Following international law and rules of fundamental decency has done nothing to stop the murder.

Israeli forces arrested nearly one-third of the Hamas-led Palestinian Cabinet and 20 lawmakers early Thursday and pressed their incursion into Gaza, responding to the abduction of one of its soldiers.

* * *

Adding to the tension, a Palestinian militant group said it killed an 18-year-old Jewish settler kidnapped in the West Bank. Israeli security officials said Eliahu Asheri's body was found buried near Ramallah. They said he was shot in the head, apparently soon after he was abducted on Sunday.

I have begun to wonder if perhaps these officials should be returned to the Terrorstinian Anarchy in precisely the same condition as Eliahu Ashen was found by the Israelis.

After all, civilized behavior has not worked to stop the terror, despite incredible concessions.

Maybe it is time to try some massive retaliation.

MORE AT Strata-spehre, Alamo Nation, Stop the ACLU, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Michelle Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 10:53 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 2 kb.

President Bush offered a defense of a secret program to track terrorists after that secrecy was blown by journalists more concerned about headlines than national security.

"What we did was fully authorized under the law," Bush said in an angry tone as he leaned forward in his chair and wagged his finger. "And the disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it, does great harm to the United States of America."

Bush denied overstepping his bounds by not seeking court or congressional approval for the program in the nearly five years since it was established following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "What we were doing was the right thing," he said. "Congress was aware of it, and we were within the law to do so."

The program operated under the provisions of both the Patriot act and financial surveilance legislation signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. Not even the Times has offered serious questions regarding its legality, but simply placed th "public's right to know" above the "public's right to safety".

That has not, however, stopped some Democrat extremists from engaging in irresponsible innuendo about the program.

Critics said Bush was trying to divert attention from his own actions. Bush, Cheney and other Republicans "have adopted a shoot-the-messenger strategy by attacking the newspaper that revealed the existence of the secret bank surveillance program rather than answering the disturbing questions that those reports raise about possible violations of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. privacy laws," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.).

Markey, who has served in Congress since 1976, voted in favor of both pieces of legislation that authorized this sort of surveillance.

Vice President Cheney offered a principled denunciation of the Times for its unprincipled actions.

"Some of the press, in particular the New York Times, have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security programs," Cheney said at a Republican fundraiser in Nebraska.

Referring to the NSA program, he added: "What is doubly disturbing for me is that not only have they gone forward with these stories, but they've been rewarded for it, for example, in the case of the terrorist surveillance program, by being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for outstanding journalism. I think that is a disgrace."

Each new national security blockbuster story has served to make America les safe, yet has resulted in professional accolades for the reporters involved. It ultimately boils down to a simple question -- does the right to freedom of the press carry with it a responsibility to exercise restraint in the interest of public safety? The Supreme Court once recognized the the publication of vital national security information could be limited by the government -- and in that case Rep Peter King's suggestion of investigation of the treasonous activities of the New York Times might be in order.

Interestingly enough, members of the media are not at all pleased that some might question their patriotism, motives, or right to publish sensitive secret data. I guess they don't feel that our right to free speech is nearly as important as their right to freedom of the press. I'm sure they were unhappy about Tony Snow's defense of the First Amendment which raised the need for the press to exercise restraint.

"It's not designed to have a chilling effect," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "If the New York Times wants a spirited debate about it, it's got it. But certainly nobody is going to deny First Amendment rights. But the New York Times and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public's right to know, in some cases, might overwrite somebody's right to live."

Indeed, how many lives have and will be lost due to the publication decisions of the New York Times?

Captain Ed notes that this program is exactly in line with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Here's what the 9/11 Commission recommended (page 382):

I wonder -- do Sulzberger, Keller, and the rest of the Times staff play poker with all cards face up?

Posted by: Greg at 11:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 848 words, total size 6 kb.

Michelle Malkin posted some WWII posters supporting the war effort. I picked one from a collection of posters I've used with my classes, and so offer my Photoshopped contribution to the condemnation of those who care more about the next big scoop than national security.

'Nuff said.

OTHER EFFORTS AT: NCASDco Sanctuary, Bookworm Room, Darleen's Place, Plains Feeder, Solomonia, A Tic In The Mind's Eye, MVRWC, Mind In The Qatar, Blogs of War, California Conservative, Stuck On Stupid, Super Fun Power Hour, Right Voices, Jo's Cafe, Slapstick Politics, Stop The ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 04:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 2 kb.

I realize that it will always be 9/10/2001 for members of the mainstream press -- especially the upper-crust like the NY Times. After all, they seem to have forgotten the demands that the US government do something-- anything -- to track down terrorists in the wake of the worst terror attacks to have ever taken place on American soil.

Now they want to criticize efforts to hunt down and root out the terrorists -- and to publish more classified material on the front page of their papers.

Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.

Hidden, of course, because publicizing the program would make it useless to investigators and aid terrorists in covering their tracks.

Oh, and by the way -- the program is conducted under the authority of legislation signed by Jimmy Carter nearly 30 years ago.

Under the program, Treasury issues a new subpoena once a month, and SWIFT turns over huge amounts of electronic financial data, according to Stuart Levey, the department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence. The administrative subpoenas are issued under authority granted in the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

So this is not some rogue program dreamed up by Karl Rove in a Machiavellian attempt to undermine the privacy of Americans -- it exists because a Democrat house and Democrat Senate passed legislation that was signed by a Democrat president for the good of American national security. But I guess the press thinks it knows better what the security needs of the United States are -- or is it the security needs of the terrorists that they are concerned about?

MORE AT Michelle Malkin, Media Blog, Protein Wisdom, Small Town Veteran, Dental Blog, Webblogin, Hard Starboard, All Things Beautiful, Rolling Bones, Homemade Sin, PoliPundit, Politics of CP

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 472 words, total size 4 kb.

Looks like the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have taken a group of homegrown jihadis into custody.

