A female Muslim lawyer at that.

On October 31, 2008, an Egyptian female lawyer by the name of Nagla Al-Imam suggested on the Arab TV channel “Al-Arabiya” that Arab men should sexually harass Israeli women, stating: “Leave the land so we won’t rape you.” She then argued that Israeli young girls and women are fair game for all Arab men and that there is nothing wrong in using this kind of threat as a form of resistance.

Does Ms. Al-Imam know the consequences of her message to sexually repressed young Muslim men? Does she have any human feelings towards the suffering of a woman being raped, even if she is an enemy? Isn’t she worried about the impact of this ‘license to rape’ on the character of young Muslim men and its impact on society as a whole?

DoesnÂ’t her suggestion confirm the existence of Muslim Sharia laws that allow the sexual slavery of captive women in time of war? DoesnÂ’t she know that such statements and action by Muslim men will increase the worldwide fear of Islam?

I’ll take it a step further – doesn’t she know that she is urging an action that constitutes a crime against humanity, perhaps even genocide, under international law? After all, such actions were prosecuted in international courts of law when they were directed against Bosnian Muslim women by Serb combatants after the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Decent folks of all faiths applauded such actions against the despicable perpetrators of violence against women.

So let me pose some questions to Nagla Al-Imam:

1. Was it wrong for the international community to try Serb fighters for rape used as a tactic to force Bosnian Muslims to leave land claimed by the Serbs?
   
2. Should those rapists of Bosnia Muslim women be released from prison because se women were “fair game”?
   
3. If not, should she be arrested, tried and imprisoned for publicly advocating these violations of human rights?
   
4. Would she support the IDF making the same threat against Palestinian Arab women – leave or face rape at the hands of Israeli soldiers?
   

I believe, however, that we can all surmise the answer to all of these questions – Al-Imam would be horrified that the rapists of Muslim women would be freed, that the IDF would rape Muslim women, and that she would face charges for her words. But given the anti-Semitism rampant in Islam, this is just par for the course.

Posted by: Greg at 03:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

Gee – one would hope that the United States would have a commitment to tracking down and eliminating our terrorist enemies any time and any place. Indeed, one would think that any person who loved this country and wished to see her secure would be ecstatic about such a policy.

And yet the New York Times reports on this like it is a bad thing – breaking the story in a manner that once again discloses classified national security information to our enemies.

The U.S. military has conducted nearly a dozen secret operations against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Syria, Pakistan and other countries since 2004, The New York Times reported Sunday night.

Citing anonymous U.S. officials, the Times story said the operations were authorized by a broad classified order that then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed and President George W. Bush approved in spring 2004. The order gave the military authority to attack Al Qaeda anywhere in the world and to conduct operations in countries that were not at war with the U.S.

One such operation was an Oct. 26 raid inside Syria, the Times reported.

Washington has not formally acknowledged the raid, but U.S. officials have said the target was a top Al Qaeda in Iraq figure. Syria has asked for proof and said eight civilians were killed in the attack.

In another mission, in 2006, Navy SEALs raided a suspected terrorist compound in Pakistan's tribal areas.

The raids have typically been conducted by U.S. Special Forces, often in conjunction with the Central Intelligence Agency, the newspaper said. Even though the process has been streamlined, specific missions have to be approved by the defense secretary or, in the cases of Syria and Pakistan, by the president.

Let’s face it – our enemy is not a traditional nation-state as in times past. Instead they are members of an autonomous group that extends across international boundaries, at times without the knowledge and/or cooperation of the nations within which they operate. Indeed, as I pointed out some time back, the best historical analogy for terrorists is the pirate – considered the enemy of all mankind under international law and subject to the authority and jurisdiction of all nations wherever they may be found. As such, the order in question is appropriate – if one wishes to see the United States prevail in the war on terrorism…

Posted by: Greg at 04:00 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 409 words, total size 3 kb.