This is another great article by Victor Davis Hanson:

Will the West Stumble?

By Victor Davis Hanson

What a stupid question. By any benchmark of economic prosperity, military power, and political stability, Western civilization--in the United States, Europe, and the former British Commonwealth--has never been stronger. Globalization has become a euphemism for Westernization, an apparent unstoppable juggernaut.

So how could the lingua franca of English, uniform international travel, or worldwide commerce ever falter--given that American-style material bounty is spreading among billions the world over?

But the global sale of PlayStation 3 or a world in Levis is only the glitzy veneer of civilization. That shared taste almost unnoticeably hinges on a powerful and liberal United States that keeps the peace and remains the spiritual and intellectual fountainhead of an entire global system--one ultimately dependent on American core ideas like freedom and tolerance. What pressures China to liberalize, protects the creativity of Japan, assures Europeans they can be postmodernists in safety, and guarantees that the world commerce is protected from both old and new piracy is a confident and strong United States.

In contrast, grant a jihadist his 7th-century dream world, and within months even he wouldn't have a cell phone signal to call in an IED explosion.

........................................................................................

There is a sick ingenuity of a sort that can disguise terrorists as state policemen in Baghdad to kidnap and torture the innocent, and outwit Humvees with land mines. The improvised explosive device, with help from Iran, gets ever more complex. And there is a great deal of mental energy, time, and money that went into making rockets and suicide belts or even the graphics on a bin Laden infomercial.

How odd that Iranians cannot design a car or computer, but can with the proper instruction manual spend millions of hours putting together Western-designed centrifuges, like the stamped lettered-parts of a build-it-your-self intricate model toy.

This is just a teaser.  Read the whole thing.

Link to RealClearPolitics - Articles - Will the West Stumble?

This almost sounds like a joke, yet it makes perfect sense:

One of the strangest, and most useful, bombs employed in Iraq has been the concrete filled JDAM. Why deliver a 500 pound bomb filled with concrete instead of explosives? You do that if you want to do some damage, but not a lot. Concrete JDAMs were first used in the 1990s to destroy anti-aircraft guns, radars and missiles that Saddam Hussein placed in residential areas. He believed that the Americans would not attack these weapons, for fear of hurting nearby civilians. But it turned out that a laser, or satellite (JDAM) guided concrete smart bomb could take out the air-defense weapons without hurting nearby civilians. The concrete bombs come in various sizes (500, 1,000 and 2,000 pounds), but the new 500 pound JDAM has become a favorite when a concrete version is required. Recently, for example, two small bridges near the Syrian border were seen being used by terrorists to bring in people and weapons. There was no need to completely destroy the bridges (which might take months, or longer, to replace), because the terrorists were slowly being chased from the area. But a concrete bomb on each bridge damaged the structures enough so that they could not be used, but not so much that they could not be repaired in a week or two. Concrete bombs are still used against terrorist targets in residential areas, where the bomb can reach the terrorists before police or ground troops can. It’s all a case of a seemingly off-the-wall weapon idea being, not a joke, but actually quite useful.

Link to Why Concrete Filled Bombs are So Damn Useful

Here is an interesting article from World Net Daily:

Wafa Sultan, a native of Syria, seized attention worldwide in February when her electrifying interview on Al-Jazeera television spread across the Internet through a video clip produced by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Named this year to Time Magazine's list of 100 influential people in the world, Sultan spoke with WND after addressing a symposium on radical Islam and terrorism in Las Vegas hosted by America's Truth Forum. She understands Bush's position as president and believes he is only trying to be diplomatic, but insists, nevertheless, his words are "empowering" Muslim leaders whose ultimate aim is for Islamic law to govern the world.

"I believe he undermines our credibility by saying that," said Sultan. "We came from Islam, and we know what kind of religion Islam is.

........................................................................................

Sultan, who identifies herself as a secular ex-Muslim, told WND she would urge Bush to take a closer look at Islamic culture and its general embrace of violence as a means of establishment and expansion.

There isn't really much to add.  I am going to post a reminder of this courageous lady said on Al-Jazeera:

Sultan: "The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations," she said. "It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete."

Al-Qasim: "I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?"

Sultan: "Yes, that is what I mean."

Al-Qasim: "Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind. ..."

Sultan: "The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: 'I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger.' When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to stop this war, they must re-examine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels."

Link to WorldNetDaily: Bush empowering terrorists, charges vocal Islam critic

While we are on the subject of PC War, here is an article I wrote during last summer for the Old War Dogs, after a long conversation with my college friend in Israel:

A PC War?

My conversation with a friend in Naharia.

Alex and I went to college together back in Leningrad, now St.-Petersburg, Russia. He now lives in Naharia, a little town on the North of Israeli Mediterranean Coast. Majority of Americans probably have never heard the name of this town until a little over a week ago, when Hezbollah rockets started raining on it. Knowing that he and another college friend were living in Naharia, I naturally got a little worried when Hezbollah started shooting at their town, so I e-mailed them, asking how they were doing. The other guy went to Tiberias with his family, to stay with yet another college friend. Alex chose to stay in Naharia, and on Wednesday I finally got a reply from him. It was my first vacation day, and I was still at home. So we established a connection via MSN Messenger and had a lengthy conversation about how things were in Naharia and in Israel in general. Below is the summary of what he told me.

1. The damage:

According to Alex, those Katushas do very little damage. They are pretty old and not very powerful, not to mention their inaccuracy. Of course, if one of those rockets hits your apartment, it will destroy it, but the rest of the building would remain pretty much intact.

