Category: War

This right here; is why I do not support the war in Iraq

Seriously people, is this right here the sort of future that we want for our Country?

Via Reuters:

BAGHDAD, Jan 24 (Reuters) – U.S. troops shot dead a couple and wounded their eight-year-old daughter during an early morning raid on their house in northern Iraq on Saturday, a senior Iraqi police officer said.

Major-General Turhan Abdul Rahman, deputy chief commander of police in Kirkuk province, said U.S. forces stormed the house of Dhiya Hussein, a former officer in the Iraqi army under Saddam Hussein, in Hawija, 210 km (130 km) north of Baghdad.

A U.S. military spokesman confirmed that a man and a woman had been killed and a child wounded in the raid, but gave no further details.

The spokesman said the incident took place during a joint operation with Iraqi forces. The Iraqi police general said no Iraqi troops were present at the raid.

Kirkuk is one of the northern provinces where unrest persists despite a reduction in violence in the country. U.S. forces there have yet to hand over responsibility for security to Iraqi troops as they have done in most of Iraq. (Reporting by Tim Cocks and Khalid al Ansary; Writing by Tim Cocks; editing by Elizabeth Piper.

However, upon closer examination we find.

This part comes via the AP:

The U.S. military said the operation was “fully coordinated with Iraqi authorities (who were also present for the operation) and conducted with full respect for the Iraqi Constitution and the laws of Iraq .”

After a security agreement took effect Jan. 1 , the U.S. military can conduct operations on their own if Iraqi authorities approve them and they are coordinated with Iraqi authorities.

Ali Dabbagh , the Iraqi government spokesman, said he had no information on the raid.

Brig. Gen Abdel Kareem Khalaf , the spokesman for the Ministry of Interior , told National Public Radio that no Iraqi forces were present at the raid, and he demanded an investigation. It was unclear if the raid was approved, he said.

“We have asked for a joint investigative committee plus we have asked for an explanation from the American side regarding what happened,” he told NPR . “Up to now there were victims on the ground and we have to know why.”

In the small village where Dhia Hussein Ali lived, his children and his father questioned the reason for the raid. Ali was a modest farmer with a small fish pool where he raised the popular carp eaten in Iraq , they said. The man was a former officer in Saddam Hussein‘s army.

Omar Dhia Hussein , 14, was in shock Saturday night. He said in a telephone interview that in the morning he’d seen his parents’ bodies side by side in their bed, the sheets covered in blood. The wall was covered with his father’s blood, he said.

At 2 a.m. , Omar said, he heard a bang of a percussion grenade. When he opened his eyes he saw American soldiersIraqis standing over him in the room where he slept with his two sisters. Except for an Iraqi interpreter there were no with the Americans, he said.

The interpreter shouted at the young boy.

“You are hiding weapons,” Omar recalled the interpreter saying. “Where are you hiding the weapons? You are terrorists, you are hiding weapons in that unfinished house. Confess!”

Omar began to cry and his sisters wept with him, he said. Then the American soldiers left and he heard gunfire next door. The soldiers carried Omar’s wounded sister from the room and took the remaining four children, including Omar, to his uncle’s home. Outside were at least four U.S. Humvees and two SUVs, Omar said. His grandfather, Hussein Ali , who lives next door saw no Iraqi soldiers, either.

….and now the part that bugs the living hell out of me, it’s from the same article:

After the Americans left, Omar and his sisters returned to their home with their grandfather. In his parents’ bedroom, Omar said, he saw his father’s body at the very edge of the right side of the bed, motionless and bloody.

His mother lay in the middle of the bed in a pool of her own blood. She’d been shot in the head, the family said.

“I will avenge my father’s death,” Omar said calmly Saturday evening.

Seriously people, is this the sort of America that we want to leave to our children? An America where people in other countries hate our damned guts, because we came in and just fucking slaughtered people, because we happened to believe that the person was a terrorist?  “I will Avenge my father’s death” It’s those words that brings me chills. I mean, that kid is not going to be 14 years old forever. He will grow to be man, a damned bitter man. One who will grow up to hate us.

