Category: war on terrorism

President Obama to order gitmo closed in 12 months

This is a big change from Bush’s policies.

President Barack Obama will begin overhauling U.S. national security policy Thursday with orders to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, review military trials of terror suspects and end harsh interrogations, two government officials said.

Together, the three executive orders and a presidential directive will reshape how the United States prosecutes and questions al-Qaida, Taliban or other foreign fighters who pose a threat to Americans.

A senior Obama administration official said the president would sign an order Thursday to shutter the Guantanamo prison within one year, fulfilling his campaign promise to close a facility that critics around the world say violates domestic and international detainee rights. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because the order has not yet been issued.

A draft copy of the order, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, notes that “in view of significant concerns raised by these detentions, both within the United States and internationally, prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals currently detained at Guantanamo and closure of the facility would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice.

via Sources: Obama to order Guantanamo closed – Yahoo! News.

I have mixed feelings about this. I think it is good that this nightmare for the United States is basically going to be going away. But on the other hand, I do not like the idea of releasing possibly terrorists, who might want to harm us again.

Either way, it is quite the mixed bag. I just hope this new Presidential Administration makes the right call.

(via Memeorandum)

My Opinion on the Geert Wilders Movie and charges being filed

First the Story via BBC NEWS:

Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

“In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to… draw a clear line,” the court in Amsterdam said.

Mr Wilders said the judgement was an “attack on the freedom of expression”.

“Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted,” he said.

Not only he, but all Dutch citizens opposed to the “Islamisation” of their country would be on trial, Mr Wilders warned.

“Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?” he added.

The three judges said that they had weighed Mr Wilders’s “one-sided generalizations” against his right to free speech, and ruled that he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians.

“The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs,” the court said in a statement.

“The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders,” it added.

The court’s ruling reverses a decision last year by the public prosecutor’s office, which said Mr Wilders’s comments had been made outside parliament as a contribution to the debate on Islam in Dutch society and that no criminal offense had been committed.

Prosecutors said on Wednesday that they could not appeal against the judgment and would open an investigation immediately.

Gerard Spong, a prominent lawyer who pushed for Mr Wilders’s prosecution, welcomed the court’s decision.

“This is a happy day for all followers of Islam who do not want to be tossed on the garbage dump of Nazism,” he told reporters.

Okay, here is my opinion on this situation.  Before I voice my opinion; let me say in the interest in full disclosure, that I fully believe that radical Islam is a threat to our way of life. Further more, I will be the first to say that it is very difficult to determine who among the Muslim community is radicalized and who is not. I also feel that if continue to allow Islam to be practiced in our country unchecked,  doing so could result in a major terrorist attack in our Country again.  I am, unashamedly an advocate of freedom of Religion; But when that Religion purposes to threaten the way of life of all Americans; it is no longer a Religion, but rather an instrument of terror.  Having said thus, I believe that the United States of America would be abdicating the responsibility of the well being of its citizens by allowing the practice of Islam in America to continue unchecked.

Having said all this, seeing that I am more of a Libertarian and a Moderate politically; I will be the first one concede the fact that Wilders my have brought this prosecution unto himself. Yes, I know, I posted the video here, on more than one occasion as a matter of fact. The reason I did, is because that most people are intellectually honest enough to know, that the video was about radicalized Islam and not Islam in General.  However, as well all know,  intellectual honesty does not usually extend to those of the Liberal mindset or those within the Islamic community, who have a agenda to paint those who are opposed to radical Islam as racists or hatemongers.

The reason I believe that Wilders might have brought this upon himself is because the video, if you watch it. Does send an unspoken message that all Muslims are terrorists. It is not spoken nor printed in the movie at all. However, it is the inferred message within the actual movie itself, that is the cause of the outrage among the Muslim community and is the reason for the conviction.

So, while I believe that the sounding of the alarm about radical Islam is legitimate pursuit, I also believe that framing of that pursuit is very important and will do more to bring light to that issue in a proper manner, without offending those in the Muslim community who do not subscribe to the radical mindset.