2. The reaction of the population:

My friend was actually pretty disgusted with the fact that the whole North of Israel was effectively shut down. That was also the cause of his general pessimism about our overall perspective in the current global conflict (I obviously do not separate the Israel’s war for survival from the wars we are fighting: we are fighting common enemies). After talking with Alex I actually came to appreciate seemingly useless calls for business as usual, including shopping, after 9/11: the life should not stop because of the enemy action. We should look at Londoners during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz for an example: they kept their bombed out shops and cafes open for business. In contrast, Naharia, according to Alex, turned into ghost town, even though many apartments, especially the newer ones, have their own bomb shelter rooms. This does not reflect well on the residents of Northern Israel. On the other hand, there is no reason to keep people not needed for defense in harms way unnecessarily. I would like to think that, when it becomes necessary, the Israelis will stand and fight. Otherwise we are all doomed: Israelis are very similar to Americans, and what applies to them, applies to us.

3. The military action:

That is where the term “PC War”, as in “politically correct”, comes into play. According to my friend, the Israelis keep bombing and shooting at empty buildings, a la Clinton, in order to minimize Lebanese civilian casualties. They even go as far as notifying when they are about to bomb some building where they suspect Hezbollah might be, so that the civilians would evacuate. As a result, they damage the Lebanese infrastructure much more than Hezbollah’s capabilities. The only real way to deal with Hezbollah is to conduct a ground operation with full force, but they don’t do that because they don’t want to look as invaders and, most importantly, they don’t want to suffer casualties. As a side note, I saw the news this morning, and they said that the Israelis are preparing for the ground offensive. But that was CNN: my hotel does not have FOX. They also said that the Lebanese Army is going to fight the Israelis, which is totally beyond me: they should be joining the Israelis.

4. The competency of the government:

Alex is very unhappy with their Defense Minister. He says that the guy is basically a high school dropout who just rose through the ranks of government bureaucracy and is just a political appointee without any experience in defense matters (he is not a career military guy). He probably served in the military, since it is mandatory, but a private can hardly be a Minister of Defense.

5. The media:

The Israeli media is just as idiotic as ours. They just blabber their collective mouth without thinking of the consequences. For almost a week they reported every rocket hit with accuracy down to a street corner, in real time, both on TV and on the web. People who have even rudimentary understanding of military operations, let alone a real combat experience will immediately understand the meaning of this. If you are a Hezbollah terrorist launching rockets at Israel, you don’t need any forward observers: having a local news channel on along with something like Google Maps next to your rocket launcher will do just fine for your fire correction. It took a week for the Israeli government to stop the news media from being forward observers for Hezbollah. Can you imagine an ACLU lawsuit claiming a violation of the freedom of the press? The moonbats in this country would immediately scream: “Censorship!” At least, after a week the Israeli government stopped the craziness.

6. Why it has started and how it should end:

This is something that probably we all would agree with. Alex said that the whole mess started because Israel is no longer feared by its enemies. If any Hamas rocket attack would have been treated as an act of war that it was, and triggered a massive retaliation in response, if the original Hamas kidnapping of a soldier triggered an immediate full force invasion of Gaza, none of it would have happened. But the Israelis have waited too long, while just pumping their chests. My own comment is that they failed to follow a Teddy Roosvelt’s doctrine: “Speak softly and carry a big stick”. This kind of mess happens if you do just the opposite: speak loudly and carry a small stick. As for how this all will end, Alex was very pessimistic. He thinks that the most likely scenario is that the UN will impose the ceasefire, Hezbollah and Hamas will return the bodies of the soldiers, and the periodic attacks by Hezbollah and Hamas will continue, slowly chipping away at Israel’s dignity, will and long term chance for survival. That, by the way, applies to the rest of the Western World. I am not ready yet to share my friend’s pessimism, but he does make good points. The right way to deal with Hezbollah is, of course, a massive ground invasion, not just by Israel, but by an international force, including the Lebanese Army, in order to clear out Hezbollah. But of course, there is no international force capable or willing to do the job. UN forces in Lebanon routinely just drink tea with Hezbollah terrorists. The only force capable of defeating Hezbollah, other than fully committed Israeli Army, is US military. I don’t see that happening at this time. So, if Israel does invade, it will be condemned as an aggressor. The Lebanese Army will actually fight against IDF, even though the IDF will be doing their job for them, just because it is Israel. IDF should go in and clear out Hezbollah anyway. We’ll see if they will really do it.

There you have it. My friend is there, in the thick of it. While we were talking, he said that there was an explosion somewhere in the area. It probably wasn’t too close, since I did not hear it. I am still much more optimistic than my friend. But if we lose our will to fight, Robert Ferigno’s Islamic States of America will become a reality. I hope it does not happen.

In case you follow the link to the original Old War Dogs publication, let me clarify a little misunderstanding.  My friend George Mellinger, a. k. a. Rurik, noted that any international force would be counter-productive.  He is right, of course, but that is not what I meant.  When I talked about international force, I was day-dreaming about a coalition similar to the Allies of World War 2.  That is, after all, exactly what is necessary in order to fight this new kind of Fascism.  There is always hope.

Yesterday, thanks to Little Green Footballs, I found this story:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) - Hundreds of Palestinians formed a human shield around the home of a militant in the northern Gaza Strip late Saturday to prevent an Israeli air strike on the building, residents said.

People flocked to the home of Mohammedweil Baroud after he received a warning from the army late Saturday giving him 30 minutes to leave the house.

Barhoud is a commander in the Popular Resistance Committees in the northern town of Beit Lahiya and said to be in charge of firing homemade rockets at Israel. Crowds of people stood on the rooftop and in the yard of the home.