I sometimes have to ask myself. Who are the real terrorists? Could it be that our actions caused September 11’th 2001? Could it be Osama Bin Laden was paying us back for acts committed by our Military, in the name of democracy?

I’m not saying cut and run, but damn it, something wrong, seriously fucking wrong. 😡

(Via Anti-War)


Living proof that Neo-Cons are flippin' stupid

Neo-Con Tony Blankley calls for a National Mandatory draft.

Watch it:

That’s about 75 degrees worth of stupid. What we need to do, is send a drone or a squadron of fighters into that Region where Osama Bin Laden is holed up, bomb everything that fucking breathes  and call it a war and get our fucking people out of there, that’s what we ought to do!

Damned idiot Neo-Cons, they’re about as fucking stupid as liberals!

(Via Anti-War)

Uh-Oh! – Two ex-Guantanamo inmates appear in Al-Qaeda video

This cannot be good, at all.

via AFP: Two ex-Guantanamo inmates appear in Al-Qaeda video

Two men released from the US “war on terror” prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have appeared in a video posted on a jihadist website, the SITE monitoring service reported.

One of the two former inmates, a Saudi man identified as Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, or prisoner number 372, has been elevated to the senior ranks of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, a US counter-terrorism official told AFP.

Three other men appear in the video, including Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, identified as an Al-Qaeda field commander. SITE later said he was prisoner No. 333.

A Pentagon spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, on Saturday declined to confirm the SITE information.

“We remain concerned about ex-Guantanamo detainees who have re-affiliated with terrorist organizations after their departure,” said Gordon.

“We will continue to work with the international community to mitigate the threat they pose,” he said.

…and these guys aren’t exactly tickled pink about being imprisoned at Guantanamo either.

On the video, al-Shihri is seen sitting with three other men before a flag of the Islamic State of Iraq, the front for Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

“By Allah, imprisonment only increased our persistence in our principles for which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for,” al-Shihri was quoted as saying.

Something tells me that this is bring the releasing of these prisons to a screeching halt, or at least intensify the effort to screen them much better; before releasing them.

Al-Qaeda 1 – Obama 0

Of course my fellow Conservatives are all over it. The silence from the left is quite deafening.

Others: ParaPundit, Flopping Aces, Atlas Shrugs, Weekly Standard, MsUnderestimated, Gateway Pundit, RedState and Sweetness & Light

Freed from Gitmo, Saudi Becomes a Al-Qaeda Chief

This is not good at all, and timing could not be worse.

The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.

The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen’s capital, Sana, in September. He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen.

His status was announced in an Internet statement by the militant group and was confirmed by an American counterterrorism official.

“They’re one and the same guy,” said the official, who insisted on anonymity because he was discussing an intelligence analysis. “He returned to Saudi Arabia in 2007, but his movements to Yemen remain unclear.”

The development came as Republican legislators criticized the plan to close the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, detention camp in the absence of any measures for dealing with current detainees. But it also helps explain why the new administration wants to move cautiously, taking time to work out a plan to cope with the complications.

Almost half the camp’s remaining detainees are Yemenis, and efforts to repatriate them depend in part on the creation of a Yemeni rehabilitation program — partly financed by the United States — similar to the Saudi one. Saudi Arabia has claimed that no graduate of its program has returned to terrorism.

“The lesson here is, whoever receives former Guantánamo detainees needs to keep a close eye on them,” the American official said.

via Freed by the U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief – NYTimes.com.

I suppose you all think that I am going to point blame on Obama or Bush. Well, Surprise. I am not going to do either. Because, quite frankly, it is stupid to point fingers. The sobering truth is, that you take a horse to the water, but you cannot make them drink.

Put another way, you can send someone who’s convicted as a terrorist, to rehab and try to deprogram them, you can beat them over the head and tell them to stop; but they have to want to stop. Truth is, you cannot control people. If they’re going to be a terrorist, they’re going to do it, irregardless of what we or any other country does.