Seven people are in custody after a sweep by law enforcement authorities in connection with an alleged plot against targets that may have included the Sears Tower, officials told CNN.

Officials said no weapons or bomb-making materials had been found in the searches in the Miami area by FBI and state and local law enforcement officials. The city is under no imminent threat, according to the FBI.

Law enforcement sources told CNN that the arrests disrupted what may have been the early stages of a domestic terrorist plot to attack the Sears Tower in Chicago, Illinois, the FBI building in Miami, and possibly other targets.

Now for those (invariably on the Left) who object that the lack of bomb-making material indicates there was no threat, I'd like to ask -- would you feel the same way if this were a group of anti-abortion zealots arrested for plotting clinic bombings (a much more rare phenomenon)? Especially if there wre known targets.

What sort of things were observed that led to these arrests?

Neighbors who lived nearby said young men, who appeared to be in their teens and 20s, slept in the warehouse, running what looked like a militaristic group. They appeared brainwashed, some said.

"They would come out late at night and exercise," said Tashawn Rose, 29. "It seemed like a military boot camp that they were working on there. They would come out and stand guard."

The law enforcement official told The Associated Press the seven were mainly Americans with no apparent ties to al-Qaida or other foreign terrorist organizations. He spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt the news conferences.

"There is no imminent threat to Miami or any other area because of these operations," said Richard Kolko, spokesman for FBI headquarters in Washington. He declined further comment.

Residents living near the warehouse said the men taken into custody described themselves as Muslims and had tried to recruit young people to join their group. Rose said they tried to recruit her younger brother and nephew for a karate class.

Sounds like a real group of loons -- but also very similar o the group arrested in Canada. I wonder if we won't be let in on some connection to the Canadian group later today.

Captain Ed points to this local report from Miami.

A man who lives across the street from the warehouse where the search warrant was served described the suspects as an unusual group of men, almost cultist, who wore military-style clothes and kept to themselves.

''They reminded me a lot of the followers of Yahweh Ben Yahweh,'' he said, referring to a cult that flourished in Miami's Liberty City in the 1980s and spawned a reign of terror in the neighborhood.

''They have like a purpose or something,'' said the man, who would not give his name for fear of retribution.

The 12 to 15 men in their 20's and 30s appeared to be from Haiti and from the Bahamas.

''I bet they've gone across the water'' he said, believing some had escaped the federal agents.

I wonder if these folks have already been run to ground.

Michell Malkin points out that this is not the first such group arrestd here in the US. Hugh Hewitt provides a good round-up from around the blogosphere.

Posted by: Greg at 10:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 581 words, total size 4 kb.

Because they operate in violation of the Geneva Conventions, of course.

Not every detainee can be put on trial. But those who plan, assist or participate in acts of terrorism can face charges under the laws of war. Where trials are possible, criminal convictions provide a more legitimate basis for long-term incarceration than any kind of detention without charge. Trials also provide public accountability for unspeakable crimes and plots -- that is, they provide a measure of justice.

The administration is correct that U.S. federal courts often will not be the right venue for such trials. Evidence collected in the rough and tumble of a shooting war doesn't always meet the rigorous standards that courts here rightly demand. The government may have good reason to withhold witnesses or classified information. Given that foreigners abroad do not have full constitutional rights, the administration's impulse to create an alternative trial mechanism with some flexibility was reasonable. Had it gone to Congress and sought authorization to use a variation of military courts-martial, with clear rules and a codification of the offenses such tribunals were to judge, it might today have a vibrant system of justice at Guantanamo Bay.

Instead, the administration sought to rewrite the rules from scratch and revive a system of trial not seen since the World War II era. The reason for this fateful error was largely ideological: The White House wished not merely to conduct trials but also to emphasize the president's power to do it on his own.

Consequently, the executive branch alone has defined the offenses to be tried by commission and it alone has written the trial rules, which have shifted repeatedly. The legality of the system has been in doubt from its inception. And while the rules have improved over time, they still permit unfairness. The result: a system that inspires little confidence here or abroad and that in five years has yet to produce one trial.

Even if the Supreme Court erases the cloud of legal uncertainty in the coming days, it makes no sense to proceed in this fashion. Instead, Congress should write a law clarifying that courts-martial will try these cases and modifying the model if necessary. The military uses this system to try its own personnel every day. More than the commissions, courts-martial would guarantee due process to detainees: the right to challenge evidence, a full appeal to the federal courts. Trials by court-martial are accepted around the world as fair.

At the same time, the system could be modified to take into account the government's needs in a continuing war. These might give prosecutors more leeway to use hearsay evidence in some cases, or to protect intelligence secrets. There may be circumstances when the accused will need to be excluded from proceedings and have his interests represented by counsel cleared to handle sensitive information. But such departures from traditional trial rules should be narrowly drawn. They should be the product of a deliberative legislative process, not a fiat from the executive branch; written into law, not existing as rules the Pentagon can change whenever convenient.

The conflict with Islamic extremists will not be over soon. The nation needs now, and will continue to need, a means to try some of the most fateful criminals of all time according to fair rules that bear the stamp of democratic approval: legislative enactment. Only the administration's rigidly ideological approach to this problem prevents its timely resolution.

The only problem with the Post’s position is that it is 100% wrong, and seeks to create a new justice system at odds with the traditional manner used by the United States for dealing with unlawful combatants. These folks are not criminals in the traditional sense, and have no rights or expectation of being allowed the protections of the US Constitution, which they seek to destroy. Instead, they merit nothing more than the justice approved by the Supreme Court in the Quirin case during WWII – a trial before a military tribunal, appealed directly to the President, followed by a quick execution. Unless, of course, the Washington Post seeks this a new system today because finds the terrorists more to its liking than the genocidal Hitler regime, or is less supportive of the war we fight because of the 9/11 attack than it was of the war fought following Pearl Harbor.

Personally, I believe that if the tribunal system was good enough for spies and saboteurs sent to destroy the United States by Hitler, it is good enough for the jihadi swine that have made war upon our nation today. How can anyone disagree with such a proposition?