LGF did not comment on this story, other than emphasize the AP bias.  I, however want to turn attention to the insanity of warning your enemy to evacuate the targeted location before it is hit.  For comparison, imagine warning the Nazis before the Allied airstrike on the V2 rocket factory in Peenemünde.  Or, just imagine warning the Nazis before any Allied airstrike on V2 rocket launchers.  But as bad as this was, today it has gotten even worse (again, thanks to LGF):

BEIT LAHIYA, Gaza Strip - Hundreds of Palestinians serving as human shields guarded the homes of two top militants Sunday, a new tactic that forced Israel to call off missile strikes on the buildings and re-evaluate a mainstay of its aerial campaign in Gaza.

In recent months, the Israeli air force has repeatedly struck the homes of militants after warning residents by phone to clear out. Israeli security officials said they did not know how to respond to the human shield tactic, but pressed ahead with other airstrikes Sunday.

........................................................................................

The army said it called off the nighttime airstrikes because of the crowds. It condemned what it said was a cynical exploitation "by the terrorists of uninvolved people as human shields."

Israeli military officials acknowledged they had no solution for the standoff. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

I have a "solution for the standoff": bomb them anyway.  There will be no "standoff" the next time.  If the Allies would have conducted World War 2 this way, we would be speaking German and Japanese.  No, let me correct this: you, my fellow Americans, would be speaking German and Japanese.  As for me and my family, we simply would not be around to speak anything.

 Thanks to Old War Dogs satellite blog, Bill's Bites, I found these 2 proposals on how to achieve victory in Iraq.

The first one is by Major Eric England, published in the Weekly Standard:

Failure in Iraq is not an option, because it would spell disaster for U.S. national security and foreign policy credibility, not to mention military morale. Our mission in Iraq continues to move forward, and U.S. forces have successfully defeated the insurgents in several areas, yet the enemy has proven resilient and effective. Thus, we must succeed in Iraq by changing the status quo.

The plans for victory so far have fallen short. They have come, top-down, from the Pentagon or the palaces-turned-coalition headquarters in Baghdad. Now, American leaders, especially the nominee for secretary of defense, should consider a bottom-up plan to win that taps the collective grass-roots wisdom of successful battlefield innovators. In particular, there are six course corrections that can be taken almost immediately.

1. Encourage innovation by emphasizing small-scale technological solutions and rejecting peacetime bureaucracy.

........................................................................................

Deploying unit commanders, most of whom have already served at least one tour in Iraq, must have direct input into how supplemental funds are invested in new technologies. Technology providers should conduct road shows to earn at least some funding approval and priority from ground commanders.

In Washington, there remains too much focus on massive technological efforts that cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take years to develop, test, and field. Meanwhile, low-cost programs like remote handheld cameras, biometrically-capable, Wi-Fi enabled PDAs, and tethered blimps with mounted cameras are put on the back burner. To inspect suspicious objects that could be roadside bombs, troops have resorted to spending their own money to buy remote-controlled cars with jerry-rigged mounted cameras because the thousands of remotely controlled robots in Iraq are held by specialized bomb disposal units.

........................................................................................

2. Improve pre-deployment training realism and abandon Cold War-era checklists.

When troops were first preparing to deploy to Iraq, they followed the same checklists that had been used in the Cold War and Gulf War that focused on the conventional military's core mission: "high-intensity conflict." Once the invasion was successful, though, the threat facing our troops changed as the insurgency started using ambush tactics, but the training and preparation that our troops receive has not kept pace.

"Train how we fight" is a mantra in the military, and for good reason. Training intensity and realism is the number one predictor for combat success, especially when facing a thinking, adaptive enemy who observes our patterns and exploits perceived vulnerabilities.

........................................................................................

3. Allow local commanders to buy what they need and nationalize the war effort by connecting the American public with the troops and their mission.

The troops need more support, from both the military and the American people, and the ground commanders must be empowered to lead our national effort to support them. The localized insurgency, coupled with an adaptive, resilient enemy means the troops on the ground best understand how to win. Our support should fulfill their stated needs, not what Congress, the Pentagon--or even the generals in Baghdad--think they ought to need.

We need to expand "commander discretionary funds" to give each battalion commander a large budget, on the order of $3 million, to spend as they see fit both before they deploy and while in country, with appropriate accountability. This would allow commanders to take action that will help the mission, but which bureaucratic practices currently prevent. For example, they could buy video cameras and phones to give to locals so that they can film and report insurgent activity; or hire military-aged males to clean roads and dig trenches that improve security while providing jobs to men who would otherwise be recruited as insurgents. It would also allow ground forces to reward a neighborhood chief with a few electric generators for his support of our mission, or to hand a $20 bill to a local who identifies a bomb that could have killed several soldiers.

........................................................................................

4. Strengthen intelligence sharing between tactical and national levels, and develop a national insurgent database.

We must have better intelligence on the enemy, especially human intelligence. Our existing intelligence technologies were designed during the Cold War to spy on conventional armies that use bases, have tanks and aircraft, and communicate on identifiable radio frequencies. In Iraq, however, the enemy lives in civilian neighborhoods, drives civilian cars, uses weapons composed of readily available materials, and communicates via civilian mobile phones and the internet.

In a Cold War scenario, the U.S. intelligence community would collect intelligence about enemy activity that would subsequently filter "down" to the maneuver units. Today, however, the case is often reversed. Ground units get the first information about an enemy, often by going on a raid and learning about the individual's ties to other insurgents. As that intelligence is sent "up," the national organizations focus collection efforts accordingly.

