How can you possibly not have enough room to include firefighters in the 9/11 memorial services? New Yorkers should thank God Bloomberg was not in office ten years ago. What an utter disgrace he is!
For years western Europe has been quietly allowing an increasingly radical Muslim population to cause serious societal problems. The conflict has been most notably covered in Belgium and the Netherlands, but the U.K. has certainly had its share of issues, particularly with homegrown terrorism. Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron today signaled that his country’s slumber may be coming to an end.
Speaking at a security conference in Munich on Saturday, Mr. Cameron condemned what he called the “hands-off tolerance” in Britain and other European nations that had encouraged Muslims and other immigrant groups “to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream.”
He said that the policy had allowed Islamic militants leeway to radicalize young Muslims, some of whom went on to “the next level” by becoming terrorists, and that Europe could not defeat terrorism “simply by the actions we take outside our borders,” with military actions like the war in Afghanistan.
“Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries,” he said. “We have to get to the root of the problem.”
The full text of his speech can be read here. It’s well worth your time.
Good news! Obama has announced his administration’s national security strategy. We’re in for a rough ride.
The Obama administration has unveiled a new national security strategy, saying armed conflict should be a last resort when diplomacy is exhausted.
Newsflash: this isn’t a new policy. America’s policy has always been “diplomacy first, war last.” The Democrats’ favorite whipping boy didn’t just decide one day to roll over Iraq. Saddam Hussein spent the decade after the end of the first Gulf War violating the very conditions that ended the war and refusing to comply with U.N. WMD inspections. I probably shouldn’t bother mentioning the latter, as the U.N. is a uselessly corrupt entity, but it only added to the justification of war prompted by the former. Years of diplomacy by the U.S. and other nations had zero effect. War was, in fact, the last and necessary resort.
The document also advocates innovation, economic stability and prosperity as essential to America’s wider security aims.
The left always comes back to economics as the cause of all evil. There is a massive failure to recognize that the leaders and planners—as well as most of the terrorists themselves—of the 9/11 were the product of Saudi Arabian wealth, not poverty. Osama Bin Laden himself is from a very wealthy royal family—the son of privilege, not hardship. The threat of radical Islamic terrorism, which the administration has a wee bit of a problem acknowledging, has nothing whatsoever to do with poverty. “Economic stability and prosperity” are not going to make al Qaeda go away.
“To succeed, we must face the world as it is,” says the document, in what is seen as a formal break from the go-it-alone Bush era.
“The world as it is” is endangered by violent, radical Islam, against which only America and a few of her closest and bravest allies have stood tall. Please face it.
As for “go-it-alone,” the left appears to forget the many nations which joined America in both the Afghan and Iraqi wars, among them some of the best friends and staunchest allies any country could be honored to have. A president who has consistently insulted and mistreated our friends while cozying up to our critics would do well to remember that.
The Obama administration’s new doctrine also reiterates the Obama’s determination to try to engage with countries like Iran and North Korea, but warns that they face deepening isolation if they do not respond to international pressure to come clean on their controversial nuclear programmes.
Translation: he’s going to do a lot of talking and precious little else, while Iran—the world’s largest exporter and supporter of terrorism—forges ahead with its nuclear program. Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy…BOOM!
Other key initiatives outlined in Mr Obama’s strategy include the dismantling of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Not new.
The document describes the security of Israel and peaceful Israeli and Palestinian states living side by side as among the main interests of the US.
Not new, though largely contradicted by his shameful treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.
“We are shifting from mostly direct exercise and application of power to a more sophisticated and difficult mix of indirect power and influence,” America’s top diplomat [Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] said.
Translation: he’s going to do a lot of talking and precious little else, while Iran—the world’s largest exporter and supporter of terrorism—forges ahead with its nuclear program. Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy…BOOM!
In her speech, Mrs Clinton also reiterated that democracy, human rights and development remained central to American foreign policy.
Yes, while we continue to prop up the U.N. with billions of our hard-earned tax dollars while they elect terrorist states and egregious human rights violators to the Human Rights Council.
Earlier, John Brennan, Mr Obama’s counter-terrorism adviser, said the new strategy also explicitly recognised the threat posed by “individuals radicalised here at home”.
“We’ve seen individuals, including US citizens, armed with their US passport, travel easily to terrorist safe havens and return to America, their deadly plans disrupted by co-ordinated intelligence and law enforcement,” Mr Brennan added.
First, anyone who travels to a “terrorist safe haven” for training and indoctrination is not “radicalised here at home.” This is not home-grown terrorism, but evil imported from the radical Islamic world. But you can’t acknowledge that, can you?
Second, the thwarted plans of the most recent terrorists was not “disrupted by co-ordinated intelligence and law enforcement” in any way, shape, or form. Fort Hood? Successful attack by a radical Muslim. The Fruit-of-Kaboom bomber? Couldn’t get his panties to light. Times Square? A fortunate case of incompetence.
Bill Clinton did not mention the domestic terrorism issue in his 1998 strategy, despite the Oklahoma City bombing three years earlier, while George W Bush made only passing reference to the issue in his 2006 document.
