Five Minutes Of Failure

During a brief five minute meeting last night, the UN found enough time to declare its impotence. The Security Council held a closed door meeting to discuss the implementation, or lack of, Resolution 1559 (Sep. 2004). As a reminder, the main points of UNSCR 1559 are as follows:

1. Reaffirms its call for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial
integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive
authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon;

2. Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon;

3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non- Lebanese militias;

4. Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over
all Lebanese territory;

5. Declares its support for a free and fair electoral process in Lebanon’s
upcoming presidential election conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules
devised without foreign interference or influence;

And how does the UN think the implementation is proceeding?

“The Security Council notes that important progress has been made towards the implementation of resolution 1559 (2004), in particular through the deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces in the south of the country for the first time in three decades, but it also notes with regret that some provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) have yet to be implemented, namely the disbanding and disarming of Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias, the strict respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon, and free and fair presidential elections conducted according to the Lebanese constitutional rules, without any foreign interference and influence".

In other words, Points 1, 3 and 5 need some work. Some will say that a 40% success rate is tremendous for the UN.

Consider the next paragraph:

"Lebanon will have to engage again in a truly national and inclusive dialogue, the Secretary-General continues. The disarming and disbanding of Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias, which lies at the heart of Lebanon’s political transformation and is a necessary element to complete Lebanon’s consolidation as a sovereign and democratic State, can only be achieved through an inclusive process that addresses the political and economic interests of all Lebanese and those living in Lebanon."

The UN hinges the Lebanese "political transformation" and "consolidation as a sovereign state" on the disarming of Hezbollah. Considering that Hezbollah has not been disarmed until now, and considering that UNIFIL claims they will not do so in the future, it appears that any success of Resolution 1559 is dependent on a disarmament that the UN says they will not make happen!! And neither will anyone else. 40% is actually 0%. According to the UN statement, without disarmament, you have nothing.

Even one the biggest UN cronies Terje Roed-Larsen, the top UN envoy for Syria-Lebanon issues, said representatives of the Lebanese government "have stated publicly and also in conversations with us that there has been arms coming across the border into Lebanon." I wonder who the recipient is. Not only is the UN not disarming Hezbollah, they are watching them rearm, and not doing a thing about it.

The UN was able to totally humiliate itself in only a short five minutes. It seems that’s what they do best.

Linked to Blue Star Chronicles Stop the ACLU

Just Another Day In Gaza

Another day, another kidnapping in Gaza. Not too long ago, 34 year old Spaniard Roberto Vila, an aid worker with the Spanish charity group "The Cooperation Assembly for Peace" was taken away at gun point. He was with a female colleague and had just finished visiting a project for handicapped children. The female colleague was not taken.

The usual statements were quick to follow from the Palestinians;

Hamas Spokesman Fawzi Barhoum: "These groups that are behind these acts do not represent the Palestinian tradition, culture and religion."

Fatah spokesman Tawfiq Abu Khoussa: "The protection of our foreigner friends is a collective responsibility for all Palestinians."

This is just the latest in a string of kidnapping under the Hamas regime. Just last week an AP photographer was kidnapped. It was not too long ago that two FOX journalists were taken.

I'd like to pose a few questions:

When are all these naïve charity workers going to wake up and smell the coffee? When will they realize that the Palestinians have no regard for human life and no regard for charity? Go somewhere where you are appreciated, not kidnapped. The Pals voted Hamas, let them stew in it.

Needless to say, no Palestinian will be arrested, questioned, interrogated, waterboarded, brought to trial or sent to prison. All in a day's work in Condi Rice's future adopted state.

France Burns and the MSM Fiddles

France is burning, and once again, no one seems to know who's responsible. The NY Times refers to the culprits as attackers, youths, young people and perpetrators. The Washington Post referred to them as marauding teenagers. No one uses the "M" word.

Here's a bit from the Times on a Marseilles bus attack yesterday;

"Attackers set a public bus on fire in the southeastern city of Marseille on Saturday night, critically wounding a young woman, the police there said. Mama Galledou, a 26-year-old Frenchwoman of Senegalese descent, sustained burns over 60 percent of her body, according to the police. The bus attack was at least the eighth in the last week, but the first in which anyone was harmed.

Although many people feared a repetition of the violence, the country has been mainly quiet except for three recent ambushes of police patrols, in which policemen were beaten up, and the bus burnings."

Except for three ambushes? Mainly quiet? For Moslems, that is quiet. Last year they torched 10,000 cars and attacked 500 public buildings.