There are success stories in Iraq where units have provided tactical intelligence to a national organization, then national came back with amplified intelligence that led the unit in a successful operation against more insurgents. This model can and should be applied more broadly.

........................................................................................

5. Take the offensive by reducing predictable patterns on the ground while conducting operations that hunt, rather than chase, the enemy.

U.S. forces need to reduce the predictability of their movements. To do this, generals in Baghdad should stop requiring units to report the number of patrols conducted, and instead focus on effective offensive operations. The current emphasis on gauging unit effectiveness by the quantity of patrols conducted keeps the troops too busy to conduct quality operations that offensively hunt the enemy.

Accordingly, the generals should forbid a common practice that needlessly endangers our troops. "Presence patrols" are a legacy from Bosnia, where many of today's lieutenant colonel battalion commanders conducted peacekeeping operations as junior officers. Presence patrols involve troops simply driving around to show a military presence that ostensibly deters one side from attacking another.

The problem is that Bosnia is not Iraq, where the enemy just wants to attack U.S. forces, so we end up needlessly giving them opportunities to do so. While some units have stopped using the phrase "presence patrol," the emphasis on quantity of patrols still results in U.S. forces going out on the roads without a meaningful offensive purpose in mind.

........................................................................................

6. Accept the realities of warfare in the media age by decentralizing the sharing of information with both the Iraqi and the American public.

The government and military must better communicate its message--to both Iraqis and the American public. The hurdles posed by political correctness and self-imposed bureaucratic constraints must be cleared in order to balance the insurgents' current control of the airwaves. Their "flaming car bomb-a-day" television propaganda campaign has dominated the media debate since late 2004, negating or neutralizing any reports of positive news.

........................................................................................

Thus, the Pentagon should abandon its reflexive instinct toward control of information that has led it to seek to ban personal cameras and blogs. Instead, a "unit blogger" approach should be applied across Iraq, with appropriate guidance and training to preserve operational security. Tactical units should each have two members who are trained in public relations and equipped with high-quality cameras and laptops with video editing software, and offered incentives and rewards for effective reporting. They should record unit activities in writing and video, and share them with the American people via sites modeled on wildly successful pro-military websites, such as Blackfive.net and MoveAmericaForward.org.

........................................................................................

THE U.S. MUST win in Iraq. This can be achieved sooner by making these six key course corrections. The top U.S. Army general recently announced plans to have the same number of troops in Iraq until at least 2010, so there is time to change regardless of what happens in the next congress, and change is urgently needed as public figures show October was the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Iraq.

The second one is some unnamed officer's proposal, published in Time Magazine:

1) The Jawbone: Convene a meeting with the most senior members of the U.S. and Iraqi governments to explain that the U.S. is prepared to commit greater forces and resources for a period of one year, ONLY if Iraqis commit to decisive action to quell the insurgency and the civil war (which includes immediately starting to disarm the militias). It will be made crystal clear to Baghdad that without the Iraqi commitment — which will be measured monthly to ensure adherence — U.S. forces would immediately begin their withdrawal. Gen. John Abizaid started to do just that during his meetings in Baghdad this week, speaking more directly to the Iraqi government and asking for a timeline.

2) The Strong Arm: In the short term, have the four military services, the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force, prepare plans for a one-year surge in Iraq. Commit to destruction of the insurgent forces in Ramadi, Hit and the other Anbar strongholds... whatever it takes. Reinforce key cities like Baghdad and Basra. The best guess is that this will require 20,000 more U.S. troops on the ground. The U.S. military should rapidly increase the number of U.S. advisors for the Iraqi Security Forces — to some 15,000, up from about 7,000. It should also maintain the covert special operations forces to track, capture and kill high value insurgent targets.

3) The Swagger: President Bush should give a speech to the U.N. in which he calls on other nations to either support the new Iraq or stop providing support and weapons to insurgents and militias; declares that most fundamental goals in Iraq were achieved, but the hope of democracy in Iraq is in the balance and only the Iraqis can determine that outcome; reminds the U.N. that lack of support for the peaceful option — smart sanctions — was doomed to failure when they were undermined by many in the audience; implicitly threatens that if nations contribute to instability and violence in Iraq, they would be considered enemies of the U.S.; warns not to mistake U.S. withdrawal for defeat, stating that any nation that exports violence and terrorism from its borders will find an resolute foe in the U.S., and may have to suffer consequences; and asks for separate meetings with Iranian and Syrian leaders. And while making the above points forcefully, the President should also offer a significant carrot like increased diplomatic and economic contacts with countries like Syria.

4) Send In The Striped-Pants-and Money Set: In the short term, flood Iraq with seasoned U.S. diplomats in a new initiative to work with the Iraqi government and various factions to discover ways to ameliorate the dire conditions and heightened tension. The diplomats who refuse to go would be forced to leave government — three years into the war the State Department has managed to staff only 52% of its positions dealing with Iraq. Recruit and deploy economic managerial expertise from the U.S. government and private sector to find ways to employ Iraqis. In the short term, find ways to increase the availability of dependable power, clean water, fuel, etc. Give the tribal leaders cash incentives to protect Iraq's oil facilities and pipelines or suffer the consequences.

5) The PR Op: In the short term, overwhelm Iraq with an information campaign that declares that the U.S. will establish no permanent bases in Iraq, and will be out in a year. And make clear that the issue of sustained aid to Iraq will be dependent on their willingness to reconcile differences and quell the insurgency.