Update: Neo-Conservative Ed Morrissey shows his abject Hypocrisy:

Freedom of speech, in a democratic system or any other, requires tolerance by the populace of unpopular ideas and criticisms.  Popular speech requires no protection.  Imposing limits on what can and cannot be criticized and opposed through rhetoric and peaceful assembly ends freedom and starts totalitarianism. If Wilders cannot criticize Islam openly and freely without the government requiring permission, then the government can declare all dissent illegal through “hate crimes” legislation based on the whim of the government in question.  It won’t be long before the ruling class in Holland discover that they can protect their own status through such prosecution and attack dissent accordingly.

The reason I say this is the fact that, anytime someone says something unpopular over at HotAir.com, like dropping the “N Word”, when talking about a black person or possibly making a negative comments about Jews and Neo-Cons, they’re banned from commenting. In fact, I was banned from the chat room on his show, because I happened to speak my mind about Obama once there. So, that little song and dance is a crock of crap. Neo-Con’s are just as bad about censoring free speech as Liberals. Nice try Ed, but I know better. Identity Politics is just as bad in Neo-Con circles as it is in Liberal circles.  🙄

Others: Harry’s Place, Israpundit, Hot Air, Samizdata.net, Gateway Pundit, Gates of Vienna, QandO, Jihad Watch, Atlas Shrugs

Hmmmm: Osama Bin Laden challenges Obama in a message

Interesting…..

Via ABC NEWS:

In a direct challenge to President-elect Barack Obama, Osama bin Laden questions whether America “is capable to keep fighting us for more years” in a new audio message attributed to him Wednesday morning on an internet website.

A senior U.S. official told ABCNews.com, “There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the tape.”

It is the first time bin Laden has been heard from in seven months and puts to rest speculation he is dead. The al Qaeda leader’s last audio message was posted on May 18, 2008…

Today’s message begins with a call for a jihad against Israel because of its attacks on Gaza but concludes with a challenge to the U.S., and implicitly the incoming Obama administration.

“Now America is begging the world for money,” bin Laden says, “and the USA will not be as powerful as it used to be.”

“This rapid failing for America was one of the reasons that the Israelis started their attacks against Gaza and just to make use of what’s left of the Bush term,” he says.

Bin Laden makes reference to Vice-President elect Joseph Biden, quoting him as saying “the financial crisis is bigger than we expected” and the al Qaeda leader counsels patience in continuing to fight the U.S.

Bin Laden appears to be referring to comments Biden made to ABC News’ George Stephanopolous in an Dec. 21 appearance on This Week. “The economy is in much worse shape that we thought it was in,” Biden said then.

“The majority of the U.S. people are happy to get rid of Bush, Bush left for his successor a heavy heritage, the hardest part of heritage is guerilla wars,” bin Laden says…

Hmmm, isn’t that part I underlined what must Liberals say as well? 🙄

If course, many liberals think Obama Osama is dead, so this must be a fake. But you just know the Obambi-Messiah will raise him from the dead and mostly likely walk in water, while he’s at it.

Others: Sweetness & Light

Uh-Oh: U.S. Official says Gitmo detainee was tortured

I have much mixed feelings on this one.

Via Washington Post:

The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a “life-threatening condition.”

“We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani,” said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. “His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case” for prosecution.

Crawford, a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense, is the first senior Bush administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo to publicly state that a detainee was tortured.

Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani’s health led to her conclusion. “The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge” to call it torture, she said.

Military prosecutors said in November that they would seek to refile charges against Qahtani, 30, based on subsequent interrogations that did not employ harsh techniques. But Crawford, who dismissed war crimes charges against him in May 2008, said in the interview that she would not allow the prosecution to go forward.

Is this woman a far lefty loon? A Democrat? Um, No.

“I sympathize with the intelligence gatherers in those days after 9/11, not knowing what was coming next and trying to gain information to keep us safe,” said Crawford, a lifelong Republican. “But there still has to be a line that we should not cross. And unfortunately what this has done, I think, has tainted everything going forward.”

Which is another way, perhaps more artful way of saying that our Government essentially flipped it’s collective shit after September 11’th. We blew it, and we will have to deal with consequences down the road too. Ron Paul, in his book, “Revolution – A Manifesto”, refers to a CIA term that is used to describe what happens when the United States does  things of this nature. It is called “blowback”. I look for the United States to experience blowback because of what happened during the Presidency of Bush. I just hope like hell, that Obama is prepared to deal with such an event. It is truly a sad thing to know, that our Government did engage in such activities that is forbidden under the Geneva Conventions.