Here's the Washington Times (in the World in Brief section no less!!);

"France's interior minister sent riot police to patrol the southern port of Marseille after a group of marauding teenagers torched a bus, gravely burning a woman. French police braced for violence this weekend, the anniversary of last year's riots in poor neighborhoods where immigrants from former French colonies in Africa live with their French-born children on the fringes of society."

French colonies in Africa? They are Moslems. It doesn't matter where they come from.

President Jacques Chirac called Ms. Galledou’s family on Sunday, and said “everything would be put in place to find and punish with the utmost severity the perpetrators of the aggression."

How many arrests have been made? How many of these "youths" have served jail time? How long will the police cower in the dark alleyways of France, hoping the threat goes away? At this rate, forever. The media won't address it. The politicians won't address it.

As long as criminals can act with impunity, there is no reason for them to stop. The liberal media defends these hoodlums with terms such as "impoverished" and "immigrants". The liberal media continues to cover for the criminals at the expense of the law abiding citizen. The liberal media is acting out the Democratic campaign platform. Just hope it goes away. The democrats should change their logo from the donkey. The ostrich would be more appropriate.

The Racist Plays The Race Card

In my past two posts, I brought you the story of the SABC's unlawful firing of Paula Slier, simply because she is a Jew. Today I will examine the sordid past of the PLO supporter who serves as Managing Director of News and Current Affairs for SABC, Snuki Zikalala. Recall that Zikalala was directly responsible for the firing Paula Slier.

In 2004, the SABC appointed Zikalala as the Managing Director of news and current affairs. Zikalala rejoined the SABC from the Ministry of Labour where he was the Senior Executive responsible for communications and media. Zikalala, a former member of the African National Congress (ANC) with a PhD in communications from the University of Bulgaria, was fired from his post as executive editor of SABC news a few years ago because the department was in disarray. There were also serious questions regarding his journalistic ethics. In 2000, he was openly told not to apply for the position of Managing Director (which he currently holds) because the Board was looking for someone with "business acumen".

This from "IOL" on Zikalala's 2004 appointment:

The appointment of a government spokesperson to the head of SABC news has prompted unambiguous criticism as being the beginning of the end of the corporation's role as a public broadcaster. His appointment, two months after he denied having any interest in the top job, has horrified media analysts and political parties, who perceive this as politicization of the broadcaster.

But on Saturday night Zikalala was scathing of his detractors, saying if he was a white person, the same concerns would not have been raised.

(How typical!! The racist plays the race card!! J.T.)

"The post was advertised and I went through an interviewing process about three weeks ago. I was chosen on merit, not because I'm an ANC lackey."

Current and former employees who worked under Zikalala described his management style as "dictatorial" and said signs were that several resignations would be tendered as a result. Democratic Alliance communications spokesman Dene Smuts described Zikalala's previous tenure at the SABC as "the lowest point in its post-1994 corporate life". Veteran journalist and editor Allister Sparks said Zikalala's appointment was a "retrogressive step" that harked back to the days when the SABC was under apartheid control.

More Zikalala hanky-panky from Wikipedia:

A throwback to the Apartheid days, many people believe the SABC to be the 'Mouthpiece of Government', as the previous ruling party often used the SABC as platform to broadcast propaganda to the nation. Despite a change in government, this public perception was reinforced when, in August 2005, the SABC came under heavy fire from non-affiliated media and the public for failing to broadcast a scene whereby Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka was booed offstage by members of the ANC Youth League, who were showing support for the newly-axed ex-Deputy President, Jacob Zuma.

Rival broadcaster eTV publicly accused SABC of 'biased reporting' by failing to show the video footage of the humiliated Deputy President, but Snuki Zikalala, Head of News and ex-ANC spokesperson retorted by stating that their cameraman was not present at the meeting, a fact later falsified by released eTV footage showing the SABC cameraman filming the incident.

SABC's government connections also came under scrutiny when, in April 2005, Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe was interviewed live by Zikalala. The interview held was deemed by the public eye to have side-stepped 'critical issues' and controversial questions regarding Mugabe's radical land-reform policies and human rights violations.

In May 2006, the SABC was accused of self censorship, when it decided not to air a documentary on South African President Thabo Mbeki, and in early June requested that the producers (from Daylight films) not speak about it. This has been widely criticized by independent media groups. In response, The International Freedom of Expression eXchange issued an alert concerning the SABC's apparent trend toward self-censorship.