Ed Morrissey examines the historical implementation of these tribunals quite well.

In wartime, no enemy has any right to a trial until the war has finished. For instance, the British did not try Rudolf Hess in 1941 despite his one-man invasion of Britain. The Brits simply kept him imprisoned in the Tower until the Nuremberg trials sentenced him to life imprisonment. Hess, as Deputy Fuhrer, had no need of tribunal for that imprisonment, and the British had no need to try him until after victory had been secured.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has no right to trial or even to an administrative hearing during wartime. The Bush administration has correctly determined that al-Qaeda (and its affiliated terrorist groups) is an enemy at war, and that those who have identified themselves as leaders have given the US all it needs to hold them indefinitely. Trying to give them a right to a trial in the middle of a war does not serve victory or even legitimacy, but instead undermines the truth. In order to provide a legitimate trial, the defendant has to have a chance of being released if no conviction can be obtained. Does the Post truly think that the US and the war effort will be served by Mohammed's release if a court cannot make a specific trial determination of his connection to an act of war (9/11)? If the Post doesn't agree to his release under that circumstance, then isn't insisting on a trial a highly cycnical and hypocritical act?

We need to remember that Islamist terrorists declared war on the US almost a decade ago and initiated a series of escalating attacks on us to prosecute it. That effort culminated in 9/11, which the Bush administration correctly determined as an act of war. We need to continue fighting it as a war. We do not need to make ourselves feel good by pretending that our enemy has the same legal standing as urban gangs.

Indeed, following the course proposed by the Washington Post can have result in only two things – sham trials of terrorist defendants or the undercutting of the war effort in the courtroom. Neither is acceptable.

Posted by: Greg at 08:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1143 words, total size 7 kb.

Because they operate in violation of the Geneva Conventions, of course.

Not every detainee can be put on trial. But those who plan, assist or participate in acts of terrorism can face charges under the laws of war. Where trials are possible, criminal convictions provide a more legitimate basis for long-term incarceration than any kind of detention without charge. Trials also provide public accountability for unspeakable crimes and plots -- that is, they provide a measure of justice.

The administration is correct that U.S. federal courts often will not be the right venue for such trials. Evidence collected in the rough and tumble of a shooting war doesn't always meet the rigorous standards that courts here rightly demand. The government may have good reason to withhold witnesses or classified information. Given that foreigners abroad do not have full constitutional rights, the administration's impulse to create an alternative trial mechanism with some flexibility was reasonable. Had it gone to Congress and sought authorization to use a variation of military courts-martial, with clear rules and a codification of the offenses such tribunals were to judge, it might today have a vibrant system of justice at Guantanamo Bay.

Instead, the administration sought to rewrite the rules from scratch and revive a system of trial not seen since the World War II era. The reason for this fateful error was largely ideological: The White House wished not merely to conduct trials but also to emphasize the president's power to do it on his own.

Consequently, the executive branch alone has defined the offenses to be tried by commission and it alone has written the trial rules, which have shifted repeatedly. The legality of the system has been in doubt from its inception. And while the rules have improved over time, they still permit unfairness. The result: a system that inspires little confidence here or abroad and that in five years has yet to produce one trial.

Even if the Supreme Court erases the cloud of legal uncertainty in the coming days, it makes no sense to proceed in this fashion. Instead, Congress should write a law clarifying that courts-martial will try these cases and modifying the model if necessary. The military uses this system to try its own personnel every day. More than the commissions, courts-martial would guarantee due process to detainees: the right to challenge evidence, a full appeal to the federal courts. Trials by court-martial are accepted around the world as fair.

At the same time, the system could be modified to take into account the government's needs in a continuing war. These might give prosecutors more leeway to use hearsay evidence in some cases, or to protect intelligence secrets. There may be circumstances when the accused will need to be excluded from proceedings and have his interests represented by counsel cleared to handle sensitive information. But such departures from traditional trial rules should be narrowly drawn. They should be the product of a deliberative legislative process, not a fiat from the executive branch; written into law, not existing as rules the Pentagon can change whenever convenient.

The conflict with Islamic extremists will not be over soon. The nation needs now, and will continue to need, a means to try some of the most fateful criminals of all time according to fair rules that bear the stamp of democratic approval: legislative enactment. Only the administration's rigidly ideological approach to this problem prevents its timely resolution.

The only problem with the Post’s position is that it is 100% wrong, and seeks to create a new justice system at odds with the traditional manner used by the United States for dealing with unlawful combatants. These folks are not criminals in the traditional sense, and have no rights or expectation of being allowed the protections of the US Constitution, which they seek to destroy. Instead, they merit nothing more than the justice approved by the Supreme Court in the Quirin case during WWII – a trial before a military tribunal, appealed directly to the President, followed by a quick execution. Unless, of course, the Washington Post seeks this a new system today because finds the terrorists more to its liking than the genocidal Hitler regime, or is less supportive of the war we fight because of the 9/11 attack than it was of the war fought following Pearl Harbor.

Personally, I believe that if the tribunal system was good enough for spies and saboteurs sent to destroy the United States by Hitler, it is good enough for the jihadi swine that have made war upon our nation today. How can anyone disagree with such a proposition?

Ed Morrissey examines the historical implementation of these tribunals quite well.

In wartime, no enemy has any right to a trial until the war has finished. For instance, the British did not try Rudolf Hess in 1941 despite his one-man invasion of Britain. The Brits simply kept him imprisoned in the Tower until the Nuremberg trials sentenced him to life imprisonment. Hess, as Deputy Fuhrer, had no need of tribunal for that imprisonment, and the British had no need to try him until after victory had been secured.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has no right to trial or even to an administrative hearing during wartime. The Bush administration has correctly determined that al-Qaeda (and its affiliated terrorist groups) is an enemy at war, and that those who have identified themselves as leaders have given the US all it needs to hold them indefinitely. Trying to give them a right to a trial in the middle of a war does not serve victory or even legitimacy, but instead undermines the truth. In order to provide a legitimate trial, the defendant has to have a chance of being released if no conviction can be obtained. Does the Post truly think that the US and the war effort will be served by Mohammed's release if a court cannot make a specific trial determination of his connection to an act of war (9/11)? If the Post doesn't agree to his release under that circumstance, then isn't insisting on a trial a highly cycnical and hypocritical act?