We troubles me is the fact that the far left is blaming Bush, and the far right is screaming that Obama is selling out America, or something like that. I think that want needs to happen is that there needs to be a independent review of each and every case, and the right thing done about it. This should not be a Political situation, but rather something that is right for the country.

I don’t claim to be an expert. So, take my opinion for what it is worth. There are a good number of opinions on this, and I encourage you to read them all.

Others: Washington Monthly, Room for Debate, Weekly Standard, Firedoglake, Balloon Juice, The Strata-Sphere, The Washington Independent, Hot Air, Newshoggers.com, FinkelBlog, Political Machine, A Blog For All, Gateway Pundit , The Huffington Post, Boston Globe, The Corner, Washington Times, The Plum Line, Little Green Footballs, Atlas Shrugs, Flopping Aces, Wizbang

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)

Obama should, but most likely won't

Before I start this, let me simply say from the outset, that I am not a George W. Bush fan, nor will I ever be. I am not a part of the Conservative wing that believes that George W. Bush is some sort of hero. Having said all Paul Krugman and Rep. John Conyers have both written articles calling for Obama to fully investigate the actions of George W. Bush during his tenure as President.

First off Paul Krugman writes:

Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he responded, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.

Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. It’s not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation’s security. The fact is that the Bush administration’s abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies.

At the Justice Department, for example, political appointees illegally reserved nonpolitical positions for “right-thinking Americans” — their term, not mine — and there’s strong evidence that officials used their positions both to undermine the protection of minority voting rights and to persecute Democratic politicians.

The hiring process at Justice echoed the hiring process during the occupation of Iraq — an occupation whose success was supposedly essential to national security — in which applicants were judged by their politics, their personal loyalty to President Bush and, according to some reports, by their views on Roe v. Wade, rather than by their ability to do the job.

Speaking of Iraq, let’s also not forget that country’s failed reconstruction: the Bush administration handed billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to politically connected companies, companies that then failed to deliver. And why should they have bothered to do their jobs? Any government official who tried to enforce accountability on, say, Halliburton quickly found his or her career derailed.

There’s much, much more. By my count, at least six important government agencies experienced major scandals over the past eight years — in most cases, scandals that were never properly investigated. And then there was the biggest scandal of all: Does anyone seriously doubt that the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into invading Iraq?

Why, then, shouldn’t we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years?

The answer to this question is very simple. Obama simply does not want the political firestorm. As much as it is great thing to see an African-American man for President, I think it would be counter-productive to Obama’s term in office to do something like this. Because you just know; that the Neo-Conservative political machine would swing into action against Obama, if he did try and do something like this. I mean, I might have many reservations about Neo-Conservatives, but their organizational and fund raising abilities is not one of them. If Obama went for a full blown investigation against the Bush Administration, the Podhoretz and Kristol funded minions would be out in full force.

So, while the idea of a full blown investigation with charges being filed is a noble idea; I just highly doubt that it will ever materialize. Obama just does not want to be viewed as a vengeful partisan President.

John Conyers writes basically the same thing, and I can understand his feelings. But again, what is very important; is how this sort of thing will be perceived by the rest of America. Would be it perceived as justice, or would it perceived as a partisan witch hunt? Sure, if your a partisan or a liberal ideologue it would be viewed as justified, but what about those who are not? What they think; matters greatly.

One thing that all Democrats and all Liberal-minded people must remember is, that not all of America is of a Liberal mindset. Just because Congress is of a Liberal majority, does not mean that all of America is. Some just voted for Obama, because he represented a change from George W. Bush, not because they wanted to see a Liberal witch hunt trial.

Others: The Moderate Voice, JustOneMinute, The Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, No More Mister Nice Blog, Washington Monthly, Washington Post, Matthew Yglesias, Right Wing News, The Seminal, Democrats.com, The Sideshow, Comments from Left Field, The Note, The Immoral Minority, Riehl World View, Gateway Pundit, American Street, Hullabaloo, Seeing the Forest and The Impolitic

(via Memeorandum)

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