20 policemen were running down". I son't know if those are the same 20 as the BBC mentions or if they were in or out of uniform. Most articles only mention that "plainclothes" officers killed Menezes. I also like the exceptionally fit officers in the "recreation" at the top of the "Sun" link

Posted by: marc at July 24, 2005 02:50 PM (jK/B+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Sooner or later all societies are going to realize that feeding hatred is an unsustainable idea, for hatred is unpredictable, disloyal, irrational, and it will always find a way to turn back on you.

This attack was targeted against westerners, but the attack happened in Egypt. Next time it could be Egyptian mothers, Jordanian daughters, or Saudi sons, who weren't faithful enough, pious enough, or were simply in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

That's the funny thing about cancer. Even if it wins, it dies, and the question is whether you will allow yourself to die with it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:52 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

Next? A British counterterrorist trains.

An article one week ago today in the Scotsman revealed that London Metro Police could be given orders to fire at the heads of suspected suicide bombers in an effort to save lives in a plan called Operation Kratos:

Normal firearms rules mean officers fire at the chests of targets, with the intention of stopping and incapacitating, but not directly aiming to kill.

But the Met has been advised by Israeli security officials that this is not adequate, since even after several shots they can still be capable of triggering an explosive device.

Shooting at the chest also runs the risk of triggering explosives strapped to a terrorist's body.

Shots to the head, by contrast, kill immediately, almost instantly causing the nervous system to shut down, preventing any detonation.

Today saw dramatic evidence that that policy was indeed in effect.

The Muslim Council of Britain was not thrilled with the idea of police officers having a green light to shoot suspected suicide bombers. They are apparently worried that trigger-happy police may kill innocent Muslims by mistake. Perhaps they should think about persuading their fellow Muslims not to turn themselves into "personal demolition experts," and turn upon the radicals jeopardizing their culture instead of letting them rant unopposed.

In the meantime, the new rules of engagement outlined in Operation Kratos may be the last line of defense for British mass transit. One can only assume similar plans are in effect on this side of the Atlantic.

We'll know for certain once the ACLU sues to stop them.

Update: No wonder Muslims are upset!
According to al-Jazeera, the man British police shot was killed for merely trying to board a train.
(H/T: Bluto at The Jawa Report)

Further Update: The man who ran turns out to be a Brazilian electrician. The family of this man is, of course, threatening to sue. The British Police have not backed down from the right response.

Good.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:46 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 3 kb.

Via Drudge:

I do/don't have a problem with whiny NY immigrant rights activist Tony Lu's t-shirts bearing the text, "I do not consent to being searched."

Ace said it quite well when he made the observation that while police look out for our lives, The Reality-Based Community Opts For Fantasy:

It's very simple. There are some on the left that don't like the real world. They'd prefer a different world, one in which terrorism wasn't occurring, and if it were perpetrated, then perpetrated by White Male Corporate Pigs rather than Oppressed Heroic Multicultural Victims that they're supposed to feel solidarity with.

So liberals choose denial. They "don't consent to being searched."

I Choose Something Else.

Update: Here's a visual link...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:12 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Perfect! It would be even more perfecter if you added the Bacon Ribbon. http://www.sondrak.com/index.php/weblog/pass_it_on

Posted by: Matt at July 21, 2005 11:27 PM (jAQRx)

2 If you had the same text under it in Arabic, it would be perfect.

Posted by: Master Shake at July 21, 2005 11:28 PM (MPien)

3 Everybody's a critic... ;-)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 21, 2005 11:38 PM (0fZB6)

4 Yes, but it was constructive criticism. I do love the shirt and may buy one just to confuse our local granola population.

Posted by: Matt at July 22, 2005 10:33 AM (3TuFG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Somehow, I just can see this being a valid complaint.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:20 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

According to Fox News, the explosives found today in London's four terrorist bombs were made of TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, a mix of hydrogen peroxide, paint thinner, and sulphuric or hydrochloric acid. The formula has been around for 110 years, and is popular with terrorists, but has been known to be very unstable. According to Wikipedia, TATP has killed at least 40 Palestinian terrorists over the years as they tried to handle it. TATP is very shock sensitive.

With that knowledge in hand, Londoners are better armed with the knowledge that they, too, can help prevent terrorism.