I highly suggest that you go read this, because it is, quite frankly, a sobering read. God Help this country in the coming years.

Others: : Jeffrey Goldberg, The Daily Dish, Reuters, Washington Monthly, PoliGazette, Balloon Juice, Pat Dollard, Hullabaloo, Newshoggers.com, Gawker, Jules Crittenden, Brave New Films blog, TalkLeft, Obsidian Wings, No More Mister Nice Blog, Philly.com, Associated Press, Guardian, ACSBlog, theheretik.us, Emptywheel, Sister Toldjah, NO QUARTER, ATTACKERMAN, democracyarsenal.org, TIME.com, JONATHAN TURLEY, The Raw Story, The Atlanticist, Firedoglake, On Deadline, Infidel Bloggers Alliance, Stop The ACLU, Macsmind, Fox News and TPMMuckraker

(via Memeornadum)

shocka!: Obama walks back closing Gitmo

Obama was on This Week With George Stephanopoulos and told him the following:

President-elect Barack Obama said this weekend that he does not expect to close Guantanamo Bay in his first 100 days in office.

“I think it’s going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do,” Obama said in an exclusive “This Week” interview with George Stephanopoulos, his first since arriving in Washington.

“It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize,” the president-elect explained. “Part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it’s true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.”

But Obama said unequivocally that it will close. “I don’t want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our Constitution. That is not only the right thing to do but it actually has to be part of our broader national security strategy because we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values.”

Talk about walking a campaign promise back. WOW! 😮

Of course, because he’s the Obamassiah, it’s just fine.

Liberal Heads exploding and calling for his impeachment in 5…..4……3…..2…..

Update:  Wait a second here! “Anglo-American Legal system’? What the hell is this asshole trying to say? Because America was founded by White people, and because we happen to have laws against murder, that this makes us a racist Nation? Man, for someone who did not run a Campaign based upon race, Obama sure does like to remind people that American is a “Anglo Saxon”. Race Baiting tool. 🙄

Others: Washington Monthly, PoliGazette, theheretik.us, TIME.com and JammieWearingFool

(Via Memeornadum)

US Rejects Aid to Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuke Site

This is quite the interesting read.

Via the NYT:

President Bush deflected a secret request by Israel last year for specialized bunker-busting bombs it wanted for an attack on Iran’s main nuclear complex and told the Israelis that he had authorized new covert action intended to sabotage Iran’s suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons, according to senior American and foreign officials.

White House officials never conclusively determined whether Israel had decided to go ahead with the strike before the United States protested, or whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel was trying to goad the White House into more decisive action before Mr. Bush left office. But the Bush administration was particularly alarmed by an Israeli request to fly over Iraq to reach Iran’s major nuclear complex at Natanz, where the country’s only known uranium enrichment plant is located.

The White House denied that request outright, American officials said, and the Israelis backed off their plans, at least temporarily. But the tense exchanges also prompted the White House to step up intelligence-sharing with Israel and brief Israeli officials on new American efforts to subtly sabotage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a major covert program that Mr. Bush is about to hand off to President-elect Barack Obama.

This account of the expanded American covert program and the Bush administration’s efforts to dissuade Israel from an aerial attack on Iran emerged in interviews over the past 15 months with current and former American officials, outside experts, international nuclear inspectors and European and Israeli officials. None would speak on the record because of the great secrecy surrounding the intelligence developed on Iran.

For some reason or another, I feel like the New York Times has just sold the United States right to secrecy up the river by revealing this. But on the other hand, I can see why Bush would do something like this. Bush was already mired in the war in Iraq. He knew our presence in Iraq was already causing tension in the middle east and knew also that sending these sort of bombs over to Israel to be used in Iran would just add to that tension. I give Bush a point here, he may have just done the right thing, but just telling Israel “no go” on these type of weapons. As it could have caused more problems that it might have fixed.

