Hezbollah Rockets Suck

Apparently the rockets possessed by Hezbollah are quite shabby, they miss their targets quite often, but that isn’t really the point of this post. This Sandmonkey poses some really great and insightful questions to people of all ethnic backgrounds concerning the ongoing fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, in Lebanon.

Impressed by this point of view that I haven’t considerd before, I asked him what he would’ve thought, if a Hezbollah rocket had attacked a building in Israel, killing 55 civillians, of which 30 were children. He responded immeidtely “I would’ve thought it was great! A7san!”.

So I repeated the same question to 8 other co-workers, and the responses so far have been as follows: 7 said they would celebrate, and 2 said that such an attack would’ve been bad, but justified! Yeah! Not a single person said that the death of any civllian, on either side, is an equal tragedy. Civillians dead on our side is tragic, civillian deaths on their side cause for celebration. And if you think I am being unfair or demonizing arabs or whatever, do me a favor and try it at your work place and/or with members of your family. Conduct this little social experiment and see for yourself. The results are very interesting.

There’s an extensive list of very well thought out comments to read through too. As you can imagine, some comments are quite heated.

UPDATE:
Now, Sandmonkey has been slandered in a BBC-Arabic article. The author of the BBC article says:

The owner of the famous Sandmonkey blog, who published a Poem that encoruages Israel to flatten Hezbollah a couple of days ago, has said that Israel has encouraged a new generation of arab liberal to hate it.

The BBC article author flat out lied in his article, saying Sandmonkey published a poem encouraging Israel to flatten Hezbollah. That’s not the impression I got from the “Some slightly uncomfortable questions” post. I think that BBC author has gotten himself in more trouble than he probably knows. I think Sandmonkey is contemplating suing for libel. I hope he does.

Moussaoui Gets Off

A jury decided yesterday that Zacarias Moussaoui doesn’t deserve death for the hand he played in the 9/11 attacks. How the fuck did they come to that conclusion? They should have killed him.

The jurors deliberated for 41 hours over a seven day period before they came to the life sentence verdict. Quite the waste of time I’d say. I really can’t understand how these jurors decided to not kill this guy off.

This guy played a hand in killing 3000+ people. There’s people sitting on death-row right now that have committed crimes far less heinous than those commited by Moussaoui. And some of those people are probably on death-row for crimes they didn’t commit. Moussaoui clearly played a role and he gets life in prison, not death. I’d say he got a pretty sweet deal.

But knowing these religious fanatic types, he’d rather die than be in prison for the rest of his life. So maybe life in prison is a better punishment for this guy. To give him death would be to let him off the hook.

Moussaoui’s mother is blaming “racist american” for the conviction of her son. How fucking silly is that? The dude had a goal of killing Americans. We have every right to convict him, and much worse really.

James Joyner made a really good point saying:

“If Moussaoui doesn’t deserve to die for his crimes, almost no one currently on death row does. Those who argue that the current system of capital punishment is arbitrary and capricious have much more ammunition now.”

There’s already been lots of coverage on this topic, so I’ll just throw you over to those who already have a good amount of content. The Political Pit Bull has a huge post with many updates including reaction from bloggers and quotes. Stop the ACLU has a nice round of quotes along with a whole bunch of related posts.

Also, WizBang notes “Moussaoui’s final outburst”.

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (Reuters) – A defiant Zacarias Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison on Thursday, one day after a jury spared his life and rejected U.S. government arguments that the September 11 conspirator should be executed.

“God curse America,” Moussaoui shouted right before U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema imposed the sentence. “God save Osama bin Laden. You’ll never get him.”

heh, now that’s funny. Have a good ole time in federal-pound-me-in-the-ass-prison there Moussaoui. Maybe one day Osama will be able to wear your ass on his head as a turbin. After it’s all gaping and droopy and shit from the pounding of course…

Stop the ACLU 2/16/06 BlogBurst: Part Deux

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU.

We have two recent press releases from the ACLU.