Should you be in London, and happen to see a swarthy looking fellow carrying a backpack and looking somewhat nervous, push him in front of a bus.

If he detonates on contact with the bus, he is—was indeed a terrorist. Of course, this advice is hardly foolproof. Terrorists are highly sophisticated, and are therefore known to change their tactics to confuse authorities.

That in mind, if you should happen to be in London, and happen to see a swarthy-looking fellow (or a Jamaican, or someone from Asia, or a scummy-looking white guy, or a Hispanic with a Chicago accent, or George Galloway) carrying a backpack (or a briefcase, or a pizza box, or a copy of the Guardian) and looking relaxed (or content, or annoyed, or French), push him in front of a bus. If he detonates on contact with the bus, he is—was indeed a terrorist.

This advice is not always applicable.

If you "like to take the Tube" (a phrase that means something completely different in San Francisco), a bus may not always be available. Adapt. If you see a man—or maybe a woman, or a particuarly obnoxious child—carrying something, or looking like he might plan on carrying something, push him or her in front of the train. If he detonates on contact with the train, he or she is—was indeed a terrorist.

Strike a blow for jolly old England... and watch your back when standing near the curb.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:08 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.

I'd been intent on steering clear of Congressman Tom Tancredo's recent comments about possible responses to an Islamic terrorist attack on multiple American cities involving multiple nuclear weapons. The comments were made while a guest on Pat Campbell's AM radio show:

"Well, what if you said something like — if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.

"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.

"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."

Hugh Hewitt, though made the following challenge:

I want to be very clear on this. No responsible American can endorse the idea that the U.S. is in a war with Islam. That is repugnant and wrong, and bloggers and writers and would-be bloggers and writers have to chose sides on this, especially if you are a center-right blogger. The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong. If Tancredo's blunder does not offend you, then you do not understand the GWOTÂ…

Â…We are not in a war with devout Muslims. We are in a war with Muslims who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers and the nations that support those extremists.

A SCOTUS nomination will sweep Congressman Tancredo's remarks from the headlines, but I hope center-right bloggers will stand up and be counted on this issue.

Hugh, the last time I checked, every "responsible American" is still entitled to his own opinion, yet you present your opinion on this matter as fact, and everyone else's opinion that may differ is presented as wrong.

As experts studying Islamic jihad are far better versed in the subject, and some feel that Islam and violent jihad are so entwined as to be inseparable, I'd suggest that your decree that we are categorically not at war with Islam is wishful thinking unsupported by fact. At this moment, we simply do not know if we are in a war with Islam.

So-called Islamic moderates seem unwilling to choose sides, and extremists seem to have the greatest voice in setting policies and shaping public opinion in predominately Islamic communities. I'd like to think that we are only opposing extremists, but the fact remains that we simply do not know. Mr. Hewitt, you are wrong when you say, "The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong."

Just hoping something to be true does not make it so, Hugh. We do not know it for a fact any more than heliocentrists "knew" that the universe revolved around the Earth. The historical evidence, it seems, indicates just the opposite.

Islam had a history almost a millennia-and-a-half long of near-constant warfare with its neighbors. Even charitable biographies of the prophet Mohamed acknowledge that he led his followers into combat more than 20 times and ordered captured prisoners executed, including women and children. Islam is decidedly not a "religion of peace." It never has been. Any attempt to say otherwise is historically ignorant revisionism.

The near universal Muslim desire to eradicate Israel from the face of the earth shows us that Muslims are willing to wipe out entire nations and commit genocide if they can. Why is it inconceivable to you, Hugh, that if we show ourselves to be weak, that they won't try to utterly destroy us well?

Congressman Tancredo was talking about a hypothetical situation where Muslim terrorists attack multiple major U.S. cities with thermonuclear weapons, rendering hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans dead, and tens of millions wounded. To think that the American people would not demand a proportional response is unrealistic.

Saudi Arabia is the spiritual and financial heart of Islamic extremism. It is the most logical target for a proportional response. If Mecca is not your preferred target Mr. Hewitt, please offer an alternative target. Riyadh? Medina? Perhaps Jeddah, just to let them know we'll get that close to their holiest of holies?