The interviews also indicate that Mr. Bush was convinced by top administration officials, led by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, that any overt attack on Iran would probably prove ineffective, lead to the expulsion of international inspectors and drive Iran’s nuclear effort further out of view. Mr. Bush and his aides also discussed the possibility that an airstrike could ignite a broad Middle East war in which America’s 140,000 troops in Iraq would inevitably become involved.

Instead, Mr. Bush embraced more intensive covert operations actions aimed at Iran, the interviews show, having concluded that the sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies were failing to slow the uranium enrichment efforts. Those covert operations, and the question of whether Israel will settle for something less than a conventional attack on Iran, pose immediate and wrenching decisions for Mr. Obama.

The covert American program, started in early 2008, includes renewed American efforts to penetrate Iran’s nuclear supply chain abroad, along with new efforts, some of them experimental, to undermine electrical systems, computer systems and other networks on which Iran relies. It is aimed at delaying the day that Iran can produce the weapons-grade fuel and designs it needs to produce a workable nuclear weapon.

Knowledge of the program has been closely held, yet inside the Bush administration some officials are skeptical about its chances of success, arguing that past efforts to undermine Iran’s nuclear program have been detected by the Iranians and have only delayed, not derailed, their drive to unlock the secrets of uranium enrichment.

[…]

Early in his presidency, Mr. Obama must decide whether the covert actions begun by Mr. Bush are worth the risks of disrupting what he has pledged will be a more active diplomatic effort to engage with Iran.

Either course could carry risks for Mr. Obama. An inherited intelligence or military mission that went wrong could backfire, as happened to President Kennedy with the Bay of Pigs operation in Cuba. But a decision to pull back on operations aimed at Iran could leave Mr. Obama vulnerable to charges that he is allowing Iran to speed ahead toward a nuclear capacity, one that could change the contours of power in the Middle East.

Which proves what I have said time and again, our Government is not stupid, we know what we can get away with and what we cannot. Bush was not going to send our troops into a bloodbath. So, I give Bush credit here, he averted a major problem. However, I do see that Obama is going to have his work cut out for him in the White House. Iran is not going to go away quietly. If anything, with the gas market collapsing, Iran might just get a bit worse during Obama tenure. I just hope that, unlike Kennedy; Obama makes the right call on this issues, because if he does not, The United States could have some serious problems on its hands.

I strongly encourage you to go over to the NYT and read the rest of that report. It is quite the interesting read. Some would take away from it, that Bush was showing deference to the Arabs, but I think that it is much more than just that; in the sense that Bush knew that he would be getting in over his head. This is why he refused the Israelis permission to do flyovers and target Iranian targets.

Others: Associated Press, The Muqata, Israel Matzav, The Moderate Voice, RBO, Power Line, Hot Air, Israpundit, The Raw Story, Jihad Watch, Lawyers, Guns and Money, Weekly Standard, Balloon Juice and THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS

Which proves what I’ve believed all along

Israel Matzav observes the following:

The Lebanese blog Ouwet, which describes itself as "personal views and opinions of Lebanese forces members," castigates Hamas for using ‘holy mosques’ to store weapons.

Hamas, the Islamist Movement, is hidding weapons in a mosque. How truly “Muslim” of them !

Now i ask you : What do you expect the IDF to do ?

Good question.

This proves what I’ve believed all along, that Muslims, when cornered, cannot fight a war honorably. They resort to human shields and underhanded tactics of this sort. This stuff dates back to the times of the Old Testament in the Bible. When Israel fought in the wilderness against it’s enemies.  

Nothing ever changes, perhaps the name of the terrorist organization maybe, but it is the same mentality.

Here’s hoping that the IDF blows these bastards off the map. Devil 

Anti-Israel Propaganda in the Wall Street Journal

I knew there was a reason for me to wake up earlier than normal today.

Via the Wall Street Journal, or shall I call it that Arab Journal?  …and this is Rubert Murdoch’s Paper? WTF? WOW! 😮

Israel’s current assault on the Gaza Strip cannot be justified by self-defense. Rather, it involves serious violations of international law, including war crimes. Senior Israeli political and military leaders may bear personal liability for their offenses, and they could be prosecuted by an international tribunal, or by nations practicing universal jurisdiction over grave international crimes. Hamas fighters have also violated the laws of warfare, but their misdeeds do not justify Israel’s acts.

