Moammar Gadhafi – An Evil Man is Dead

Moammar Gadhafi played his role well as the dictator of Libya He had total control over that nation. If you disagreed with him your were tortured and more than likely put to death. He was a partner, and probably the planner, with those who successfully killed Americans in many places around the world. His most notorious act was his participation in the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988.

His death at the hands of his countrymen is a just ending to a man who was truly evil.

America has Failed in Afghanistan

Today, after 10 years of fighting in Afghanistan, the Taliban have attacked the U.S. embassy in the capital city of Kabul. This attack says more than anything else about our success in permanently ending the Taliban control of that country. It will be no surprise that after the U.S. army has withdrawn that the Taliban returns to power.

This situation is so reminiscent of Vietnam. In that country our armed forces could not identify the enemy because they were dressed in civilian clothes and were part of the society we were trying to help. The Vietnamese did not want our help and neither do the Afghans. We have been trying to re-build their nation into a society that looks like America. Our generals and Defense Department managers have called it “nation building.” I call it American stupidity.

Of course the Karzai government wants the U.S. to stay and continue its fruitless effort. We have poured millions of dollars into that nation. We have propped up their phony government. Quickly departing that country is the best thing we can do for our nation.

Norway says Terrorism Against Israel is Justified

With galling Chutzpah, Norway’s Ambassador to Israel has suggested that Hamas terrorism against Israel is more justified than the recent terrorist attack against Norway!

Alan Dershowitz responds…

Is Terrorism Against Israel Really More Justified Than Terrorism Against Norway?

by Alan M. Dershowitz

July 28, 2011 at 4:30 pm

http://www.hudson-ny.org/2310/terrorism-norway-israel

In a recent interview, Norway’s Ambassador to Israel has suggested that Hamas terrorism against Israel is more justified than the recent terrorist attack against Norway. His reasoning is that, “We Norwegians consider the occupation to be the cause of the terror against Israel.” In other words terrorism against Israeli citizens is the fault of Israel. The terrorism against Norway, on the other hand, was based on “an ideology that said that Norway, particularly the Labor Party, is foregoing Norwegian culture.” It is hard to imagine that he would make such a provocative statement without express approval from the Norwegian government.

I can’t remember many other examples of so much nonsense compressed in such short an interview. First of all, terrorism against Israel began well before there was any “occupation”. The first major terrorist attack against Jews who had long lived in Jerusalem and Hebron began in 1929, when the leader of the Palestinian people, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, ordered a religiously-motivated terrorist attack that killed hundreds of religious Jews-many old, some quite young. Terrorism against Jews continued through the 1930s. Once Israel was established as a state, but well before it captured the West Bank, terrorism became the primary means of attacking Israel across the Jordanian, Egyptian and Lebanese borders. If the occupation is the cause of the terror against Israel, what was the cause of all the terror that preceded any occupation?

I was not surprised to hear such ahistorical bigotry from a Norwegian Ambassador. Norway is the most anti-Semitic and anti-Israel country in Europe today. I know, because I experienced both personally during a recent visit and tour of universities. No university would invite me to lecture, unless I promised not to discuss Israel. Norway forbids Jewish ritual slaughter, but not Islamic ritual slaughter. Its political and academic leaders openly make statements that cross the line from anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism, such as when Norway’s former Prime Minister condemned Barak Obama for appointing a Jew as his Chief of Staff. No other European leader would make such a statement and get away with it. In Norway, this bigoted statement was praised, as were similar statements made by a leading academic.

The very camp that was attacked by the lone terrorist was engaged in an orgy of anti-Israel hatred the day before the shooting. Yet I would not ever claim that it was Norway’s anti-Semitism that “caused” the horrible act of terrorism against young Norwegians.

The causes of terrorism are multifaceted but at bottom they have a common cause: namely a belief that violence is the proper response to policies that the terrorists disagree with. The other common cause is that terrorism has often been rewarded. Norway, for example, has repeatedly rewarded Palestinian terrorism against Israel, while punishing Israel for its efforts to protect its civilians. While purporting to condemn all terrorist acts, the Norwegian government has sought to justify Palestinian terrorism as having a legitimate cause. This clearly is an invitation to continued terrorism.

It is important for the world never to reward terrorism by supporting the policies of those who employ it as an alternative to reason discourse, diplomatic resolution or political compromise.

I know of no reasonable person who has tried to justify the terrorist attacks against Norway. Yet there are many Norwegians who not only justify terrorist attacks against Israel, but praise them, support them, help finance them, and legitimate them.

The world must unite in condemning and punishing all terrorist attacks against innocent civilians, regardless of the motive or purported cause of the terrorism. Norway, as a nation, has failed to do this. It wants us all to condemn the terrorist attack on its civilians, and we should all do that, but it refuses to live by a single standard.