If a military response to the nuclear murder of millions of Americans is not acceptable to you, do you care to offer another appropriate response? Offer up a solution of your own and I'll gladly discuss its merits with you. So far, Mr. Tancredo's off-the-cuff response is as appropriate as any other option I've seen placed upon the table.

The destruction of the holy center of Islam may not endear us to mainstream Islam, but then, neither has the billions of dollars we've invested in their culture. If we let it be known as a matter of policy that we will respond to nuclear attacks on our heartland with nuclear attacks in their heartland, perhaps then it might inspire a bit more vigorous pursuit of terrorists within Islamic cultures. Call it inspiration. Call it fear. In any event, it is motivation that Islamic culture currently seems to lack.

I'm quite willing to consider other options, and readily admit that Congressman Tancredo's option is probably not the best solution, but don't just tell me I'm wrong, give me a more valid option.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:53 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 900 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Man, don't you know, you can't nuke Saudi Arabia. It's too hard to extract oil from underneath all that glass.

Posted by: RobTBSC at July 20, 2005 06:18 PM (AahOX)

2 Perhaps, merely a light dusting with radioactive cobalt would suffice. Mecca would not be destroyed yet no one would be able to go there. It could still be venerated from afar. Way afar.

Posted by: Tuskis at July 20, 2005 11:15 PM (PD1tk)

3 [Not to the above comments, but to the above post] Why can you tell someone youÂ’re wrong without providing a better solution? What rule states this? Why isnÂ’t a person allowed to come to the conclusion/thought - the current course of action is not working and a new one need to be formulated before proceeding - back solely on recognition of the problem/problem situation. This does not imply one is being critical with comments for the pure purpose of being obstructive, though most experience would suggest otherwise; it just proves a recognition of the problem and while no current solution is presented, a better idea/process should being given more thought and worked on before proceeding with any action.

Posted by: Guy at July 21, 2005 05:59 AM (blfs0)

4 My understanding of Islam is beyond that of "Joe Six - Pack", I believe, although certainly not in the Samuel Huntington / Bernard Lewis category, and I would say we're in a war with Islam. Look at it this way: During World War II, many US Communists were opposed to our entry into the War, until Hitler invaded Russia -- then they all changed their minds, as neatly as they changed their allegiance in World War I, when the Communists took over Russia during World War I. By the same token, Lord knows how many G.I.'s trooped through the forests of Europe and the jungles of the Pacific, without being at all clear as to what we were fighting and why. The Muslims that are war with the Infidel (that's us) want us dead, no doubt about that. Quibbling about who the anti-war elements of Muslim are is rather pointless, to me. They are not helping us (like the Resistance Danes or French in WW II did), nor are they hurting them (like the resistant Jews or the Cheka in WW II). "Lead, follow, or get blown up," I say.

Posted by: Frank DiSalle at July 21, 2005 09:46 AM (rxhtx)

5 So-called Islamic moderates seem unwilling to choose sides, and extremists seem to have the greatest voice in setting policies and shaping public opinion in predominately Islamic communities. IÂ’d like to think that we are only opposing extremists, but the fact remains that we simply do not know. Mr. Hewitt, you are wrong when you say, "The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong."The problem is that the Islamic fanatics are those who holler loudest, have the guns and bombs, and can cow the rest of the Muslims into silence. I have a friend who happens to be Muslim and he has to watch what he says, where he prays precisely because of the extremists in the community. Instead of calling these guys out, he's silent. Perhaps he's made the decision that his personal safety warrants that silence, but that silence has a spillover effect to the rest of society. If those he came in contact with were preaching violence, it could incite someone to violence. He might not have condoned the action, but the silence provided the means. Providing greater support to those who call out those who are inciting people to violence in the name of Islam is one way to keep the fight from going West v. 100% Islam. At this point we're fighting a West v. some % of Islam that is less than 100% but greater than 1%. We just don't know.

Posted by: lawhawk at July 21, 2005 10:24 AM (AcoYr)

6 What the anti-war left, and unfortunately some on the right, when they refer to Islam as a religion of peace is complete self-delusion. It's why we hear crickets when we ask why moderate muslims don't condemn terror attacks. No explict codemnation is tacit silent approval.