We need to remember that Islamist terrorists declared war on the US almost a decade ago and initiated a series of escalating attacks on us to prosecute it. That effort culminated in 9/11, which the Bush administration correctly determined as an act of war. We need to continue fighting it as a war. We do not need to make ourselves feel good by pretending that our enemy has the same legal standing as urban gangs.

Indeed, following the course proposed by the Washington Post can have result in only two things – sham trials of terrorist defendants or the undercutting of the war effort in the courtroom. Neither is acceptable.

Posted by: Greg at 08:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1154 words, total size 7 kb.

After all, the Iranians sent little kids into minefield during the Iran-Iraq War with promises of paradise -- why should we be surprised at this Taliban attempt to make martyrs out of unarmed innocents?

TALEBAN fighters used women and children as human shields as they tried to escape into the mountains of Afghanistan, British troops claimed yesterday.

The tactics were revealed in the first account by those who fought in one of the main battles faced by the men of 3 Para and the Royal Gurkha Rifles in Helmand province, where 3,300 British troops are stationed.

The TalebanÂ’s use of human shields happened during a six-hour battle that began when British troops arrived in a remote area to flush out a suspected Taleban hideout.

They came under attack seven times and fired 2,000 rounds as the rebels set ambushes and opened fire with rocket-propelled grenades. About 21 Taleban were killed.

“It happened twice where they pushed women and children in front of them. The first time they ran into a compound and pushed them out the front to stop the assault,” said Corporal Quintin Poll, 29, from Norfolk.

“The second time they were firing through a building with women and children inside. My guys had to go around the left and right to get them.”

Details of the battle, which happened to the west of the town of Nauzad on June 4, were given by troops at the British base of Camp Bastion.

It took place in the run-up to Operation Mountain Thrust, in which 11,000 troops from Britain, US, Canada and Afghanistan are co-operating to clear Taleban strongholds in the province.

Captain Quarters' Ed Morrissey makes the following observation.

This has two purposes for the Taliban. First, it keeps Western forces from firing on them, as they know that Coalition troops will try to protect civilians where possible. Secondly as just as importantly from a strategic point of view, any women and children killed in the battle will almost certainly be blamed on the Western forces by the Western media. It allows the Taliban to continue their propaganda blitz against the West, one in which the media has unwittingly (in most cases) found themselves a pawn to the Islamists.

Men who throw women and children in the line of fire to protect themselves have no honor, no courage, and no claim to religious righteousness under any circumstances. It's high time that the West grows up and understands the cowardly nature of tyrannies and the people who impose them. It will give us much more clarity in the effort that needs to be made to rid ourselves of the craven ghouls who prey on civilian populations for their own delusions of grandeur.

I agree whole-heartedly -- and cannot help but be struck by the fact that pro-jihadi groups like CAIR demanded that the Marines investigate one of their own who dared to sing a song about using a child as a human shield -- but cannot be bothered to condemn the actual use of children as human shields.

Posted by: Greg at 10:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 516 words, total size 3 kb.

After reading this, I can guarantee I will personally kick the crap out of anyone attempting to draw moral equivalence betwee the US military and the jihadi swine who perpetrated these actions.

he bodies of two U.S. soldiers found in Iraq Monday night were mutilated and booby-trapped, military sources said Tuesday.

Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, Texas, and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Oregon, went missing after a Friday attack on a traffic control checkpoint in Yusufiya, 12 miles (20 kilometers) south of Baghdad.

The sources said the two men had suffered severe trauma.

The bodies also had been desecrated and a visual identification was impossible -- part of the reason DNA testing was being conducted to verify their identities, the sources said.

A tip from Iraqi civilians led officials to the bodies, military sources told CNN. The discovery was made about 7:30 p.m. Monday.

Not only were the bodies booby-trapped, but homemade bombs also lined the road leading to the victims, an apparent effort to complicate recovery efforts and target recovery teams, the sources said.

It took troops 12 hours to clear the area of roadside bombs. One of the bombs exploded, but there were no injuries.

Compare that with the honorable treatment we gave to the corpses of the jihadi cowards who suicided in Gitmo, and then talk to me about moral equivalence.

Posted by: Greg at 01:28 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

I wonder if this was the last thought of the jihadis who killed themselves at Gitmo?

But that there is even room to ask the question is enough to refute those who say that suicide violates the tenets of Islam.

Posted by: Greg at 02:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

Over at Big Lizards, Sachi gives us some analysis of the op/ed piece by Mourad Benchellali, a former Gitmo detainee.

Mourad Benchellali describes the despair, the incomprehension, and the torture he suffered at the hands of the Americans:

In Guantánamo, I did see some people for whom jihad is life itself, people whose minds are distorted by extremism and whose souls are full of hatred. But the huge majority of the faces I remember -- the ones that haunt my nights -- are of desperation, suffering, incomprehension turned into silent madness.

But the magnanimous fellow has not allowed his dreadful ordeal to poison his own mind. Like Ann Frank, in spite of everything, he still believes that Americans are really good at heart:

I am a quiet Muslim — I've never waged war, let alone an asymmetrical one. I wasn't anti-American before and, miraculously, I haven't become anti-American since.

So how exactly does Mr. Benchellali account for having ended up in Gitmo in the first place? He explains it all very poignantly:

I was seized by the Pakistani Army while having tea at a mosque shortly after I managed to cross the border. A few days later I was delivered to the United States Army: although I didn't know it at the time, I was now labeled an "enemy combatant." It did not matter that I was no one's enemy and had never been on a battlefield, let alone fought or aimed a weapon at anyone.