There are similarities between these two plans.  One thing I disagree with in the second plan is the suggestion not to keep any bases in Iraq.  We still have our bases in Germany and Japan.  Why should Iraq be different?  In fact, in my opinion, one of the unspoken reasons to go to war in Iraq in the first place was the necessity to establish American military presence in a strategic location in the Middle East.  That became necessary after 9/11.  Now there is trouble brewing in Iran.  We absolutely need bases in Iraq in order to deal with Iran.  Perhaps, if we said that we are going to keep our presence in Iraq in order to deal with Iran, and if we would seal the Iraqi borders, we would reduce the danger out of Iran significantly.

Link to Six Steps to Victory and to One Military Officer's Aggressive New Plan for Iraq

I was reading an article on the web, and there was a link to this interesting story on the side: 

US authorities have uncovered a plot to set up a flight training school in the Pacific nation of Kiribati and suspect the man behind it may have had links to September 11 mastermind Mohammed Atta.

Since the plot emerged, Kiribati had asked for Australia's help to fight terrorism, ABC radio reported today.

The US'  Federal Bureau of Investigations said Wolfgang Bohringer was considered a "person of interest".

It said Bohringer had close connections with a US flight school used by Atta, who masterminded the plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into key targets in the United States five years ago, the ABC said.

The scary part of this story seems to overlooked by the original author.  Judging by the name of the suspect, he is a German national.  And by that I don't just mean someone with a German passport, although that would be bad enough.  But this guy also ethnically German.  That means that, in addition to having a European passport, he also looks European.  His passport allows him to travel pretty much anywhere in the world without any visas, and he will never arouse any suspicion.  We heard for a while that Al Qaeda was trying to recruit non-Middle Eastern operatives.  It looks like they might be succeeding.  It would not take too many of those guys to do a lot of damage.

Link to Man with Sept 11 links set up flight school | Herald Sun

Today I found this lovely story through Little Green Footballs:

Bruce Gilmour filed the complaint after a cab driver from North Shore Taxi refused to let his guide dog into the cab in January of this year. Gilmour, who says it's not the first time he's been refused service by a taxicab, is complaining that North Shore taxi discriminated against him on the basis of physical disability.

But the taxi driver, Behzad Saidy, is arguing his Muslim religious beliefs will not allow him to take dogs in his taxi, because Muslims can't associate with dogs.

There is a chance that in this case political correctness will be used agaimst islamists.

I have cousins in Vancouver.  I am sure they will be "thrilled" to hear about this.

Link to lgf: Vancouver Shari'a Watch

This is one of the few Muslim voices that does not hide behind the usual excuses:

The leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, recently issued a decree to its supporters: Kill at least one American in the next two weeks "using a sniper rifle, explosive or whatever the battle may require."

Well, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, I am an American too. Count me as the one of those you have asked your supporters to kill.

I am not alone. There are thousands of Muslims with me in Las Vegas, and many more millions in America, who are proud Americans and who are ready to face your challenge. You hide in your caves and behind the faces of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. You don't show your faces and you have no guts to face Muslims. You thrive on the misery of thousands of Muslim youth and children who are victims of despotism, poverty and ignorance.

I think I heard him on Dennis Prager show.

Link to We're Muslim-Americans - kill us, too | Jerusalem Post

 Here is another great article by Dennis Prager:

In this week's New York Times Book Review, a historian reviewing a major new work of 20th-century history, Oxford and Harvard professor Niall Ferguson's "The War of the World," notes that "Ferguson argues that the Western powers should have gone to war in 1938, which would most likely have avoided much of the horror of World War II. ..."

Imagine that. The New York Times publishes a favorable book review of a book arguing that a pre-emptive war in 1938 would have saved tens of millions of lives aside from preventing the Holocaust, "without parallel ... the most wicked act in all history."

You have to wonder if the Times' editors and all their allies on the left, who have spent the last four years mocking the very notion of pre-emptive war, read this review.

I often make the same argument when I debate the leftists.  They usually don't have a good answer.

Link to WorldNetDaily: War opponents too smug for their own good

 I found this interesting article through World Net Daily:

"It's 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs," Netanyahu told delegates to the annual United Jewish Communities General Assembly, repeating the line several times, like a chorus, during his address. "Believe him and stop him," the opposition leader said of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "This is what we must do. Everything else pales before this."

........................................................................................

Criticizing the international community in his GA speech for not acting more forcefully in trying to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power - "No one cared then and no one seems to care now," he said, again drawing on the Nazi parallel - Netanyahu warned that Tehran's nuclear and missile program "goes way beyond the destruction of Israel - it is directed to achieve world-wide range. It's a global program in the service of a mad ideology."

I am in the good company.  Here is what I wrote for another blog a couple of months ago:

...I think it is ... September of 1938. With that cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, a. k. a. “peace in our time”, we have just given away Sudetenland.

I think I'll just go ahead and post the whole article here:

What year is it?

My calendar shows “2006”, but is it? A month ago I thought that it was September of 1939, and Poland (i. e. Israel) was already in the fight for her life, while England (i. e. USA) was engaging in the Phony War. Back in 1939 the British did not bomb the German factories because they were private property. Isn't it similar to the way we are trying to avoid civilian casualties now? For that matter, Israelis engage in the Phony War of their own, dropping leaflets before dropping bombs. If they are trying to destroy mobile rocket launchers, doesn't dropping of leaflets defeat the purpose?

Some people would say that the combat our troops engaged in over in Iraq and Afghanistan is hardly phony. The same was true for the combat of the Israeli troops in Lebanon a month ago. Indeed, the combat is very real, but the indecisiveness of both our and Israeli leadership creates a phony war situation.

Now I no longer think that we are in September of 1939. Instead, I think it is one year earlier, September of 1938. With that cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, a. k. a. “peace in our time”, we have just given away Sudetenland.