Posted by: acwgusa at July 21, 2005 10:39 AM (3J44f)

7 Seems to me like "moderate Muslims," whether in the US or "over there," are considered the equivalent of what Christians would call apostate, or backslidden, by those in the vanguard of modern militant Islam. So, I don't think I'd put much credence in what any of 'em said -- the "moderates," I mean. 'Cause they obviously don't speak for those who seem to be making decisions for Islam today.

Posted by: Erudite Redneck at July 21, 2005 10:44 PM (ywZa8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I just finished reading the decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (thank you, Michelle Malkin), along with Paul Mirengoff's review at Powerline. As “legalese” sometimes appears a bit murky, I felt a bit better that Paul seemed to take away many of the same the same things that I did (though I must admit I missed a few things on my first reading that only became apparent after reading his comments).

One thing I did find interesting in the opinion that I don't think anyone has mentioned was the importance the court placed on the joint resolution passed by Congress in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, which authorized the President:

"to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, of persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided” the attacks and recognized the President's “authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States."

The Court then goes on to state:

Â…the joint resolution "went as far toward a declaration of war as it might, and as far or further than Congress went in the Civil War, the Philippine Insurrection, the Boxer Rebellion, the Punitive Expedition against Pancho Villa, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Panama, the Gulf War, and numerous other conflicts."

The Court mentioned the resolution is the context that Hamdan claimed that Bush violated the separation of powers, which the court rejected. But at the same time the Court rejected Hamdan's appeal, wasn't it also rejecting the "illegal war" myth of the far left?

By citing in their decision that the post 9/11 joint resolution "went as far toward a declaration of war as it might, and as far or further than" many other wars in our nations past, the Court validated the legal standing of the Global War on Terror. In so do, doesn't it therefore invalidate the myth perpetrated by the far left that President Bush was fighting an "illegal war?"

Seems like it to me, but I'm open to other interpretations.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:25 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

As Britons are urged to give two minutes of silence at noon today to mark the one week anniversay of suicide bombings in London, one can only assume that the folks at the International Freedom Center will be hard at work planning an exhibit showcasing exactly why Londoners deserved to die for British Imperialism. *

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:04 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

What Chimpy McHalliburton wingnut Freepers would write such a headline?

The New York Times.

Senator Durbin, how do you like your crow?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:09 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Ever since The Jawa Report went group blog and I got a day job that discourages 9-5 blogging, Rusty & Co. have occasionally written the articles I wanted to before I got a chance. The Jawas did it not once, but twice today.

The first discusses the shock of Leeds-area Muslims in discovering that the terrorists came from their midst. Presumably, they were expecting to find that the suicide bombers were Episcopals.

The second discusses the horrible, if somewhat predictable backlash against Muslims within Britain following last week's homicide bombing, focusing on the beating death of Kamal Raza Butt at the hands of English teens. There have also been at least two mosques firebombed and thousands of threats issued against British Muslims.

I feel sympathy for the vast majority of innocent Muslims, but by allowing radical Islam to flourish with little or no internal opposition, they've brought this hatred upon themselves. I'm sure that the vast majority of Germans alive in the 1940s were wonderful people, but we firebombed the civilians of Dresden just the same. If moderate Islam does not eradicate the terrorists within its midst, we will assuredly be forced to end Islam at large.

Update:

Dresden, 1945 or Riyadh, 2010?
Islamic moderates will ultimately decide.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:40 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.

The London Times is reporting that the explosives used in the London terrorist attacks were possibly imported military-grade high explosives:

Similar components from the explosive devices have been found at all four murder sites, leading detectives to believe that each of the 10lb rucksack bombs was the work of one man. They also believe that the materials used were not home made but sophisticated military explosives, possibly smuggled into Britain from the Balkans.

“The nature of the explosives appears to be military, which is very worrying,” said Superintendent Christophe Chaboud, the chief of the French anti-terrorist police, who was in London to help Scotland Yard.

I'd be glad to be wrong on this, but it still doesn't explain how forty pounds of military explosives managed to cause so few casualties in such a densely-packed environment. It could have been far worse. It should have been far worse. London was very lucky.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, someone was looking out for London.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

At some point I'm sure most of you have seen this circulating in your email:

At a small terminal in the Texas Panhandle, three strangers are awaiting their shuttle flight. One is a Native American passing through from Oklahoma. Another, a local ranch hand on his way to Ft. Worth for a stock show. The third passenger is an Arab student, newly arrived at the Texas oil patch from the Middle East.