After two weeks in the American military base in Kandahar, Afghanistan, I was sent to Guantánamo, where I spent two and a half years. I cannot describe in just a few lines the suffering and the torture; but the worst aspect of being at the camp was the despair, the feeling that whatever you say, it will never make a difference.

Mr. Benchellali is correct when he says he cannot describe his torture in "just a few lines." Of course, he cannot seem to describe it in an entire New York Times op-ed, either, as he does not mention even a single instance of torture. Naturally, he has written a book; I'm sure that in the pages of the book, where he has a chance to spread himself, he describes all manner of horrible tortures he endured.

The first point of interest is that, although he begins by saying "I was released from the United States military's prison camp at Guantánamo Bay," what he actually means is that he was released into French custody -- for he is to stand trial in France for attending an al-Qaeda training camp, which he does not deny (he says he went there by mistake, tricked by his brother into thinking it was an Afghan Club Med or somesuch).

So we have a guy here who tells us he was tortured and witnessed torture but does not describe a single instance of torture. That, as Sachi indicates, should be a clue that the claims of torture are just so much garbage. But of course, we then find that Benchellali is apparently guilty of being a student at an alQaeda training camp, and tha the evidence is so clear that even the weak-kneed French are willing to put him on trial for his terrorist involvement. (I'm surprised they didn't offer an unconditional surrender to Benchellali as he deplaned, given their history -- maybe there is still a French national spine). Clearly, we are not looking at an innocent.

But then Sachi makes a connection for us. It appears that the rest of the Benchellali family is either in prison or on trial in France for involvement in jihadi activity. This old NY Times article gives us some background on Daddy Jihadi and the rest of the clan.

When Chellali Benchellali moved to France 41 years ago his path seemed clear enough. Escaping the misery of his native Algeria, he hoped to get a job, marry, raise a family and blend into the French melting pot.

He got part way there. But for the last six months Mr. Benchellali has been in a high-security French prison along with his wife and two of his sons, all accused of helping to plot a chemical attack in the style of Al Qaeda in Europe. A third son has just been released from the American detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, one of four Frenchmen handed over to the French authorities this week.

The family's journey from yearning immigrants to alleged Islamic militants - accused of harboring a makeshift laboratory in their suburban Lyon apartment, where one son was said to have been trying to make biological and chemical bombs - is an extreme but still emblematic manifestation of a quiet crisis spreading through Europe's growing Arab underclass.

So do you want to try to tell me that poor baby Mourad is just some innocent caught up in forces beyond his control? And given the extent of this family's involvement as foot-soldiers in the Jihadi War of Terror (as opposed to the West's War on Terror), do you put it past Mourad Benchellali to lie about his experiences at Gitmo in order to gain a propaganda victory?

Now as Sachi points out, the editors of the New York Times didn't bother telling their readers that this op/ed piece was written by a man that the paper had identified by the paper as a part of the web of jihadi terror less than two years ago. They didn't tell their readers that most of the family is somehow involved. And they didn't tell folks that one of the major witnesses agains the family is Mourad Benchellali's OWN MOTHER. I guess such details are irrelevant when they might reflect poorly on the anti-American slant of their pet jihadi -- and their editorial policy.

I'm curious -- did the NY Times publish op/eds by Nazis during WWII?

ADDENDUM: Sachi offers a big tip of the hat to John Noonan of News Busters. I think the first comment on the article raises a point that answers itself.

Let's see, I hope they give their own countrymen the opportunity to opine - like the Marines involved with the Haditha incident, or Karl Rove, or Scotter Libby, or perhaps Ann Coulter.....

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Conservative Cat, Samantha Burns, Stuck On Stupid, Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog, Dumb Ox, Lil Duck Duck, Third World County, Blue Star Chronicles, Echo9er, Cigar Intelligence Agency, Stop the ACLU, Wizbang, Gribbit's World, Assorted Babble, Pursuing Holiness

Posted by: Greg at 02:19 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1101 words, total size 8 kb.

They don't want the US governemt looking too closely at mosques and Islamic groups to find terrorist connections -- but they do want a full investigation of a video of a Marine singing a repulsive song.

A Marine seen in an Internet video singing about killing members

Cpl. Joshua Belile, 23, apologized and said the song was not tied in any way to allegations that Marines killed 24 unarmed civilians in Haditha last year.

"It's a song that I made up and it was nothing more than something supposed to be funny, based off a catchy line of a movie," he said in Wednesday's Daily News of Jacksonville.

In the four-minute video called "Hadji Girl," a singer who appears to be a Marine tells a cheering audience about gunning down members of an Iraqi woman's family after they confront him with automatic weapons.

Maj. Shawn Haney, a Marine spokeswoman, said Wednesday the Marine Corps was looking into the matter. "The video, which was posted anonymously, is clearly inappropriate and contrary to the high standards expected of all Marines," she said in a statement.

Clearly, the song is in poor taste. Arguably, it merits some sort of disciplinary action. But it is not that big a deal -- such musical forays against the enemy have been a part of militry culture probably since at least the time of the Babylonian Empire. The spreading of the song on the internet is unfortunate, but hardly an attrocity that needs serious investigation.

But you wouldn't know that from the response of thes folks.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called on the Pentagon and Congress to investigate a music video posted on the Internet that seems to show U.S. Marines cheering a song that glorifies the killing of Iraqi civilians.

CAIR said the four-minute video, called "hadji girl," purports to be a "marine in iraq singing a song about hadji." (A "Hajji" is a person who has made the Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca, but the term has often been used as a pejorative by U.S. troops in Iraq.) The song, posted online in March, tells of a U.S. Marine's encounter with an Iraqi woman. It has been viewed by almost 50,000 people.

Those priorities sem pretty clear -- don't investigate Muslims for terrorism, investigate mean and insensitive words against us.