In June 2006 the International Federation of Journalists denounced the canceling of the Thabo Mbeki documentary, citing "self censorship" and "politically influenced managers".

Need I say more? When the racist plays the race card, no comment is needed. You can be sure that a copy of this post is on the way to Zikalala for comment. I did email Ms. Slier, and sent her a copy of the two previous posts. She said in her reply that she was thankful for everybody's support and thanked me for posting her story. Once again I give you the email of SABC. Please voice your protest.

info@sabc.co.za

Linked to Woman Honor Thyself Stop the ACLU Blue Star Chronicles

A Different Type of Racism In South Africa: Part 2

I continue today with the matter of Paula Slier. In case you missed it, I recommend you first read yesterday's post entitled "A Different Type of Racism in South Africa" for the story background.

Following is a selected portion of the "SABC Commission of Enquiry into Blacklisting and Related Matters Report". This report was first published by the South African "Mail & Guardian" on October 13th, after the SABC released only part of the report on October 12th and claimed that the commission found no evidence of any blacklisting. The SABC then sued to have the report taken off the Mail & Guardian's website. A judge ruled in favor of the Mail & Guardian and said "the content of the report is of extreme importance to the public".

Paula Slier (page 39 of the report)

5.37. Paula Slier is a freelance correspondent who, at one stage, was based in the Middle East. The SABC had a contract with her. She is a former award-winning SABC journalist. At the time of Yasser Arafat’s grave illness, she happened to be in Ramallah. There was uncertainty as to Mr Arafat’s state of health. He was hospitalised in Paris where certain medical reports were being released but it was uncertain, at least for a while, whether he was alive or dead. Ms Slier had been filing reports from Ramallah concerning the state of Mr Arafat’s health. The then head of news, Ms Philippa Green, received a direct instruction from Dr Zikalala not to use Paula Slier. So emphatic was this instruction that a note was placed on the system to the following effect:

“URGENT NOTE: ALL DESKS
The MD of News, Dr Snuki Zikalala has directed that NO MATERIAL OR STORY SUPPLIED BY JOURNALIST PAULA SLIER should be used by SABC news desks until further notice. Dr Zikalala says this instruction applies to all units of SABC news.”

5.38. Dr Zikalala elaborated about his giving an instruction not to use Paula Slier. It is important that his justification be quoted verbatim:

“Paula Slier, I’ll give you an example. Paula Slier, why I said we should not use Paula Slier. What happened is that during the time of when Arafat passed away, when Arafat passed away Paula Slier used to work for us as a journalist and Paula Slier was much more biased towards what’s happening in Israel. It was a Jewish war and especially the Middle East. We knew exactly her bias because she once wrote an article justifying the separation of the Palestinians, which was very, very negative towards us. From the movement where I come from we support PLO. But she supported what’s happening in Israel. And then I said to them Paula Slier we cannot use her on the Middle East issue because we know where she stands. We need somebody who’s impartial. We do have a correspondent there, I said lets use the correspondent … that person is impartial, does not take sides. Paula Slier on the Middle East issue we can bring in all the tapes that she’s written, she takes sides. I’ve got that editorial responsibility to do that. That’s why I’m employed, to do checks and balance. I said no, you can’t you can’t undermine the Palestinian struggle, you can’t. for me it’s a principle issue.”

5.39. We leave aside the question of whether or not Ms Slier had taken sides in the manner suggested by Dr Zikalala. Even if she had, and we have no evidence to support this, the circumstances concerning Mr Arafat’s state of health was not an issue which impacted upon Ms Slier’s opinions, if any, concerning the Middle East conflict. Most importantly, however, was that the instruction was motivated by a political position adopted by Dr Zikalala which has no place whatsoever in a public broadcaster. For Dr Zikalala, it was a question of support for the PLO which, from the perspective of his “movement” was a matter of principle.

5.40. We find that a direct instruction was given by Dr Zikalala not to use Paula Slier (for news reporting at least) for improper reasons. It was in direct conflict with the SABC’s policies and Code.

In summary, Paula Slier was fired by Head of News Snuki Zikalala because she is Jewish and therefore must be biased toward Israel. The SABC Commission which investigated the charges found that Slier, an award winning reporter, was not biased, and Zikalala's firing of Slier was based on the political motivations of the PLO supporter. The SABC tried to cover up the story by releasing only selected findings of the commission.