That would be because the bombing of the A.P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City was the act of a lone nutjob. It was a completely isolated event rather than an ongoing existential threat.
In May this year, New York City police defused a car bomb parked in Times Square, one of the city’s busiest tourist areas.
Yes, but only because Shahzad screwed up and bought the wrong ingredients for his bomb.
The truth is that over the past year we’ve been very, very lucky. Hope that luck holds, because Obama’s new strategy is a recipe for disaster.
The man who purchased the SUV used in the attempted bombing in New York’s Times Square this weekend was arrested at JFK Airport as he prepared to board a flight to Dubai. He is a naturalized U.S. citizen. His name is:
If you guessed 1-3 you’re a freaking idiot. There’s a very good reason to use racial/ethnic/national profiling for certain types of law enforcement work and for exercising extra scrutiny when granting immigrant visas. Can’t wait to see all the details on this cretin.
A flight from Washington, D.C. to Denver was disrupted last night when a passenger lit a cigarette onboard, creating a disturbance that resulted in an F-16 escort and the attention of the TSA, BATFE, and FBI.
Quiz time. The man’s name was:
Turns out the perp is a diplomat from Qatar and so can’t be charged with anything. Shamefully, the current White House has not insisted that the man be escorted permanently outside our borders. Diplomatic immunity is not intended to protect this type of criminal activity—it is to prevent the summary execution of diplomats caught in the act of espionage. We should be insisting that the Qatar embassy either wave his immunity or close its doors and leave the U.S.
Wonder why some of us refuse to watch CNN? Hacks like Christiane Amanpour, who deliberately misstate the facts in order to push a liberal agenda. Here, for example, she insists that the water torture of the Khmer Rouge—which resulted in thousands of murders—is identical to the waterboarding employed by the CIA under Bush (starts around 4:15). Regardless of where you stand on waterboarding, the methods of the CIA and the Khmer Rouge aren’t even similar (except in their use of water) much less identical. She may be correct in abhorring waterboarding, but that doesn’t justify the quite intentional falsification she employs. She’s entitled to her own opinion. She’s not entitled to her own facts. That’s simply propaganda, not journalism.
At a speech in the West Bank today, the Pope demonstrated his apparent lack of comprehension of the current Israel-vs-everyone-else situation. Let’s look at this piece bit-by-bit. After passing through the border barriers,
he expressed regret over Israel’s construction of the separation barrier
That barrier is there because Palestinians seem intent on using terrorism as their primary method of negotiation.
In Bethlehem, he offered a prayer for Israel to lift its blockade of Gaza.
When Palestinians stop the whole human-walking-bomb thing, I bet Israel will consider that request. Until then, don’t count on Jehovah’s (or Yahweh’s) intervention.
[H]e also urged young Palestinians to “have the courage to resist any temptation to resort to acts of violence or terrorism.”
Hey Benedict, how about growing a pair and talking to Iran and Syria about stopping their support for Palestinian terrorism?
At the Aida refugee camp, the pope said it was understandable that Palestinians feel frustrated.
“Their legitimate aspirations for permanent homes, for an independent Palestinian state, remain unfilled.”
Except that he’s wrong here. It’s not understandable. Walking into a shopping center or elementary school with bombs strapped to your body will get you a pretty negative response in any civilized country. Truth is (if you’re willing to do your homework) Palestinians are treated rather well if they relocate just a few miles east and live in Israel than if they stay on the West Bank and support the terrorists. (Pretty much like black Americans moving south and being treated better in Tennessee or Alabama than in my home city of St. Louis, where my relatives feel no shame at calling them “niggers” routinely.)
“In a world where more and more borders are being opened up … it is tragic to see walls still being erected,” Benedict said. “How earnestly we pray for an end to the hostilities that have caused this wall to be built.”
I’ve just about reached my breaking point with this one. Those borders are there because certain Palestinians insist on their right to blow up innocent Israeli children to make a long-dead political point. You want to see the walls torn down? Stop killing kids. Monsignor Benedict, how about praying that Palestinians will get a #$(*&^!% clue! That would end it.
You have to give the French credit when it’s due. And under their new President, that’s a lot more often than before. A trio of pirate attack boats mistook a French warship for an easy target. I got the giggles just wondering what went through their minds as they came under fire from a helicopter and French troops, who took them into custody.
How do you repel pirates? Fire back. Seems too simple, no? My only criticism is the choice of weapons:
A team of Israeli guards hired by the vessel’s owners immediately began firing back with pistols and spraying the attackers with fire hoses.
The security team should have been armed with, at the least, Uzis or similar compact submachine guns. They were, however, effective.
Ignoring the obvious, the “head of the East African Seafarers’ Assistance Programme” offered this gem:
“There are a number of other methods which can be used to deter the pirates, having weapons on board is dangerous because it raises the stakes for the pirates,” he said.
“There is a far higher risk that a crew member of a merchant vessel, or a passenger, could die if the pirates feel they must fight harder to win the ship.”
Or they might, um, give up and look for an easier target.