F

Posted by: Greg at 10:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

But US Muslims are still complaining that law enforcement dares to give their communities heightened scrutiny, even though there are terrorist groups within.

U.S. intelligence and law enforcement authorities are discovering new home-grown cells of Islamist radicals in the United States that draw inspiration and moral support from al Qaeda, officials said on Tuesday.

Like local terrorism cells that have recently come to light in Canada and Europe, officials said the groups are comprised of disaffected young men in their teens and 20s who rely on the Internet to try to organize and plan potential attacks on the U.S. homeland.

Concern about attacks inside the United States gathered pace after the arrest earlier this month in Canada of 17 men -- all Canadian citizens or residents -- accused of planning al Qaeda-inspired attacks across densely populated southern Ontario.

Scott Redd, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said in a written statement to the Senate that the emergence of home-grown terrorist groups is posing "real challenges" for U.S. authorities despite law enforcement successes at disrupting potential attacks.

"We are grappling with a whole new set of questions: what forces give rise to this violent ideology in immigrant communities that may appear otherwise to be quite well assimilated? ... What signs should we be looking for to try to draw early warning of potential problems?" the statement said.

In later oral testimony, Redd said home-grown cells were a new domestic phenomenon for which the FBI and law enforcement agencies had no "baseline" for measuring the scale of the problem.

Redd declined to discuss details with senators in public but cited recent arrests of terrorism suspects in California and Georgia.

"That's three in a little over a year, and there are obviously other investigations ongoing," Redd told the committee.

The problem seems to be endemic to the Muslim community. That is not a statement based upon hate or bias -- it is based upon the facts that are presenting themselves. That means there is an obvious need to give greater scrutiny to and devote more resourses to investigating Muslim individuals and groups.

These terrorist cells are not appearing at St. Bridget's Catholic Church, Beth Israel Synagogue, or the local Hindu orBuddhist temples. They are being found in mosques and other Muslim groups. They are generally composed of young Muslim men. So lets look at those most likely to be terrorists, and do so openly and unapologetically.

And if the Muslim community wants the heightened scrutiny to stop, they can drop a dime on each and every individual who they see exhibiting the militant tendencies that are signs of potential involvement in such activities. And if they cannot bring themselves to do that, then they had better get used to heightened scrutiny of every Muslim.

After all, we are in a fight for national and cultural survival. This is no time to worry about the sensitivities of those whose communities are rife with terrorists.

Posted by: Greg at 11:09 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 502 words, total size 3 kb.

An Israeli court has granted permission for the assassin of Yitzhak Rabin to have a child with his wife through artificial insemination.

Personally, I don’t think such terrorist pigs (and Yigal Amir is every bit the terrorist al-Zarqawi was) should be permitted to pass on their foul genetic code, but that isn’t the why I’m writing. Instead, I want to know about this curious claim made by Amir regarding his role in a plot to smuggle sperm out of his prison so that his wife could become pregnant.

In March, Amir was sentenced to 30 days without any visitors and 14 days without telephone calls and fined NIS 100 after prison officers caught him trying to smuggle sperm samples to his wife.

The Israel Prison Service had already said that in principle it would allow Amir and Trimbobler to have a child by artificial insemination, although it twice warned him not to give samples before the process had been arranged.

After Amir had denied participating in the smuggling attempt, the Prisons Authority showed him tapes from jail security cameras that clearly documented the incident. Upon seeing the tapes, Amir withdrew his request for the second hearing.

Denied participating in the smuggling attempt. Then where did the. . . uhhhh. . . sample come from? That is a purely academic question on my part – I have no interest in seeing whatever is on the tapes that “documented the incident.”

Posted by: Greg at 09:12 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

An Israeli court has granted permission for the assassin of Yitzhak Rabin to have a child with his wife through artificial insemination.

Personally, I donÂ’t think such terrorist pigs (and Yigal Amir is every bit the terrorist al-Zarqawi was) should be permitted to pass on their foul genetic code, but that isnÂ’t the why IÂ’m writing. Instead, I want to know about this curious claim made by Amir regarding his role in a plot to smuggle sperm out of his prison so that his wife could become pregnant.

In March, Amir was sentenced to 30 days without any visitors and 14 days without telephone calls and fined NIS 100 after prison officers caught him trying to smuggle sperm samples to his wife.

The Israel Prison Service had already said that in principle it would allow Amir and Trimbobler to have a child by artificial insemination, although it twice warned him not to give samples before the process had been arranged.

After Amir had denied participating in the smuggling attempt, the Prisons Authority showed him tapes from jail security cameras that clearly documented the incident. Upon seeing the tapes, Amir withdrew his request for the second hearing.

Denied participating in the smuggling attempt. Then where did the. . . uhhhh. . . sample come from? That is a purely academic question on my part – I have no interest in seeing whatever is on the tapes that “documented the incident.”

Posted by: Greg at 09:12 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

Of all the absurd historical analogies offered by jihadi terrorists and their supporters, this one from jihad-apologist Tariq Ramadan takes the cake.

A LEADING Muslim scholar yesterday said anti-Islamic feeling in Europe was beginning to resemble anti-Semitism prior to the Second World War.

"My feeling is that what we heard in the 1920s and 1930s about the Jews is coming back about the Muslims," said Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss academic who heads the European Muslim Network.

Professor Ramadan made headlines after authorities in the United States cited security reasons for revoking a visa to travel there in 2004.

He is a critic of the US role in Iraq, but says he is a moderate who opposes terrorism and does not support Islamic extremism.

Well yes, professor, the two situations are exactly the same. After all, there were Jews worldwide strapping on suicide belts and murdering innocents in the name of their violent death-cult.

Oh, wait – no there weren’t.

I guess that makes anti-Semitism an irrational hatred, while anti-Islamic views are a rational response to the attempt to destroy western civilization undertaken by the jihadi swine you support with such nonsense.

Posted by: Greg at 09:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.

If you want any evidence that truth and decency are not in the hearts or minds of the jihadi terrorists, you need look no further than this claim.