A lot of heads need to roll. Email the SABC and tell them what you think.

info@sabc.co.za

Linked to Woman Honor Thyself Stop the ACLUThe Bullwinkle Blog Blue Star Chronicles

A Different Type of Racism In South Africa

In 2004, freelance journalist Paula Slier was unofficially blacklisted by the head of news at the state-owned South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC). We now know why. It's not because her work was lacking or because she photo-shopped pictures. She is out simply because she is a Jew. The Jerusalem Post reports that news head Snuki Zikalala had ordered an outright ban on reports from Slier because since she is Jewish, she supports Israel. Zikalala has admitted to being a supporter of the PLO, and referred to the Mid-East conflict as the "Jewish War". The commission which was set up by the SABC to investigate determined that Slier's reports were impartial, and the SABC ban was in conflict with the companies policies. Slier explains:

"Zikalala describes the conflict in the Middle East as a 'Jewish war' and accuses me of taking sides. His argument, by inference, is that because I'm Jewish I automatically support the policies of the State of Israel without question, which is simply untrue. The situation came to a head in November 2004 when then-PLO chairman Yassir Arafat was dying. I was reporting for SABC as a freelancer in Ramallah - I had since left the corporation where I'd been a senior news reporter and anchor for several years. I was covering the story hourly when suddenly I was told my services would no longer be needed. No explanation was given."

It is not too difficult for me to imagine what would happen if a Moslem reporter was fired by a Jewish boss because of his religion. How many synagogues would burn? How many Rabbis would be shot dead? I can assure you there will be no violence in this instance. That does not mean we will go silently. Zikalala must go.

Email the SABC and tell them what you think. info@sabc.co.za

Linked to Stop the ACLUWoman Honor Thyself Pirates Cove The Bullwinkle Blog Right Wing Nation Blue Star Chronicles

Solana Bows To Terror

At a recently concluded meeting in the West Bank with Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas, EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana was quoted as saying "The time has come for the occupation that began in '67 to end". Solana also took time to express sympathy for the Palestinians (who overwhelmingly voted Hamas into power), who he claims have suffered so much. As usual, no mention was made of the suffering of the Israeli's who have been subject to non stop Palestinian government sponsored terror and rocket attacks. In contrast, when Solana was pressed for a statement on Iran by the Israeli Foreign Minister, all he could come up with was "the responsibility for the Iranian nuclear issue lay with the UN Security Council".

When it comes to laying the blame at the Israel's doorstop, Solana is never late to arrive. It's the occupation, stupid. When asked in the past why Hezbollah was not placed on the official EU list of terrorist organizations, Solana replied that "there is not enough evidence" to justify doing so. When it comes to Arab relations, or lack of, with Israel, Solana knows how to put his foot down.

Iran however, is for the UN to deal with. The EU won't touch that hot potato. Solana was more than happy to keep on negotiating with Iran long after the UN deadline had past, and while Iran continued to enrich uranium. He turned the other cheek as Ahmadinejad gave him a firm slap in the face. Solana should display some of the same fortitude when dealing with the Moslems as he does with the Israelis. But that would be asking too much from the Eurabian Representative. After all, he has a reputation to uphold.

Vladhimmi Putin

Russian President Vladimir Putin has ended months of speculation and finally enrolled in the Dhimmi Club. Surprising for a man, who in the past has lashed out with great vengeance and furious anger at Chechnyan terrorists who misbehaved in his own backyard. Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov hinted to Russian news agencies that Russia would oppose a draft of a UN Security Council Resolution aimed at imposing sanctions against the Iranians. Lavrov said:

"Our goal is to eliminate the risks of sensitive technologies getting into the hands of Iran until the IAEA clarifies issues of interest to it, while maintaining all possible channels of communication with Iran. And it seems to me that, in this context, the draft resolution clearly does not correspond to those tasks agreed on by the six sides."

Earlier this week, the Europeans had proposed imposing sanctions which would ban the sale of missile and atomic technology to Iran. The sanctions would also impose limits the Russian built power plant.

Russia is protecting its financial interests. They have contracted to build Iran's first nuclear power station for a price of 1 billion dollars. The head of the state company that is building the reactor said today that it will be completed as scheduled by September 2007. Just last month, the Russians agreed to supply fuel to the plant starting in March of next year.

Russia has always sided with the Arabs against the West. Since the establishment of the State of Israel, Russia has armed the neighboring Arab nations to the teeth. Most of the Israeli fatalities in the Lebanon War were caused by Russian made weapons. At least that was a rational decision to strengthen Soviet influence in the region while simultaneously weakening Western interests. Iran however, is a step too far. Putin is willing, for financial reward, to strengthen today's ally at the cost of creating tomorrow's enemy. Russia's Moslem population is growing in leaps and bounds. When Iran is ready to bite, they would have many willing collaborators in and on the Russian border. Then, a billion dollars will feel like chump change to him.