1. Gut National Security! We all know about the ACLU’s lawsuit against NSA, its FOIA request over it, and its constant urging of Congress for full disclosure of what should be classified information.

The American Civil Liberties Union today urged the House Judiciary Committee to adopt several resolutions that would formally request any and all documents relating to the illegal National Security Agency domestic spying program authorized by President Bush.

“The need for a comprehensive investigation into the NSA’s domestic surveillance is essential to find out exactly which laws were broken,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.”

Notice that while they use the word “illegal”, and insist that laws were broken, they don’t even know exactly what laws were broken. WTF? I thought that in America that everyone was considered innocent until proven guilty, but all of the sudden per ACLU the government is guilty
until proven innocent. The way the program is was explained, according to all lawyers that worked in this field, it is completely legal because it falls under the powers of the Executive branch. The President’s job is to protect the Nation, wage war when appropriate,
and in this case approve by Congress when they said, “use any appropriate force necessary.” It is also the Executive branch’s authority to collect international intelligence, and the president
does not need Congress’ approval. This comes under the “seperation of powers”, despite the fact that Congress does not like this. This is a never ending battle between the Congress and the Executive branch. Congress thinks that everything has to be run past it. When Congress
says that it is the Executive branch that is trying to grab power….think….it is Congress that is actually the one trying to grab power for themselves.

If this were the only government effort to protect Americans that the ACLU opposed, one could easily write it off as a misguided pursuit of an absolutist ideaology of liberty. However, the ACLU seems to have a problem with everything dealing with National Security. They oppose
the Patritot Act, airline security measures, searches across the board, and much more.

But lets get down to the real agenda.

To the ACLU, CIA means “Controlling the Intelligence Agencies.” That’s the title they gave to Policy #117. But even that is an understatement of what this particular policy calls for. “Completely undermining the Intelligence Agencies” would be a more appropriate
title. It starts out badly and then gets worse.

“Control of our government’s intelligence agencies demands an end to tolerance of “national security” as grounds for the slightest departure from the constitutional boundaries which limit government conduct in other areas.”

Of course, its been obvious for nearly 70 years that protecting America’s national security is certainly not something the ACLU favors.

Here are some of the specific controls called for in Policy #117:

Limit the CIA, under the new name of the Foreign Intelligence Agency, to collecting and evaluatiing foreign intelligence information. Abolish all covert operations.

Limit the FBI to criminal investigations by elimimnating all COINTEL-PRO-type activity and all foreign and domestic intelligence investigations of groups or individuals unrelated to a specific
criminal offense.

Prohibit entirely wiretaps, tapping of telecommunications and burglaries.

Restrict mail openings, mail covers, inspection of bank records, and inspection of telephone records by requiring a warrant issued on probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.

Prohibit all domestic intelligence and political information-gathering. Only investigations of crimes which have been, are being, or are about to be committed may be conducted.

Two former members of the ACLU, Richard and Susan Vigilante, conducted a thorough analysis of the ACLU spelled out by the Union’s Center for National Security Studies.

They wrote:

The ACLU opposes, and has fought in either Congress or the courts, virtually all “covert action,” most “clandestine intelligence” gathering (i.e. spying), and in one case aid to an important U.S. ally with a poor human rights record. The net effect of these efforts has
been to hinder U.S. opposition to Communist expansion. The ACLU may, at some point, have undertaken some major initiative that advanced U.S. interests and hindered Communist expansion, but our research never turned one up and no ACLU leader ever mentioned one to
us.

In other words, strip the intelligence agencies useless.

2. Enrage America’s enemies. Anything that enrages America’s enemies, the ACLU wants on the front pages of all the MSM’s newspapers.

In response to newly released images of abuse at Abu Ghraib, the American Civil Liberties Union today renewed its call for an independent investigation into widespread and systemic abuse in U.S. detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay.

