Please Hit

Folks, This is a Free Site and will ALWAYS stay that way. But the only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers. PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going. SO HIT THE TIP JAR (it's on the left-hand column).

Monday, July 2, 2007

How Soon Before the Car Bombs Come to America

The attempted bombing in London and the actual one in Glascow should have been a wake up call to the countries of Europe and to the US, that this war on Islamic Terrorism is by no means even close to being over.

Thankfully the one that was ignited Glascow one did not take any human lives. One of the terrorist is in critical condition (but I did say human so I will ignore him). If executed, the London bombings would have been even more heinous. A car bomb set to explode outside a popular night club on ladies night. The car was filled with screws and ball bearings to maximize damage. Learning from the Palestinians, these animals placed a second car to go off a few minutes after the first, to get police and ambulances on their way to aid the victims of the original car bomb.

The talking heads found people too blame for this almost horrific challenges, how hard it is to be a minority community in Britain, the need for more interreligious dialogue, frankly after that it became something like "blah, blah , blah. "

Let me explain some of the reasons there were almost three tragic car bombings in Great Britain over the weekend and why I wouldn't not be surprised here was one in the US tomorrow or the next day.

For people like Juan Williams of Fox who tried to blame the rejection of the Immigration bill on some sort of racial, anti-Mexican feelings, "wake up and smell the oatmeal" the reason 75% of the country rejected that silly bill is we want to keep the terrorists OUT. For years Britain had porous boarders and no immigration policy. Because of that it has become kind of a transportation hub for exporting terror across the western world. We do need an immigration bill but first we need find a way to protect our borders and find out which illegal immigrants are in the country. Oh And I am tired of hearing we can't find 12 million immigrants. Folks you know how every 2-3 years there is a California fruit fly crisis. And the report is always like they saw 3 flies and one of which is a female. Well if the Department of agriculture can find 3 bugs in the great state of California AND tell if one of them is a female we can find 12 million humans. Maybe we should be able to ban Illegal immigrants from getting services, entering school, welfare etc. Hell When I go to the DMV and use a blue pen instead of a black pen I get sent to the back of the line. People who break the law (thats why they are called Illegal) should not receive government services, they should be given a black pen, sent home and go to the end of the line.

Political Correctness. When he still "had a pair" the president used to say either you are with us or against us in the war on terror. That should be applied here to. Too many Democratic leaders refuse to acknowledge that there is even a war on terror. I keep on making fun of John Edwards bumper sticker line but guess what Sen. Biden (D-DE) was one of the four Democratic candidates at the April 2007 debate to say he does not believe in the war on terror., .Rep. Kucinich (D-OH) “the global war on terror has been a pretext for aggressive war” and that as president he would reject “war as an instrument of policy.”Obama called the Bush’s response to 9/11 “conventional thinking of the past, largely viewing problems as state-based and principally amenable to military solutions.” As a result of the actions taken under the auspices of the war on terror, Obama says, “the world has lost trust in our purposes and our principles."

To solve a problem you have to recognize there is Britain they don't recognize the problem, and in the US we are doomed to repeat the British tragedy, because we don't recognize the problem either.

Déjà Vu: Apologists Unfurl Stale Arguments


July 2, 2007

Moments after the latest terror attack on Britain, television commentators engaged in the usual rhetorical hara-kiri, blaming everyone but its authors: the two Muslim jihadists jumping out of a burning car at Glasgow's international airport ululating "Allah! Allah!" — even as one of them was barbecued — and the European Union's vast Muslim fundamentalist infrastructure, which spawned them.

The initial discussions of the three car bombs — two in central London were defused, unexploded — were déjà vu writ large: Blaming the victims, criticizing British foreign policy offenses that might have "driven" British Muslims to kill their countrymen, highlighting the frustrations of minority communities forced to live in the West, and renewing calls for — yes, indeed — more interreligious dialogue.

It was not much better in America. With live images of the Glasgow International Airport fires blazing away, American networks hosted the so-called experts who, again, explained the "torment" of poor Muslims. Disgracefully, one guest — Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst who is a familiar face now whenever instant analysis is needed — droned on about the many reasons Muslims are "so" offended by this or that behavior in the West.

Mr. Scheuer's mindless diatribe, unquestionably motivated by the need to land consulting contracts in Muslim country, pushed a Fox News anchorwoman, Michelle Malkin, to interject something akin to "Let us not blame the victims now." But it was not enough to stop the rant.

But so the story goes: Whenever it comes to Muslims, commentators feel the need for obfuscation. It reaches absurd proportions in Britain, but America is certainly its sideshow.

Last Christmas, Britain's Channel 4 network gave us another example of the mind-boggling confusion over where democracy and freedom of expression end, and indecency begins. It offered an "alternative" to Queen Elizabeth's traditional Christmas message broadcast on the other television stations, and gave national airtime to a living symbol of the war against Britain from the inside: a faceless woman, identified only as "Khadija," who addressed the nation covered in a full black niqab that showed just the slit of her eyes.

The so-called liberal owners of Channel 4 gave this living symbol of menacing, radical jihadism a full seven minutes to explain to us uncivilized folks about how she felt "liberated" by all her enveloping garb and her gender's reduced status, as well as how Islam is far superior to the infidel religions of the British. The most distressing part of this charade was how journalists at Channel 4 — and even a few among my own British acquaintances — thought this travesty was an appropriate parallel to the queen's Christmas message. One of the most absurd examples has been the months taken by the Minneapolis Airport Authority to discuss whether about 700 Somali Muslim taxi drivers who service the busy transportation hub had a "sharia right" to refuse to transport passengers carrying alcohol or blind travelers with seeing-eye dogs. A sheik has issued a fatwa against both — regardless of whether the drivers live in America or Saudi Arabia — because it insults the Prophet Muhammad and his religion.

That such facts were felt to require discussion at all is where the Achilles' heel of Western civilization lies. Accommodate such an order? Why? In some English schools, suggestions to stop teaching about the Holocaust or the Christian Crusades are being advanced because the topics may offend Muslim sensibilities. Just as important, successive Arab kings, and royal families have been given a green light to fund mosques in Britain without a single British prime minister asking for even a single church to be built in Arabia. This is the kind of confused Western liberalism that has transformed large parts of Britain into ideal areas for terrorist recruitment, where cockamamie sheiks preach to Pakistani or other Muslim constituencies about the need to kill and maim fellow British citizens in the name of Islam, all while hiding under the shield of Western democracy.

But so it goes: Attacks on the West from the inside will not stop so long as liberal apologists continue to produce justifications for fundamentalist Muslims who confuse their right to enjoy the liberty of the West with a need to confiscate the rights of everyone else.

July 2, 2007 Edition > Section: Foreign > Printer-Friendly Version

1 comment:

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

YWL: first off, I blogrolled you into my Usual Suspects list a couple weeks ago.

Second, ALL of the items you mention dovetail completely and make total sense -- except to those who, I feel, are simply too brain addled to understand the threat as presented directly to their faces.

In a number of cases I believe Liberals and, in the specific instance of the US, Democrats believe as they do not necessarily because they are inherently Evil or because they necessarily seek the downfall of their very own country, but because I think their most base, fundamental, prevailing philosophies are totally and irreversibly flawed and surrounded by a naive and uneducated view of the realities of the world and other cultures.

In other words, they believe that EVERY person, EVERY culture thinks PRECISELY as THEY do -- which is remarkably ignorant. They still believe that any two parties can sit down at a Starbucks over a nice latte and come to any reasonable conclusion to any problem.

They are everything BUT realists.