I finally understand why appeasement and the Phony War happened in the first place. I see it happening right before my eyes. Back in 1938 and 1939 the Western democracies simply did not have a stomach for a fight. They were hoping against all evidence to the contrary that they somehow will avoid the war. The British intellectuals did not see any reason to fight the Nazis. The Left in Britain and France conducted propaganda for the Nazis, even after the war was declared. And in this country there were and still are people who accused the Roosevelt administration in allowing the attack on Pearl-Harbor to happen in order to get America into the war. How eerily similar to the current situation! Many people now refuse to acknowledge the “gathering storm”, as Winston Churchill used to put it, and instead call those who see this gathering storm “war mongers”. Winston Churchill was called that too. Yet few now question his foresight. So, why can't people see it now? Is it the lack of knowledge and understanding of history? It's been said that “those who don't learn from their history are doomed to repeat it”. Certainly with the way history is taught in American public schools, there is a little wonder that we seem to repeat history. My friend's son told me when he was attending high school that the entire World War 2 period was skipped in their course. Their teacher said that World War 2 did not influence life in America enough to study it. Can you believe that!? Needless to say, that high school was in the ultra-leftist Santa Monica School District that is not in the teaching, but rather in the brain-washing, business.

I keep finding parallels in everything that is happening now to World War 2 and the time immediately prior to it. Truth be told, it is hard to say what role Israel would play. Would it be the role of Poland, taking the first blow, but going down with a hell of a fight? Or would it be the role of Czechoslovakia, the country that was given up and has given up without a fight? It seems that Israel will be a little bit of both. It is the indecisiveness of the Israeli leadership that forced this crazy cease-fire. Similarly, if the Czechoslovakian government had a will to fight in 1938, they would not have given away their territory. What would have happen if they would have told Chamberlain and Daladier: “No, we are going to defend our Sudetenland territory.” What would the Brits and the French do? It is very unlikely that they would have joined the Germans and attacked Czechoslovakia. In the worst case they would just do nothing. So, we always blame Chamberlain for Munich agreement, but somehow forget Czechoslovakian government itself. And what the Czechs did in the spring of 1939 was even worse. They surrendered just because Hitler threatened to bomb Prague. But they did have a pretty good air force for that time. What if Emil Hácha, who succeeded Beneš as the Czechoslovakian President after Munich, told Hitler: “OK, if you bomb Prague, we will bomb Berlin”? Similarly now Israel did not have to accept this cease-fire. Even after they screwed up initially, once they started fighting, they could continue. The world opinion should not have any bearing on their actions: most of the world is anti-Semitic and hates them anyway. As for America, the Left hates them anyway, and among the rest of the country they would gain more support if they would show the willingness to fight and win.

So, if the government of Czechoslovakia did not have enough will to defend their country back in 1938, do Chamberlain and Daladier deserve any blame for what happened? The answer is definitely yes. They, along with the rest of the Western world took seriously Hitler's claims about abuse of Sudeten Germans by Czechoslovakian authorities. By the way, isn't it amazing how similar it is to the Western media and many governments taking seriously all the fake allegations about Israeli abuses? The Brits and the French back in 1938 discouraged the Czechs from fighting and encouraged them to give up. The democratically elected Czechoslovakian government was trying to maintain peace and good relationship with their allies – other democracies. They did not want help from the Soviets, who did offer it: there was no telling where the help from Stalin might lead to. So, responsibility of the British and the French governments lies in their influence over the Czechs. Similarly, our government should not discourage the Israelis from fighting. We should be honest and open about our support for Israel, world opinion be damned. We are not gaining any sympathies in “Arab Street” by giving in and getting the Israelis to give in. They just see it as a weakness and use it against us. Why isn't it obvious to people that negotiating with terrorists creates more terrorism? And now Israelis agreed to Kofi Annan mediating the release of their soldiers. This is obviously a terrible mistake, but we bear partial responsibility for it because we did not openly tell the Olmert's government: “Look, you do what you have to do, and we'll back you diplomatically”. Olmert did botch the war by his indecisiveness, but our discouragement did not help either.

So, what does it leave us with? What year is it? 1938 or 1939? I can't say with certainty. What I can say is that Churchill's “gathering storm” is upon us once again. It's impossible to predict where the first blow will strike. Will it be an attack on Israel? Or will they go straight for us? Or, perhaps, will they strike both Israel and us simultaneously? Just like almost 70 years ago, Russia is playing both sides, but this time motivated not by any particular ideology, but strictly by economic interests. Will the Russians be, ironically, “the capitalists that will sell the rope on which they will hang”? Will the Islamo-fascists make a mistake of attacking Russia, pushing it toward our side? There have been enough attacks on Russia by Islamo-fascists, including the Beslan massacre of children, that should have brought the Russians to our side already. But apparently that was not enough. It will probably take a nuke in Moscow or St. Petersburg for the Russian politicians to wake up and realize that their allies are still the same people who were their allies 65 years ago.

What can I do in order to help people wake up? What can I do in order to contribute to victory? I am older now than my grandpa was in 1941. The US military will probably have no use for an out-of-shape 42 year old guy. I hope that whatever I do as an engineer, as well as writing these articles and participating in demonstrations in support of our troops, helps. I hope I can contribute to victory even just a little bit. But now it is still a waiting game. So, I am sitting in front of my computer, surfing the web and asking: “What year is it?”

I am still trying to figure out how to do this bloging thing.  I wanted to post this article somewhere and link to it.  But it does not seem to be possible.  I'll just create "Articles" category, so all the articles will be there.