Stop The ACLU Woman Honor Thyself

MSM: Mostly Sordid Media

The MSM has developed a nasty habit of turning fiction into fact; victim into culprit. The total disregard for facts that do not suit their political agenda has become their hallmark. The bias is so great that there is no hesitation to print a contradictory piece and then draw some sordid conclusion.

Today I bring you the NY Times Editorial titled "The Wrong Partner in Israel". The point of the article is that it is wrong for Israeli PM Olmert to welcome a far right wing party into his government. The Times views it as a threat to the "peace process". As if there is one. I quote;

American and European diplomats have been arguing that the one positive result of the Lebanon war could be new momentum toward a wider Middle East peace. The idea was that a new awareness of the limits of Israeli military power and growing Arab fears of Shiite radicalism would push both sides toward the necessary compromises.

Fact: Arabs are not willing to join forces with Israel to fight the Shiites. They have taken the bait from the MSM that terror cannot be beaten, and withdrawal is the answer. The West's pipe dream that "moderate" Arab nations would actually unite against the Shiite terror is nothing more than that. The anti-American/Israeli rhetoric is at a feverish pitch which has never seen before. The Lebanon war has distanced any chance of a real deal taking place.

That now seems less likely than ever. The chief Palestinian party, Hamas, refuses to take the most minimal steps required for diplomatic credibility-a clear rejection of terrorism, acceptance of prior agreements and acknowledgment of Israel’s legitimacy. Efforts by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to bring Hamas around have not gotten as much support as they should from Israel. With Israel Beiteinu joining Mr. Olmert’s coalition, they are likely to get even less.

Fact: Bringing a right wing party into the Government does not lessen the chance of a peace deal when the enemy is sworn to destruction. There is no chance of a peace deal with Hamas. What the new government could accomplish is to toughen Israel's stance and cause an implosion in Gaza. However, with Olmert at the helm, it's not very likely.

Creating new obstacles to peace with the Palestinians is the last thing Israel needs after the Lebanon fiasco.

As if Israeli politics is the obstacle. Is Hamas willing to recognize Israel? Is Hamas willing to renounce terror? Is Hamas willing to honor previously signed agreements? No, no and no. The obstacle is Islamic terror and their obsession with the destruction of Israel. The Times warns that Israel would create an obstacle in the same breath that they claim Hamas is no partner. Which one is it?

The MSM's obsession with appeasement is a bankrupt policy, a suicidal agenda. It has never worked and never will. Appeasement is weakness. I end with a quote from George Washington:

"There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy."

A Veiled Threat

The culture clash between Islam and the West has been front and center for many years. The recent niqab, or full face veil incidents seem to have brought the issue to a head. An English teaching assistant was recently fired for refusing to remove her niqab when in the presence of men. A Michigan judge threw out the case of a woman who refused to remove her niqab while testifying in court.

Naturally, what followed were claims of racism, discrimination and suppression of freedom of religion. As usual, the Moslem voice had no time to take into account the rules or norms of the society in which they are living. We must tolerate them while they are forbidden to tolerate us. This precedent was smartly summed up by Mike's America; "By tolerating the intolerance of Muslims, so we don't offend them, we've allowed them to set the terms for the discussion."

I bring to you Anne Applebaum from today's Washington Post:

Critics call the veil a symbol of female oppression or rejection of Western values. Defenders say that it is a symbol of religious faith and that it allows women to be "free" in a different sense -- free from cosmetics, from fashion and from unwanted male attention. Debate about the veil inevitably leads to discussions of female emancipation, religious freedom and the assimilation, or lack thereof, of Muslim communities in the West.

And yet, at a much simpler level, surely it is also true that the full-faced veil -- the niqab, burqa or chador -- causes such deep reactions in the West not so much because of its political or religious symbolism but because it is extremely impolite. Just as it is considered rude to enter a Balinese temple wearing shorts, so, too, is it considered rude, in a Western country, to hide one's face. We wear masks when we want to frighten, when we are in mourning or when we want to conceal our identities. To a Western child -- or even an adult -- a woman clad from head to toe in black looks like a ghost. Thieves and actors hide their faces in the West; honest people look you straight in the eye.