Right out the gate, the Palestine and Terrorist apologist begins to justify the actions of Hamas. He calls them misdeeds. I suppose he considers the attacks on the World Trade Center, our Pentegon and the crash of Flight 93 “Misdeeds” as well? I suppose he considers the 2,998 Dead and the 6,291+ Injured on September 11’th 2001, misdeeds? Which were carried out by those of the islamic faith?

Of course, if we look at the bottom of this article of Anti-Israeli screed, we can see where this Arab apologist is from:

Mr. Bisharat is a professor at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco

But of course! He is a liberal moonbat! I guess Rupert Murdoch was asleep when they snuck that op-ed piece through the building and to the printer.

Others: War in Context, Washington Post, Reuters, Guardian and THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS

Israeli/Gaza Conflict: Monday Morning Quarterbacking

I must say this crap is most pathetic. 🙄

First off, we have terrorist supporter and America’s worst former President and Commie Liberal traitor, Jimmy Carter in the WaPo:

I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided.

After visiting Sderot last April and seeing the serious psychological damage caused by the rockets that had fallen in that area, my wife, Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism. Although casualties were rare (three deaths in seven years), the town was traumatized by the unpredictable explosions. About 3,000 residents had moved to other communities, and the streets, playgrounds and shopping centers were almost empty. Mayor Eli Moyal assembled a group of citizens in his office to meet us and complained that the government of Israel was not stopping the rockets, either through diplomacy or military action.

Knowing that we would soon be seeing Hamas leaders from Gaza and also in Damascus, we promised to assess prospects for a cease-fire. From Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, who was negotiating between the Israelis and Hamas, we learned that there was a fundamental difference between the two sides. Hamas wanted a comprehensive cease-fire in both the West Bank and Gaza, and the Israelis refused to discuss anything other than Gaza.

We knew that the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza were being starved, as the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food had found that acute malnutrition in Gaza was on the same scale as in the poorest nations in the southern Sahara, with more than half of all Palestinian families eating only one meal a day.

Palestinian leaders from Gaza were noncommittal on all issues, claiming that rockets were the only way to respond to their imprisonment and to dramatize their humanitarian plight. The top Hamas leaders in Damascus, however, agreed to consider a cease-fire in Gaza only, provided Israel would not attack Gaza and would permit normal humanitarian supplies to be delivered to Palestinian citizens.

After extended discussions with those from Gaza, these Hamas leaders also agreed to accept any peace agreement that might be negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who also heads the PLO, provided it was approved by a majority vote of Palestinians in a referendum or by an elected unity government.

Since we were only observers, and not negotiators, we relayed this information to the Egyptians, and they pursued the cease-fire proposal. After about a month, the Egyptians and Hamas informed us that all military action by both sides and all rocket firing would stop on June 19, for a period of six months, and that humanitarian supplies would be restored to the normal level that had existed before Israel’s withdrawal in 2005 (about 700 trucks daily).

We were unable to confirm this in Jerusalem because of Israel’s unwillingness to admit to any negotiations with Hamas, but rocket firing was soon stopped and there was an increase in supplies of food, water, medicine and fuel. Yet the increase was to an average of about 20 percent of normal levels. And this fragile truce was partially broken on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas inside the wall that encloses Gaza.

On another visit to Syria in mid-December, I made an effort for the impending six-month deadline to be extended. It was clear that the preeminent issue was opening the crossings into Gaza. Representatives from the Carter Center visited Jerusalem, met with Israeli officials and asked if this was possible in exchange for a cessation of rocket fire. The Israeli government informally proposed that 15 percent of normal supplies might be possible if Hamas first stopped all rocket fire for 48 hours. This was unacceptable to Hamas, and hostilities erupted.

After 12 days of “combat,” the Israeli Defense Forces reported that more than 1,000 targets were shelled or bombed. During that time, Israel rejected international efforts to obtain a cease-fire, with full support from Washington. Seventeen mosques, the American International School, many private homes and much of the basic infrastructure of the small but heavily populated area have been destroyed. This includes the systems that provide water, electricity and sanitation. Heavy civilian casualties are being reported by courageous medical volunteers from many nations, as the fortunate ones operate on the wounded by light from diesel-powered generators.