Link to Netanyahu: It's 1938 and Iran is Germany; Ahmadinejad is preparing another Holocaust - Haaretz - Israel News

I was listening to Dennis Prager, and he mentioned this article in New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 — As Israeli bombs fell on Lebanon for a second week last July, the Rev. John Hagee of San Antonio arrived in Washington with 3,500 evangelicals for the first annual conference of his newly founded organization, Christians United For Israel.

At a dinner addressed by the Israeli ambassador, a handful of Republican senators and the chairman of the Republican Party, Mr. Hagee read greetings from President Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and dispatched the crowd with a message for their representatives in Congress. Tell them “to let Israel do their job” of destroying the Lebanese militia, Hezbollah, Mr. Hagee said.

He called the conflict “a battle between good and evil” and said support for Israel was “God’s foreign policy.”

The next day he took the same message to the White House.

Many conservative Christians say they believe that the president’s support for Israel fulfills a biblical injunction to protect the Jewish state, which some of them think will play a pivotal role in the second coming. Many on the left, in turn, fear that such theology may influence decisions the administration makes toward Israel and the Middle East.

........................................................................................

[Rabbi Yechiel] Eckstein said he had discovered the depth of that [Evangelical] support when he ran television commercials on the Fox News Channel seeking donations. The response, mainly from evangelicals, “burned out the call centers,” Mr. Eckstein said. During the five-week war, his group added 30,000 new donors. Thanks to the influx of money, he said his organization has exceeded its income from the first 10 months of last year by 60 percent, putting it on track to pull in $80 million this year. “The war really generated a momentum,” Mr. Eckstein said.

Evangelicals’ support for Israel, of course, is far from uniform. Mr. Hagee is an author of several books about the interpretation of biblical prophecies. He says he believes the Bible assigns Israel a pivotal role as a harbinger of the second coming. Citing passages from Revelation and Ezekiel, he argues that conflict between Israel and Iran may be a sign that that time is approaching.

Others say they believe more generally that God maintains his Old Testament covenant with the Jewish people and thus commands Christian believers to help protect their “older brothers.”

“My theology indicates that Israel is covenant land,” Dr. Dobson said in an interview.

The lefty New York Times shows its bias even here, talking how "Israeli bombs fell on Lebanon", but forgetting to mention Hezbollah Katyusha rockets falling on Israeli population centers.  So, in order to fix their bias a little bit, I replaced their link to Hezbollah stories with the one to the Time Magazine photo essay, featuring this lovely photograph:

I call these kids "Hezbo-Jugend", similarly to Hitler-Jugend.

But back to the Evangelicals.  Let me share a personal story with you.  I have a very good friend whom I met through work.  He happens to be an American of Filipino descent and a very devout Christian.  You might call him an Evangelical.  When we first met, he had in his office a portrait of some Orthodox rabbi on one wall and a clipping of 1948 Los Angeles Times on another.  The LA Times article described how fighter aircraft of newly formed Israeli Air Force chased away Egyptian bombers who were bombing Tel Aviv.  I looked at this obviously oriental-looking guy and asked why he had all that.  He replied that the fact that Israel was restored in 1948 proves to him the existence of G-d, because the Bible predicted it.  He also said that his G-d is the G-d of the Jews and that his Messiah is a Jew.  All these years that I know him he never ever expressed any idea that I should convert, even though I know he would like that.  Jokes like "You don't keep Kosher anyway, so you might as well become Christian" don't count.

Thus, here is the message to my fellow Jews in America: Stop looking for anti-Semites on the Right.  There are very few of them left.  Nowadays the anti-Semites are found mostly on the Left.

Link to For Evangelicals, Supporting Israel Is ‘God’s Foreign Policy’ - New York Times

 Fox News reports that former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani started preparations for the Presidential Run in 2008.

The former mayor filed papers to create the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Exploratory Committee, Inc., establishing a New York-based panel that would allow him to raise money to explore a White House run and travel the country.

The four-page filing, obtained by The Associated Press, lists the purpose of the non-profit corporation "to conduct federal 'testing the waters' activity under the Federal Election Campaign Act for Rudy Giuliani."

........................................................................................

The Republican field is expected to grow with Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and New York Gov. George Pataki expected to join the presidential fray.

Giuliani just might be the war fighting leader we need.

"It doesn't matter what the media does to ridicule him or misinterpret him or defeat him. They ridiculed Winston Churchill. They belittled Ronald Reagan. But like President Bush, they were optimists. Leaders need to be optimists. Their vision is beyond the present, and it's set on a future of real peace and security," Giuliani said.

"Some call it stubbornness. I call it principled leadership."

Giuliani has an advantage of name recognition over all the other Republicans.  He also might the best candidate to win the general elections because of this advantage and because he is socially liberal, which some would call "Libertarian".  Some potential candidates, like Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and New York Gov. George Pataki, are not much different from Giuliani.  Romney would probably be pretty good as well, but he does not have the name recognition.  I wish they all would just clear the field.  Romney should just go for VP.  Here I can fill up the whole cabinet:
Mitt Romney for VP;
John Bolton for the State Department;
Someone like former General Tommy Franks for the Defense Department;
and, in the spirit of bipartisanship, Joe Lieberman for the Justice Department.  After all, he used to be a DA.

Link to Voting | Vote | 2006 Elections - FOXNews.com

Here is something I wrote in regard to the next elections:

Looking for wartime leaders.