Nothing good ever comes from terrorism, so don’t expect the Norwegians to learn any lessons from its own victimization. As the Ambassador made clear in his benighted interview, “those of us who believe [the occupation to be the cause of the terror against Israel] will not change their minds because of the attack in Oslo.” In other words, they will persist in their bigoted view that Israel is the cause of the terrorism directed at it, and that if only Israel were to end the occupation (as it offered to do in 2000-2001 and again in 2007), the terrorism will end. Even Hamas, which Norway supports in many ways, has made clear that it will not end its terrorism as long as Israel continues to exist. Hamas believes that Israel’s very existence is the cause of the terrorism against it. That sounds a lot like the ranting of the man who engaged in the act of terrorism against Norway.

The time is long overdue for Norwegians to do some deep soul searching about their sordid history of complicity with all forms of bigotry ranging from the anti-Semitic Nazis to the anti-Semitic Hamas. There seems to be a common thread.

Withdrawing From Afghanistan

I heard President Obama’s speech tonight on reducing our military participation in Afghanistan. He has kept his word about a withdrawal of troops starting in July 2011. I was disappointed in him for sending a total of 60,000+ troops to that country. I believed that Joe Biden’s idea of drones, special operations and targeted strikes would better serve America’s interests.

I know Senator John McCain fears that we are becoming isolationist. His appraisal is incorrect. Not every situation demands a high level invasion. McCain suffers from his Vietnam experience.

The Afghanis and Pakistanis view America as an invading and occupying force. This is not the way to win friends and influence people.

America’s withdrawal is the right thing to do.

The News in Obama’s Middle East Speech

From the WorldJewishDaily.com, this column by Charles Krauthammer, Published: May 19. 2011 reflects my opinion fairly well. The question is, why did President Obama have to make this public statement that everyone seems to have known but would rather not say out loud? 1967 boundaries for Israel is a negotiating point for the Israelis.

“It will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.”

With this Barack Obama openly, unreservedly and without a trace of irony or self-reflection adopts the Bush Doctrine, which made the spread of democracy the key U.S. objective in the Middle East.

“Too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills.”

Note how even Obama’s rationale matches Bush’s. Bush argued that because the roots of 9/11 were to be found in the deflected anger of repressed Middle Eastern peoples, our response would require a democratic transformation of the region.

“We have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals.”

A fine critique of exactly the kind of “realism” the Obama administration prided itself for having practiced in its first two years.

How far did this concession to Bush go? Note Obama’s example of the democratization we’re aiming for. He actually said:

“In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. There, the Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence for a democratic process . . . Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region.”

Hail the Bush-Obama doctrine.

“President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that transition [to democracy], or get out of the way.”

The only jarring note in an otherwise interesting, if convoluted, attempt to unite all current “Arab Spring” policies under one philosophical rubric. Convoluted because the Bahrain part was unconvincing and the omission of Saudi Arabia was unmistakable.

Syria’s Assad leading a transition to democracy? This is bizarre and appalling. Assad has made all-out war on his people — shooting, arresting, executing, even using artillery against cities. Yet Obama is still holding out the olive branch when, if anything, he should be declaring Assad as illegitimate as Gaddafi. Clearly, some habits
of engagement/appeasement die hard.

“A lasting peace will involve . . . Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people.”

Meant to reassure Israelis that the administration rejects the so-called right of return of Palestinian refugees. They would return to Palestine, not Israel — Palestine being their homeland, and Israel (which would cease to be Jewish if flooded with refugees) being a Jewish state. But why use code for an issue on which depends Israel’s existence?

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”

A new formulation favorable to maximal Arab demands. True, that idea has been the working premise for negotiations since 2000. But no president had ever before publicly and explicitly endorsed the 1967 lines.

Even more alarming to Israel is Obama’s omission of previous American assurances to recognize “realities on the ground” in adjusting the 1967 border, meaning U.S. agreement that Israel would incorporate the thickly populated, close-in settlements in any land swap. By omitting this, Obama leaves the impression of indifference to the fate of these settlements. This would be a significant change in U.S. policy and a heavy blow to the Israeli national consensus.

“The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves . . . in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

Normal U.S. boilerplate except for one thing: Obama refers to Palestinian borders with Egypt, Jordan and Israel. But the only Palestinian territory bordering Egypt is Gaza. How do you get contiguity with Gaza? Does Obama’s map force Israel to give up a corridor of territory connecting the West Bank and Gaza? This is an old Palestinian demand that would cut Israel in two. Is this simply an oversight? Or a new slicing up of Israel?

Finally, in calling for both parties to “come back to the table,” the Palestinians have to explain “the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas. . . . How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist?”

Not a strong statement about Washington rejecting any talks involving Hamas. A mere placeholder.