The hope is that when further hostilities are no longer productive, Israel, Hamas and the United States will accept another cease-fire, at which time the rockets will again stop and an adequate level of humanitarian supplies will be permitted to the surviving Palestinians, with the publicized agreement monitored by the international community. The next possible step: a permanent and comprehensive peace.

Disgraceful. The old bastard ought to be charged for Treason and sent to a reeducation camp, along with the rest of Liberal America. 😡

I mean, just who the hell does that old duffer think he is?  This is the same damned President who economic policies were a complete disaster. If it had not been for Ronald Reagan this country would have went into a full scale depression back in the 1970’s. Luckily Reagan made some very much needed changes and rid the country of some of the waste, which in turned staved off a depression and thankfully, we only experienced a slight recession. Again that recession was due to the disastrous polices of Carter. Hell, even Bill Clinton could not stand the old man, Clinton refused to meet with Carter at all. Which caused a major problem during his administration.

On the other hand, Marvin Hier makes some very valid points in a Wall Street Journal in an opinion piece:

At the U.N., no surprise, this double-standard is in full force. In response to Israel’s attack on Hamas, the Security Council immediately pulled an all-night emergency meeting to consider yet another resolution condemning Israel. Have there been any all-night Security Council sessions held during the seven months when Hamas fired 3,000 rockets at half a million innocent civilians in southern Israel? You can be certain that during those seven months, no midnight oil was burning at the U.N. headquarters over resolutions condemning terrorist organizations like Hamas. But put condemnation of Israel on the agenda and, rain or shine, it’s sure to be a full house.

Red Cross officials are all over the Gaza crisis, describing it as a full-blown humanitarian nightmare. Where were they during the seven months when tens of thousands of Israeli families could not sleep for fear of a rocket attack? Where were their trauma experts to decry that humanitarian crisis?

There have been hundreds of articles and reports written from the Erez border crossing falsely accusing Israel of blocking humanitarian supplies from reaching beleaguered Palestinians in Gaza. (In fact, over 520 truck loads of humanitarian aid have been delivered through Israeli crossings since the beginning of the Israeli counterattack.) But how many news articles, NGO reports and special U.N. commissions have investigated Hamas’s policy of deliberately placing rocket launchers near schools, mosques and homes in order to use innocent Palestinians as human shields?

Many people ask why there are so few Israeli casualties in comparison with the Palestinian death toll. It’s because Israel’s first priority is the safety of its citizens, which is why there are shelters and warning systems in Israeli towns. If Hamas can dig tunnels, it can certainly build shelters. Instead, it prefers to use women and children as human shields while its leaders rush into hiding. – Read the Rest

I suggest you go read that entire piece. It is filled with truth. I mean, people sure have short memories when it comes to Israel, Gaza and Palestine. Some people must have forgotten that Israel totally pulled out of the Gaza Strip, gave the Palestinians that land, that was rightfully Israel’s and let them live there. So, what does Gaza do? Elects a terrorist organization to govern and then they whine and cry when Israel invades that land!   Fata was at least honorable enough to uphold a peace agreement, more than I can say for Hamas. The people in Gaza had better be glad I am not running that war campaign for Israel. They think the human toll is bad now? Ha! I’d bomb gaza into the damn stone age. Which is what Israel should rightly do, and take back their damn land from those arab scumbags.

Others on the right side of this conflict: QandO, , A Blog For All,protein wisdom, Don Surber, Little Green Footballs, Pirate’s Cove,  Macsmind, Gateway Pundit, Riehl World View, Yourish.com,Jules Crittenden, neo-neocon and Jihad Watch

(Via Memeorandum)

Andrew Sullivan goes off the damned rails……………again.

You know, I totally understand Jeffrey Goldberg‘s point about this situation over in Gaza, believe me, I do.  But for Andrew Sullivan to print a picture of a damn dead little girls face on his Blog, that’s just fucking uncalled for man. Sorry for the language in this posting, but damn it, that’s just wrong. 😡

Careful with that link, it’s quite disturbing to look at.

Besides, there’s a possibility that the photo was faked anyhow.

Others: The Sundries Shack