If Western tourists can wear sarongs in Balinese temples to show respect for the locals, so too can religious Muslim women show respect for the children they teach and the customers they serve by leaving their head scarves on, but removing their full-faced veils.

Many years ago my father taught me that one person's rights end where the next person's nose begins. Freedom of religion is not a sweeping exemption from compliance with the laws or established culture of a given society. No one is forcing this woman to be a teacher. She is not being forced to be in a situation which would compromise her religious beliefs. She must adapt to the society that she has chosen to live in. She must double check, and be damned sure where my nose begins. With every passing day, incidents like these are going unchecked. Many have come to accept that the Moslems are different and must be catered to for lack of offending them. It's time to put this practice to bed. Can you say dhimmi?

Food For Thought

It was just over a month ago that Pope Benedict XVI quoted Manuel II Paleologus saying that Mohammad brought only inhumanity and evil to the world. The fiery statement caused the Muslims to, well, act like Muslims. Imagine what would have happened if he quoted Pope Innocent III, who in 1213 called Mohammad the "Beast of the Apocalypse, the Antichrist". More dialogue? A religious summit perhaps? Doubt it.

New York, New York

Another picture from New York. This time, no clouds for the Canadian Sentinel to interpret.

They Said So On The News

During my recent trip to New York, a Democratic campaigner stopped me on the corner of Broadway and 78th Street. Despite the rain, he was without jacket or umbrella. So typical of the Democrats; optimistic and unrealistic. The conversation went something like this:

Dem: Good Morning. Are you registered to vote?
Jay: Yes.
Dem: Who do you plan to vote for?
Jay: That's really none of your business, but for the record I vote Republican.
Dem: May I ask why?
Jay: May I ask why you are standing in the pouring rain without a jacket or umbrella?
Dem: They said on the news it is going to stop raining soon.
Jay: That is exactly why I am voting Republican.

A picture I took in NY

No More Mercy

In an interesting piece in today's Washington Post, Jim Hoagland discusses the changing face of war. The ability of a conventional army to succeed against a guerilla force embedded in civilian areas is brought into question. He also cites Israel's inability to deliver a knockout blow against Hezbollah as further proof that, war, as we know it has changed forever.

Across the Atlantic, similar thinking is underway in defense ministries and force headquarters. "Classical warfare is probably dead. It is no longer a cost-effective tool to achieve political or economic goals," Gen. Vincent Desportes, the head of France's Doctrine Center for Forces Employment, wrote in a recent study of conflict in a post-Iraq-invasion world.

Instead, conventional wars "mutate very quickly into
asymmetrical clashes, which do last," Desportes continued. "The decisive phase is no longer the initial short phase of intervention, but clearly the phase of long stabilization which follows it.

Mao Zedong made famous the idea that civilian populations are the sea in which guerrillas swim. But today's insurgencies use civilian populations as their most important weapon. Britain's Gen. Rupert Smith made the point in a recent book that military forces must be prepared to fight within and for populations, which previously have been seen by generals as little more than impediments to battle.

It is clear that the playing field needs to be leveled. I'm not talking logistics, but rather method of battle. If it's true that the rules of war have changed and evolved into a new era, then the conventional armies must adjust. Our enemies have taken the strategy of civilizations past; all is fair in war. No one is untouchable. Ancient armies would advance on a city, lay siege and burn it to the ground. Males were killed while woman and children taken off into slavery. Today the enemy uses their own civilians as a defensive shield which protect them enemy attack.

Today's modern army can defeat a guerilla force, but they must first take off their gloves. It comes down to a simple question; our citizens or theirs. By restraining our military activities to limit civilian casualties, we are putting our own civilians in the line of fire. There is no question in my mind that if Israel would have been more aggressive in their attack against Hezbollah, the results would have been very different. Same goes for the US in Iraq. There would have been a lot more civilian casualties; theirs. A lot more terrorists would also be dead. Their strategy would be brought into question and they might even come out into the open to fight. Either way, the tables would be turned against them. Their main defensive weapon would be neutralized.

I am not proposing mass murder of civilians. I am proposing that when terrorists fire from an apartment building, that building should be leveled. Not by 20 ground troops who have to do a door to door search. One simple air strike would do the job. Even the Geneva Convention permits firing into a civilian area if the source of fire originates from within it. And the 20 soldiers would be spared.

We are limiting our fighting ability when we have no legal obligation to do so. We are putting everything we hold dear at risk in order to take the moral high ground. This does not gain us respect from our enemies. They hold us in distain for our weakness. They are emboldened to fight on. We must change our tactics. No more mercy.