THREE Muslims said to have committed suicide in a Guantanamo Bay prison would not have violated Islam by taking their own lives and must have been killed by their US captors, the Taliban said today.
"We can't accept that they have committed suicide," a purported spokesman for the Islamist Taliban movement in Afghanistan, Mohammad Hanif, said.

"No Muslim, no mujahid (holy warrior), can commit suicide. It's banned under Islamic Sharia law," said Hanif, who is often in contact with the media from a secret location.

The Guantanamo Bay commander said the "war on terror" suspects - a Yemeni and two Saudis - were found dead in their cells yesterday and had hanged themselves with clothes and bed sheets.

Hanif said there a clear difference between committing suicide and carrying out suicide attacks against "infidels".

"Those carrying out suicide attacks are targeting infidels," he said, distinguishing this from suicide just to "relieve oneself from suffering".

"The trio, three Arabs, the US says have committed suicide - it is not true. They've been killed by their captors," Hanif said.

"A mujahid is committed to struggle to the last moment of his life."

Andf I hope each of them struggled to get the ropes from their necks as they smelled the first whiff of brimstone on their journey to Allah. For you see, every last "mujahid" pig is a coward committed to the murder of innocents. The only difference between these dead jihadi swine and the ones who succeed in detonating a suicide vest is that the former failed to meet the murderous definition of "bravery" that the cowardly Koranic code they follow dictates.

Posted by: Greg at 03:26 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

According to this piece, not the various police and security agencies in the Western world. Rather it is Muslim terrorists who are responsible for responsible for heightened scrutiny of Muslims during this Crusade Against Jihadi Terror.

Consider the opening anecdote.

A television series I worked on in the 1980s employed an adorable, gentle and handsome researcher called Dermot who was fancied rotten by everyone in the office, and came from Northern Ireland. He travelled back and forth between London and Belfast to see his family by a variety of means, and on almost every journey was stopped, questioned, sometimes searched, when other English passengers were not. He was also, I recall, the only person whose accreditation was questioned and treble-checked when we were issued with press passes to enter a function attended by Princess Diana. Dermot was quiet, polite and unassuming and we were always furious on his behalf. Our producer put it to him that he must hate the British police force for this terrible discrimination. No, he said. He hated the IRA for forcing the police to discriminate against people like him on legitimate grounds of security.

If the many good Muslims in our society -- and around the world -- would feel this sort of outrage at the terrorists rather than at the authorities for looking at those who match the terrorist profile -- young Muslim men of Middle Eastern or East Asian extraction -- then maybe the terrorists could be exposed and eliminated, rendering such scrutiny unnecessary.

Posted by: Greg at 10:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

No.

I do.

Really.

I do wish I could care.

But all I can do is thank God that there are three fewer America-hating terrorists in the world.

Three prisoners at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have hanged themselves in what is being called a "planned event," the U.S. military has said.

They are the first confirmed deaths at the compound. Prisoners have attempted suicide in the past.

"Two Saudis and one Yemeni, each located in Camp 1, were found unresponsive and not breathing in their cells by guards," said a statement issued by Joint Task Force-Guantanamo on Saturday.

"Medical teams responded quickly and all three detainees were provided immediate emergency medical treatment in attempts to revive them. The three detainees were pronounced dead by a physician after all lifesaving measures had been exhausted," the statement said.

"This was clearly a planned event, not a spontaneous event," said Rear Adm. Harry Harris, commander of Joint Task Force-Guantanamo.

He added that there is a "mythical belief" that the Guantanamo detention center would be shut down if three detainees die.

Personally, I hink we need to issue every one of these terrorist swine a six-foot length of rope, and require that US troops wear gloves and provide it with an honor guard like they do for Korans. Guards should be strictly forbiddent to damage the rope -- including by cutting down any prisoner who chooses to hang himself. After all, we wouldn't want to violate the right of any of these prisoners to end their own lives -- and since self-detonation is religious ritual for them, we would simply be accommodating their faith while ensuring the safety of others. Call me pro-religious freedom and pro-choice.

And besides -- if they all kill themselves, then we can shut down the Gitmo camps. Wouldn't that make the Left and the "international community" happy and excited to the point of orgasm?

Posted by: Greg at 01:04 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess he was just outside the house or in some sheltered location when the bombs hit, so he briefly survived before heading off to his infernal reward.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist who led an al-Qaeda-affiliated group in Iraq, initially survived an airstrike that targeted his hideout north of Baghdad Wednesday, then died on a stretcher as U.S. troops prepared to give him medical assistance, a U.S. general said today.

Army Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, a top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said Zarqawi tried to roll off the stretcher and had to be restrained, mumbling something unintelligible, before he died of wounds received when a U.S. Air Force F-16 dropped two 500-pound bombs on his safe house late Wednesday. Initial reports were that Zarqawi died instantly in the bombing, which Caldwell said killed five other people, including three women.

I take great pleasure in the fact that among the last things he saw in life were American military personnel proving that the Judeo-Christian values upon which our nation was founded are superior to the Jihadi-Islamist values which he served -- because rather than beheading their prisoner, our troops were trying to ensure that al-Zarqawi received medical treatment that would allow his survival. The traditional Christian notion of corporal works of mercy trumped the Sixth Pillar of Jihadi Islam, the spreading of terror.

Posted by: Greg at 09:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

How did we get al-Zarqawi and his cohorts? Easy -- a little bit of inside information.

According to a Pentagon official, the Americans finally got one. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the raid are classified, said that an Iraqi informant inside Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia provided the critical piece of intelligence about Mr. Rahman's meeting with Mr. Zarqawi. The source's identity was not clear — nor was it clear how that source was able to pinpoint Mr. Zarqawi's location without getting killed himself.

"We have a guy on the inside who led us directly to Zarqawi," the official said.

In a news release on Thursday morning, American military commanders hinted strongly that a member of Mr. Zarqawi's inner circle had pointed the way. "Tips and intelligence from Iraqi senior leaders from his network led forces to al-Zarqawi," the release said.