To pass the time they strike up a conversation on recent events, and the discussion drifts to their diverse cultures. Soon the Westerners learn that the Arab is a devout Muslim. The conversation falls into an uneasy lull.

The cowpoke leans back in his chair, crosses his boots on a magazine table, tips his big sweat-stained hat forward over his face. The wind outside blows tumbleweeds and the old windsock flaps, but no plane comes.

Finally, the Native American clears his throat and softly, he speaks: 'Once my people were many, Now we are few.'

The Muslim raises an eyebrow and leans forward, 'Once my people were few,' he sneers, 'and now we are many. Why do you suppose that is?'

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:28 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 469 words, total size 3 kb.

Breaking on Fox News is the arrest of three suspects under anti-terrorism laws at Heathrow Airport in London. Obviously, it is too early to officially say this is related to the bombings in London earlier this week, but I somewhat doubt they're targeting anyone else.

CNN has more.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:22 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

I missed this roundup of progress from the Iraqi army earlier in the week, but Mustang 23 didn't.

Mustang 23 is one of our milbloggers "over there," so I tend to trust his judgement.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I tend to trust my judgement as well.

Posted by: Mustang 23 at July 10, 2005 12:53 AM (WsyQC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Via MSNBC:

"...violent incidents in the Iraqi capital are declining since Iraq's U.S.-backed forces launched an operation against insurgents in the city six weeks ago.

The commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. William G. Webster Jr., said car bombings had dropped from 14 to 21 a week in May to about seven or eight a week now. But he said it was “very difficult to know” whether the insurgency has been broken."

I'll offer the guess that the insurgency is far from broken, but it may well be possible that the Baghdad insurgents have reduced bombings for a number of reasons.

• They may be low logistically, either in detonators, munitions, or transport options. I view this option as unlikely, but possible.


• They may be low on bomb-builders. As arrests have increased it is possible that the insurgency in Baghdad is facing a manpower shortage. This is more likely than a shortage in munitions, but is still probably not the root cause of decreased bombings.


• The most disturbing option is that the insurgency has cut down on minor operations to focus on a major attack. While I doubt that this is the case, it is not inconceivable.


• The most hopeful option is that the native Iraqi insurgents have started to realize that the random murder of Iraqi citizens is not breaking their resolve, and instead, it is hardening them against the insurgency. If this is the reason for declining attacks, it could mean that at least the native insurgents may be considering other options, including a political solution.

I think it premature to declare Baghdad insurgency "broken," but these are certainly developments worth watching.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

Via My Way News:

The bombs that destroyed three London Underground cars and a double-decker bus each weighed less than 10 pounds and could be carried in a backpack, police said Friday. Police said the bodies of 49 people had been recovered, but warned that the number of deaths would rise.

An explosives expert said they were likely crude homemade devices set off with a simple timer. Experts say Thursday's attacks had all the hallmarks of an al-Qaida strike, and authorities were gathering evidence on the ground and investigating a purported claim of responsibility.

Sir Ian Blair, commissioner of London's Metropolitan Police, said no arrests had been made but officials have "lots and lots" of leads.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke, the Cabinet minister responsible for law and order, said it was a "strong possibility" that al-Qaida or a sympathetic group had carried out the attack.

I've maintained since the first details of the London terrorists attacks started coming to light that these bombing appeared to be the work of amateur terrorists. The crude construction of the bombs was apparent yesterday. Failed detonations, the erratic timing of the detonations, the relatively low number of fatalities and a potential accidental detonation by one bomber are not indicative of professional terrorists.

London's bombers can hate with the best of radical Islamists, but fortunately, they lack technical expertise. They are not al Qaeda (I'll let other argue "al Qaeda" vs. "al Qaida"). They are inept. They are cowards. If it weren't for the fact that they still managed to kill with their bumbling attempts, they would even be clownish.

UPDATE: Cliff May at The Corner isn't very impressed with the wannabes, either.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:02 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.