Despite the fact that this is old news recylcled, the ACLU have pushed for more fuel to the hate America crowd’s fire. I say, let’s release the photos, so that those who rioted over simple 4 month old cartoons can completely destroy themselves. Either the ACLU has no concern
over anti-American consequences to further release of an incident that took place over a year ago, or they are seeking anti-American rage to increase. Their position on this is at best irresponsible, and at worse prodding an already raging bull.

The ACLU has sued the Department of Defense for withholding photographs and videos depicting abuse at Abu Ghraib and other detention facilities. In September, a federal judge in New York ruled that the government must turn over the Abu Ghraib images, as
well as other visual evidence of abuse, noting “the freedoms that we champion are as important to our success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the guns and missiles with which our troops are armed.” The decision is currently on appeal by the government. The ACLU said it does not
know whether the new photos aired by the Australian “Dateline” program are the same photos being withheld by the government.

Investigations and punishment for these abuses are something we definitely agree with the ACLU on. However, the release of more gruesome photos to the public, running on front pages of magazines and newspapers does not serve any good, other than to further the hate of
our enemies. More than 25 people of both enlisted and commissioned rank were held accountable for criminal acts and other misconduct associated with prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. Several pictures appear to show U.S. soldier Charles Graner, who was jailed for 10 years for his leading role in the Abu Ghraib abuse. Many of these photos are even suspect of being hoaxes.

The Abu Ghraib abuses were discovered by U.S. troops and were being investigated before any of the photos were leaked to the press. None of this matters to the media and ACLU. Congress members have already seen the additional photos, and investigations and prosecutions have been launched. There is nothing positive about releasing these photos to the public, and no productive purpose other than fanning the flames of hate.

While there is major hypocrisy in the MSM response to the Abu Ghraib photos in comparison to the Danish cartoons, both are protected freedoms. While many called for solidarity with the Danish over freedom of expression, this was in response to the savage reactions of riots, and embassy burnings from Muslims. The release of more photos from Abu Ghraib to the general public serves no such purpose. They reveal nothing new or informative that we have not already seen. They have no significance other than anti-American propaganda purposes.

3. Defend America’s enemies.

The list is endless on this one. They have defended traitors funding Hamas, the PLO, and confessed Al-Qaeda operatives.

They have refused contributions from some of their most loyal donors because of anti-terrorism specifics.

The ACLU, in every position it takes in National Security issues, proves time and again to be against American interests. When you combine all of these things, is there any wonder why so many Americans question who’s side the ACLU is on?

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 150 blogs already on-board

Des Moines Bound Terrorist?

Crossposted from IrishWalsh.

Breaking Local Terror News:

Yesterday a man was shot and killed on an airplane in Miami when he claimed he had a bomb, due to heightened security from an airline terror alert, that much we all know.

But it is being reported by ABC that what caused the alert was a 50 year old Egyptian had been stopped in JFK Airport by the TSA in New York. His shoes were “suspicious” and tested positive for the explosive TATP in five separate tests. The tests revealed explosive residue on the interior of the shoe between the heel and sole. The Egyptian man was scheduled to board a flight to Des Moines Iowa where he claimed to be a student at Iowa State University in Ames. The man was detained overnight but released the next day before the FBI was notified or had a chance to speak with him. A nationwide search is now in effect for this man and it was this nationwide alert that caused the Miami Air Marshal to be in a heightened state of awareness when he shot and killed a man who claimed to have a bomb onboard a plane yesterday.

-The pieces of this story add up to some pretty scary stuff I you live here in Iowa:
-A 50 year old ISU student??
-Wearing shoes similar to those worn by shoe bomber Richard Reid
-The FBI was not informed
-Destined for Des Moines, Iowa

…and most frighteningly he is on the loose and his whereabouts unknown.

Ive seen this mentioned on only one blog on a technorati search, and just the ABC Exclusive article mentions it but it is something every Iowan at the very least should be aware of. More details may come in time. IrishWalsh told ya first.