Iraqi officials confirmed that Mr. Zarqawi had indeed been sold out by one of his own.

"We have managed to infiltrate this organization," said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security adviser. He declined to elaborate.

I guess that there is no honor among terrorists.

And that good intelligence beats good luck any day.

Posted by: Greg at 10:33 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

Michael Berg, of course, is the father of Nicholas Berg, whose murder by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was broadcast about the world via the Internet. And he is a serious moonbat.

Upon hearing that al-Zarqawi had been served justice with a side order of bacon, Michael Berg expressed sympathy for the murderer of his son and the murderer's family -- AND HEAPED BLAME ON PRESIDENT BUSH.

The father of Nicholas Berg, a U.S. contractor believed to have been beheaded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, said Thursday that al-Zarqawi's killing will only perpetuate the cycle of violence in the Middle East.

"I think al-Zarqawi's death is a double tragedy," Michael Berg told The Associated Press after learning a U.S. airstrike had killed the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. "His death will incite a new wave of revenge. George Bush and al-Zarqawi are two men who believe in revenge."...

Berg said the blame for most deaths in Iraq should be placed on President Bush, who he said is "more of a terrorist than Zarqawi."

Utterly incredible!

But then again, I've heard rumors that he places an even bigger share upon another individual for the decaptiation of his son.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 11:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

You have to love the insane illogic of the idiotarian Left.

Some guy on ABC is saying this is a "nail in the coffin of Al Queda." Bull shit. This guy was a face, a name, a few menacing lines about impending doom to us. The victory doesn't lie in removing this man, nor any other true terrorists in Iraq. Instead victory is in making a peaceful nation in a land fractured by ethnicity and then war.

Where is Osama?

Why ask, if the removal of "a face, a name, a few menacing lines of impending doom" does not really impact al-Qaeda? After all, killing or apprehending Osama really wouldn't matter, as "victory does not lie in removing" bin Laden.

I mean really, folks, you cannot have it both ways.

Now I will agree that punching al-Zarqawi's one-way ticket to Hell is not victory -- but it is one more milestone along the way.

(H/T Hugh Hewitt)

Posted by: Greg at 10:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

I cannot think of any better news to have heard when, at 2:15 this morning, I was awoken by the excited voices of on the television that was still on in the living room where I had fallen asleep readingabout four hours before.

One of the leaders of the jihadi terrorists -- a man with the blood of countless innocents dripping from his hands -- is dead, and receiving his infernal reward.

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, whose leadership of the insurgent group al- Qaeda in Iraq made him the most wanted man in the country, was killed Wednesday evening by an air strike near Baqubah, north of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Thursday.

The Jordanian-born Zarqawi claimed responsibility for hundreds of kidnappings, bombings and beheadings. His stated aim, in addition to ousting U.S. and other forces from Iraq, was to foment bloody sectarian strife between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

He was killed along with seven aides, officials said. They said his identity has been verified by fingerprints and other methods.

"Today Zarqawi was defeated," said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, appearing at a midday news conference with top U.S. General George W. Casey and American Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad. "This is a message to all those who use violence killing and devastation to disrupt life in Iraq to rethink within themselves before it is too late," he added.

Zarqawi was killed in a rural house in the village of Hib Hib, 5 miles north of Baqubah, Maliki said.

The statement was met by applause among Iraqi reporters assembled in a briefing room. The announcement, which was confirmed by a Website linked to al-Qaeda in Iraq, was also met by celebratory gunfire in the streets of Baghdad.

Burn, baby, burn!

Posted by: Greg at 10:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

How on earth could such a thing have happened?

At least 6 of the 17 people arrested by Canadian authorities in a sweeping counterterrorism operation over the weekend regularly attended the same storefront mosque in this middle-class Toronto suburb of modest brick rental townhouses and well-kept lawns, fellow worshipers said Sunday.

Their attendance at the mosque, Al-Rahman Islamic Centre for Islamic Education, is one of the few public pieces of information that clearly link any of the suspects — 12 adults and 5 youths — in one of the biggest antiterrorism arrests in North America since the Sept. 11 attacks.

However, since we are assured that Islam is a religion of peace, I wonder if the police have found some connection between those arrested that could explain their terrorist inclinations.

Posted by: Greg at 05:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

In Canada, they have arrested a bunch of would-be terrorists -- who all, utterly by coincidence and without reflecting on the religion in any way are inexpiliably all Muslim.

Apparently in response, someone has vandalized Toronto mosque.

Vandals smashed 30 windows of a Toronto mosque and damaged nearby cars after the arrest of 17 suspected al Qaeda sympathizers accused of planning bomb attacks. Canadian Muslims expressed fear on Sunday that a backlash had begun.

The vandals struck overnight at the west-end mosque, a police official said on Sunday. A second official said he had no information on any link between the incident and the arrests, which began late Friday.

"The actual weapon that was used to break (the windows) is unknown," said secretary Ameer Ali of the International Muslims Organization of Toronto, which houses the mosque. "We believe it has to be a heavy instrument, possibly a sledgehammer or a pick ax, or it could even be a crowbar."

About five cars in a parking lot next to the mosque also had their windows broken, Ali said. He said the two-story mosque sees about 500 worshipers daily and the organization said the mosque is one of the largest in North America.

Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair told a meeting with Islamic community leaders, "it is certainly possible that that damage was motivated by hate. Hatred in any form, and certainly in its expressions of violence and damaged property, will not be tolerated in our community."

How strange -- we so often are told that we must "understand" actions of the jihadi terrorists as a response to world events, whether we are talking about the 9/11 attacks, suicide bombings in Israel, or beheadings in Iraq. But when someone reacts to the capture of jihadi terrorists with nothing more than a little bit of vandalism, we are told that there is no room for hate in society.

Why the double standard?

Posted by: Greg at 12:54 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 3 kb.