The Truth About Gitmo

This from Amnesty International's Make Some Noise promotion asking readers to submit videos calling for the immediate closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention center:

"The right to a fair trial and the rights not to be subjected to arbitrary detention, torture or other ill-treatment are human rights enshrined in international law and the US constitution. Yet since 2002, some 750 men from over 35 countries have been unlawfully held at the US naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Hundreds remain. Some have been there for nearly 5 years All detainees are presumed guilty until proven innocent. They have little hope of obtaining a fair trial.Though US authorities have repeatedly called Guantánamo detainees "terrorists" and "killers", many have been released without charge.There have been reports of torture and other ill-treatment from detainees as well as from US official investigators. Conditions of detention remain inhumane. Guantánamo Bay is a human rights scandal!"

As usual, AI (and many others) chooses to ignore the facts in order to promote their political agenda.

Here are some of the facts. Follows is a detailed list of standard prisoner issue, diet and the daily routine of Gitmo prisoners. It is provided by one of the harshest critics of the US and President Bush; the BBC.

Each prisoner has been given:

US army standard-issue 2cm-thick foam sleeping mat, one blanket, two buckets, a one quart canteen
Two orange boiler suits, one pair flip-flops
Two bath towels, one for washing, one for use as a prayer mat
A washcloth, toothpaste, soap, shampoo
A copy of the Koran

Prisoners are served three meals a day - all "culturally appropriate":

Breakfast - typically bread, cream cheese, an orange, a pastry, a roll, a bottle of water
Lunch - typically a box of cereal, two cereal bars, a packet of peanuts, one packet crisps, one packet raisins, a bottle of water
Evening meal - typically white rice, red beans, a banana, bread, a bottle of water.

The detainees' daily routine:

Breakfast followed by shower opportunity and personal time
Doctor visits to address any medical issues
Lunch followed by shower opportunity and personal time
Exercise period
Mail call - pens and paper are provided for limited time, letters may be written under supervision, all pens are collected afterwards
Dinner followed by shower opportunity

I challenge anybody to claim that prison life under these conditions is inhumane. The Gitmo prisoners have better medical care than most individuals in the US. They eat better than most people in the world. They are given the full opportunity to exercise the very right that they kill others for exercising; freedom of religion.

Here are some pics of the facilities at Gitmo. The full set can be seen at the DOD.


Prisoner Cell

Physical Therapy Center

Operating Room

Inhumane? Human rights scandal? Hardly.

I will leave the last word to Charlie Daniels.

Poor Ole’ Al Qaeda

I’m really getting fed up with the lawyers and other assortedbleeding hearts who inundate the television news shows thatare so concerned about the humane treatment of the Taliban prisoners weare holding at Guantanamo, Cuba.
There seems to be one thing these people are forgetting. These are not your ordinary cutthroats we’re dealing with here. These are the same people who secreted hand grenades in their clothes and blew up themselves and anybody else they could get close to.
This is the same bunch who terrorized helpless Afghanistan citizens, who beat women with sticks and whose method of execution was a shot inthe back of the head, a hasty hanging from a soccer goal post or to lay people down on the ground and cut their throats.
This is the scum who harbored the man who was responsible for the bombing of two of our foreign embassies and the USS Cole, the destruction of The World Trade Towers, the Pentagon, and the deaths of thousands of innocent American citizens who did nothing more than catch an airplane or go to work on September 11.
These are the people who have no compassion and no mercy for anybody who happens to believe differently. You talk about bigots. This bunch is dangerous, more dangerous than the sum total of all the people sitting on death row, more dangerous than any other group of human beings that I can think of.
And make no mistake about it, they are dedicated, body and soul, to the destruction of you, your wives and husbands, your babies and your way of life. They hate everything you stand for.
These people behave like animals, therefore they have to be treated like animals. Put in cages where they can be watched and monitored twenty four hours a day, because if they get the slightest opportunity they would not hesitate to kill as many people as they possibly could, without even considering what would happen to themselves.
I am certainly not condoning mistreatment of anyone. These prisoners will be given food and water and a place to sleep which is about all they had in those holes in the ground in Afghanistan.
You people who are so concerned about them should look at the footage of the trade towers crashing to the ground and think about how many daddies will never again sit down at the dinner table with their families, how many children cry in their sleep, too young to understand why mommy hasn’t come home.
The bright and productive young people who could have benefitted society in ways we'll never know about the terror of the passengers on those airplanes who knew for certain they were going to die without everholding their babies again, without even knowing the reason why.
Think about the misery these people have caused around the world, the men, women and children who have suffered at the hands of these devils.The dead bodies, the missing limbs the thousands upon thousands of interrupted lives, the fear, the anguish, the chaos they have caused.
And you’re worried because they aren’t put up in a four star hotel withroom service and satellite TV?
I’ve got an idea. Why don’t some of you people get together and take these guys home with you and introduce them to the family? Then you could treat them anyway you want until they could get their hands on a butcher knife.