Murtha Unaware of Consequences

Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) is calling for an immediate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. All the talk about Iraq deadlines and withdrawal dates recently must have the white flag industry here in the U.S. in a frenzy.

Murtha isn’t just some generic liberal hippie douche bag speaking of what he doesn’t know. Murtha served as a Marine and he’s a combat veteran of the Korean War and Vietnam. He’s served our country more than most people ever will.

The comments by the Pennsylvania lawmaker, who has spent three decades in the House, hold particular weight because he is close to many military commanders and has enormous credibility with his colleagues on defense issues. He voted for the war in 2002, and remains the top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.


Now, being such a highly respected member of the defense community, I’d expect him to put some thought into the consequences of our leaving Iraq immediately. Maybe he’s perfectly aware of possible consequences, but if he was I don’t think he’d have made that speech.

How would the troops serving in Iraq feel if we left immediately and in 3 months there’s another Saddam in place? Or even worse, one of the various radical muslim groups could take total control of the country. In either case, say buh-bye to the Kurds as an ethnic group.

Democrats will keep on pressuring the Bush administration to set deadlines until we’re totally out of Iraq. The entire world is in for a hell of a trip when democrats take control of congress and the white house again. I just hope they’re bright enough to realize what they’ve done shortly after they decide to let the islamo-nutjobs reign free. This isn’t a war in Iraq, it’s a war against an idea that growing numbers of muslims worldwide adhere to. That’s it, no way around it. I realize that it’ll take four or five different administrations before some democrats will acknowledge that.

I’m not sure we need to worry about these speeches encouraging the likes of Bin Laden and Zarqawi. I think we should worry more about this sort of thing getting really popular among Democrats and those who oppose the war on terror. Hopefully it won’t encourage the other lefties to really start whining and actually get something done in terms of some sort of troop pullout.

James Joyner of Outside The Beltway has a freakin huge post about Murtha’s speech. He’s got clips from major news outlets. He’s got clips from bloggers. Probably won’t get much better than his post if you’re looking for a roundup.

Professor Bainbridge thinks Iraq is a huge mistake and that leaving now would only compound that error. I can relate to that mentality somewhat though. I’ve come to the conclusion for myself though that going into Iraq was for the good of everyone. Waiting would have just provided more opportunity for attacks in the U.S. If we’re successful in establishing a totally self-contained, self-supported democracy in Iraq, it’ll be a key country in attacking radical muslim terrorists throughout the middle east.

Confederate Yankee has an update stating that Murtha said pretty much the same thing last year. Well, these statements are more likely to encourage a possibly damaging upheaval from Democrats. Maybe they’ll take a hostage. heh.

Brian over at Iowa Voice is noticing this theme too:

Seems like a theme of late, really. A so-called “party leader” comes out and says we must withdraw from Iraq “NOW!”, or face certain defeat. It must have been Representative John Murtha’s turn with the memo

Oh, and Mudville Gazette says the numbers Murtha used in his speech are misleading, sorta:

There have indeed been over 15,500 wounded. But of those, 8375 returned to duty within 72 hours – so although those wounds weren’t funny perhaps those wounds weren’t quite serious either. Still, 7347 troops have been wounded severely enough to require over 72 hours recuperation.

A lot of unscrupulous types who just want to pretend to “support the troops” ignore these facts in favor of the less correct (and more impressive) claim that 15,500 troops have been seriously wounded, or maimed, or mutilated. The real numbers are big enough – I just can’t understand why some feel the need to pad them.

Others currently blogging on this subject:
The Mahablog
Lorie Byrd @ Michelle Malkin
California Conservative
Don Surber
The Counterterrorism Blog
Blogs for Bush
Sister Toldjah
A Blog for All

Again, the key here is simply the fact that the war is against an idea, not Iraq or any specific geographic location.

Oh, in a related update, Dr. Rusty Shackleford is back to blogging. I think he doesn’t remember the nation being so “wobbly” a couple months ago. The amount of wobbly is the same, it’s just being screamed now, where it was shouted previously.