On the other hand, Obama made no mention here of Israeli settlements. A mere oversight? Or has Obama finally realized that his making a settlement freeze a precondition for negotiations — something never demanded before he took office — was a disastrous unforced error? One can only hope.

Hamas poisons peace process

By: Rep. Eric Cantor and Rep. Peter Roskam

May 18, 2011 04:32 AM EDT

As the news of Osama bin Laden’s death spread, the free world breathed a deep sigh of relief and praised the United States for its accomplishment.

But in the Palestinian territories, such sentiments were not shared.

In the eyes of Ismail Haniyeh and the infamous Hamas terrorist organization he leads, the operation “marks the continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood.” Really?

If killing the man responsible for the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history — not to mention the aggressor who did more to subjugate and kill fellow Muslims who disagree with his worldview than perhaps any other individual on earth — makes us oppressors, then how would Hamas describe bin Laden?

Haniyeh didn’t hold back. “We condemn the assassination of a Muslim and Arab warrior,” he proclaimed, “and we pray to God that his soul rests in peace.”

Fitting, coming from a terrorist organization whose founding charter instructs, “The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him.”

As President Barack Obama draws national attention to the Middle East with a major speech on Thursday, we ask our fellow lawmakers — and all Americans — the following questions: Does this seem like a group with whom Israel can make peace? Would you trust this organization to have free rein in your own backyard? Is this a group deserving of $550 million in annual foreign aid from cash-strapped U.S. taxpayers?

via Hamas poisons peace process – POLITICO.com Print View.

Bin Laden’s Big Mistake

One thing made Osama bin Laden public enemy #1.

One thing made him a target for America’s hit squad.

One thing – and only one thing – made his assassination justified and praised by world leaders. He didn’t just kill Jews. Had he limited his terrorism to Jews only, he would not have been targeted.

The same world leaders, who today take great pride in his death, would have celebrated his life. He would not have been killed by President Obama; he would have dined with him. He would have been invited to the United Nations. He would have been a featured speaker on the world speaking tour. He would have won the Noble peace prize.

Think I’m crazy? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran. His resume includes a lot more than just politics. It has been proven that he personally ordered the attacks against the Jewish community of Argentina where hundreds of Jews were killed. He has stated – time and again – that he wants to destroy Israel. He wants to kill the 6,000,000 Jews (interesting number) who live and he is feverishly working to build a bomb that will do just that.

Has he been targeted? Is this animal on any one’s “hit list”? Actually, just the opposite is true. He recently spoke in the UN. He was a guest speaker at Columbia University. Why? Because he is only interested in killing Jews.

Khaled Mashaal is the leader of Hamas. Hamas is the sworn enemy of Israel. It has killed over 1,500 Jews in the last 10 years. It has fired over 5,000 missiles into Israel, aiming for Jewish homes and hoping to kill Jewish children. Has he been targeted? Is this beast on any one’s “hit list”? Actually, just the opposite is true. Russian President Vladimir Putin recently invited Mashaal to Moscow. Former USA President Jimmy Carter has embraced Mashaal and considers him a partner for peace. Why? Because he is only interested in killing Jews.

Yassir Arafat was the founder and leader of the PLO. He has more innocent blood on his hands than Osama bin Laden. Yet, this murderer was invited numerous times to dine with President Bill and First Lady Hillary Clinton in the White House. He spoke in the UN. He was accepted around the world as a leader and spoke in over 30 countries. He won the Noble Peace Prize. Why? Because he was only interested in killing Jews.

Although I can go on, I will give just one final example: Adolph Hitler. The world knew about concentration camps as early as 1933.

The world knew about Kristellnacht back in November of 1938. Yet, the entire world called this monster; Herr Hitler. They gave his respect. They recognized him as a leader. All that changed when Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. From that point on he became an enemy. Why? Because until that day he was interested in killing Jews only. Osama bin Laden violated the golden rule: In addition to killing just Jews, he also killed non-Jews. That is why he was targeted and for no other reason!

The message to Jews – and the State of Israel – is very clear. Learn to defend yourself. Learn to take revenge yourself. The world will not help you with Iran or Hamas. Ahmadinejad and Mashaal will not make the same mistake as Bin Laden and will continue to be accepted and embraced by the world. Understand this, accept this and deal with this. “We have no one on which to rely, other than our Father in Heaven”. May today’s Jewish leaders – and the brave warriors of the IDF – engrave this on their hearts. And may they – very soon – do to these terrorists exactly what was done to Bin Laden.

Osama bin Laden is Dead!

Osama bin Laden was found and killed by United States representatives in a mansion near Islamabad, Pakistan. This is a historic event.

President Barack Obama announced this fact this evening at 11:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Savings Time.

This is a great day for the United States of America. Without their significant leader, al-Qaeda will be seriously impaired. Will they decide to conduct an attack somewhere in the world in retaliation? I am quite certain that all nations are on alert.

Many loud cheers for America!!