The midterm elections are over. We did not vote for President this time, but the question of who might be worthy of this job was and still is in the back of my mind. But first a few thoughts on the Congressional elections. Our country is at war. We all had a choice between 2 parties: a Surrender Party and Let's-Fight-without-Offending-Anyone Party. As bad as these options were, I'd rather have Let's-Fight-without-Offending-Anyone Party in power. It is possible to turn this Lets-Fight-without-Offending-Anyone Party into a Fighting Party, but the time to do it is during the Primary elections. Unfortunately, the Surrender Party has won. Let's hope that the fight will not be over in 2 years. This logic is also very relevant to those all important elections 2 years away.

Now on to the question of those wartime leaders. First of all, what are the qualities required in a leader of a nation at war? After all, in a free nation there is no “fuhrer principle”: a civilian leader, be it a President or a Prime Minister, does not tell the generals what to do. Thus, such a leader would have to concentrate on making strategic policy decisions and inspiring the nation. Thus, a leader like that would have to be willing to do what is right for the cause, regardless of personal consequences. This leader would also have to be defiant, not to be afraid to blatantly tell the truth, without worrying of offending anyone. Do we have someone in this country who possesses these qualities? Well, let's start with our current President, who, although will finish his term in 2 years, is still useful as an example for this discussion. His record is mixed. After 9/11 he did talk about an attack on America as an act of war and the need to respond. But still, he immediately started to talk about our enemies in politically correct terms, calling Islam “Religion of Peace” and inviting members of organizations with known terrorist ties to special events related to commemorating the 9/11 attacks. So, Bush is a typical member of the Lets-Fight-without-Offending-Anyone Party. But is there anyone who understands that, when you are fighting a war, you are bound to offend people? That is, if you are fighting to win. Well, Rudy Giuliani comes to mind. He was not afraid to return the Saudi Prince's check after 9/11, when that prince said something about 9/11 being the result of our support for Israel. Another example is Mitt Romney. He was unapologetic after stating that current terrorism threat comes from Muslim fascists and the hate is often preached in mosques. Recently he refused to provide official police escort for former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami’s September 10 visit to the Boston area. The final example is “Govenator” Arnold Schwarzenegger. Of course, Arnold cannot run for President, but his example is useful in order to illustrate what I am talking about. During this summer's Israeli war against Hezbollah Arnold, along with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, attended a rally in support of Israel. Local Islamists were, of course, very upset about this. The Mayor later apologized, but Arnold refused. In another example, he wasn't shy about telling immigrants to assimilate into American culture. This is definitely something that both Arnold and I can relate to. There is something all 3 of these Republican politicians have in common, besides having some backbone. They are all belong to what usually called Moderate wing of the Republican Party. They are all socially liberal (libertarian might be a better term). This makes it very hard for them to get a Republican nomination for President. But here is what Republican voters have to wake up to: all those domestic social issues are irrelevant to fighting a war. So called Conservatives worried about offending anyone are not good wartime leaders, even if they are pro-life. And those who don't try to be politically correct, but unelectable, are not useful either. Majority of people in this country don't like abortions, but think that the Government should stay out of this issue. I happen to hold the same view. So, instead of trying to elect super-Conservatives, we should try to elect war fighters. And if such candidate happens to be very popular, like Giuliani, it is even better: makes it harder for the MSM to dump on them and undermine the war effort.

Now that was Republican side. But what about the Democrats? The Democratic Party wasn't always a Surrender Party. Unfortunately, at this time it is unlikely that it will become Fighting Party any time soon. The last sane Democrat was recently kicked out of the party. Although, everything possible. If the Democrats manage to produce a war fighting candidate for 2008, such candidate will likely get my vote, even at the expense of domestic concerns. That is, if I will be convinced that this person will make a good war time leader. But, as I said, it is unlikely. There is, however, one potential Democratic candidate who possesses certain ruthlessness necessary for fighting a war. The problem with that candidate is that she cannot be trusted. I am talking, of course, about Hillary. She will do whatever is politically expedient for her. And if fighting the war the way it should be fought is politically expedient, she will be a war fighter. But she will do what is necessary for the wrong reason. But in the end, it does not matter why she would do what needs to be done. I am saying all this not because I all of a sudden became a supporter of Hillary Clinton. She will never get my vote. As I said, she can't be trusted. However, if she does become President, which is a distinct possibility, not everything is lost. We simply have to shape the public opinion in such a way that she is forced to do what is necessary, even if it is for the wrong reason. We will suffer domestically because of her socialist policies, but it will not matter, as long as it does not interfere with the war effort.

To summarize, we need a leader who will be honest enough to say: “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.” We need someone who can be blunt and tell it like it is: “We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and suffering.” We need a leader who can explain our policy in very simple terms: “You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime.” Finally, we need someone who can summarize our goals thus: “You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.” Yes, I am dreaming about someone like Winston Churchill becoming our President. There is always hope.

 Well, I went to Jewish Russian Telegraph in order to link to it on my new blog and found this:

HARTFORD, Conn. --Sen. Joe Lieberman on Sunday repeated his pledge to caucus with Senate Democrats when the 110th Congress convenes in January, but refused to slam the door on possibly moving to the Republican side of the aisle.

..........................................................................

"I'm not ruling it out but I hope I don't get to that point," he said. "And I must say -- and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut -- nobody ever said, 'We're doing this because we want you to switch over. We want you to do what you think is right and good for our state and country,' and I appreciate that."

Ronald Reagan used to say: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me".  Senator Lieberman will have to say: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party threw me out".  At this point he was the last sane member of the Democratic Party.  I do hope that this once great party will be able to get its sanity back, so that we can have some real choice by the time of next elections.  I am not holding my breath, though.

Link to Jewish Russian Telegraph: Senator Joe Lieberman refuses to rule out switch to GOP