Obscene Liberals

Due to the lack of constraint by certain individuals, comment moderation is on indefinitely.

As of October 21, moderation is off. You are free to disagree. Please be mature.

Valencians Slash Tradition of Exploding Mohammad

I noticed the headline while reading the English edition of the Spanish daily El Pais while onboard my flight from Tel Aviv to Madrid. The article describes a truly sad event. In the Valencia region of Spain, a long tradition is about to come to a sudden end.

An annual ceremony takes place marking the Christian reconquest of Spain in the battle against the Moors. The traditional ending of the ceremony had been the explosion of the head of a wood and cardboard effigy of Mohammad. This exciting finale will not take place in the Spanish towns of Beneixana, Bocairent and Alcoi. Beneixana mayor Antonio Valdes explains; "It wasn't something essential and it could hurt the feelings of some people." In bowing to the Islamic threat, Valdes doesn't appear too concerned about the feelings of his constituents. Decades, if not centuries of traditions are cancelled in a heartbeat.

In the same vain, the Americans should cancel Thanksgiving so as not to offend the Indians. The Jews should cancel Passover as not to offend the Egyptians. And the Germans should cancel Oktoberfest as not to offend recovering alcoholics.

Will it ever end?

Not Everyone Gets A Visa

Nobody knows for sure how many Islamic terrorists and sympathizers are currently within the US borders. Not only have they have been arriving for years; they are still coming on almost a daily basis. They come under the guise of students and businessmen, and then disappear into the vast land mass we know as the United States. A large majority obtained visas under false pretenses.

Since the enabling of the Patriot Act, the US has cut down on these free passes to anyone wishing to enter the country. Finally, the ability to receive a visa is being considered a privilege, and not a civil right to anyone smart enough to fill out the application form. And now when someone is denied a visa, it becomes front page news. Racism and ethnic profiling are the catch phrases of the day. After all, isn't everyone innocent until proven guilty?

Tariq Ramadan is such an individual. An Egyptian native (who is even banned to return there) lives and works in Oxford University in London. He has been repeatedly been denied a visa to come to the US. He has also made his way through the US court system to try and get his visa. So far he has not been successful. He tells his sad tale in today's Washington Post. He admits to having made "charitable donations" to Palestinian causes, but denies any knowledge that the money would reach the hands of terrorists. He admits to having spoken out against US and UK policy in Iraq. He denies any connections to terrorist organizations.

Ramadan writes;

I am increasingly convinced that the Bush administration has barred me for a much simpler reason: It doesn't care for my political views. In recent years, I have publicly criticized U.S. policy in the Middle East, the war in Iraq, the use of torture, secret CIA prisons and other government actions that undermine fundamental civil liberties. What words do I utter and what views do I hold that are dangerous to American ears, so dangerous, in fact, that I should not be allowed to express them on U.S. soil?

He sums up;

I fear that the United States has grown fearful of ideas. I have learned firsthand that the Bush administration reacts to its critics not by engaging them, but by stigmatizing and excluding them. Will foreign scholars be permitted to enter the United States only if they promise to mute their criticisms of U.S. policy? It saddens me to think of the effect this will have on the free exchange of ideas, on political debate within America, and on our ability to bridge differences across cultures.

Of course, he totally misses the point. The US is not a haven for anyone who wants to visit. The US is not an amusement park that admits anyone who plunked down ten bucks. The US is a sovereign nation that has every right to pick and choose who is allowed to enter. Ramadan notes that he also was forbidden entry to Tunisia and Saudi Arabia. I doubt he was afforded the freedom of press in those countries in order to publicly vent his frustrations.

If you are suspect, no matter how remote the threat is, you are not welcome. The US will not extend "rights" to foreigners who may be bent on destroying the country of whose rights they want to exercise. The US is not a refugee camp. If you disagree so much with the policy, go elsewhere. That is if you find a place that lets you in.