Iran threatens Jews overseas. How very Nazi-like.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by SDAMatt2a on Feb 4, 2012

Nice pals ya got there, liberals.

“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.”
=============
The status of Israel has become a pivotal issue in all talks about the Middle East. Israel’s legitimacy rests, not just on United Nations resolutions or Zionist aspirations, but, for many, on Biblical narratives and the historical connections of Jews with the Holy Land. A minority of Muslims find justification for the Zionist enterprise equally in the Bible and the Qur’an and believe that the Qur’an offers divine sanction for the establishment of a Jewish state in southern Syria. However, the majority cite other Qur’anic verses and passages from the Hadith (purported records of the Prophet Muhammad’s actions and sayings), stating the exact opposite. This second, negative attitude toward Jews is expressed in sacred texts and in the body of Shari’a (Islamic law) where Jews, like all non-Muslims, are assigned a status that does not permit their becoming rulers over Muslims or over Muslim territory.
Traditionally, this has not been an issue. Under the different Muslim empires, Jews were kept firmly in their place and represented no sort of threat to the ruling order. It is only in the modern period that this has become a burning issue. Thus, the transition from the Ottoman Empire to the British Mandate to modern Israel has been as much a religious as a political clash. The Arab onslaught of 1948 was religiously motivated, as is modern opposition to Israel by Islamist groups.

The Hamas charter asserts that “the Islamic Resistance Movement [i.e. Hamas] regards Palestine as an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future generations until Judgment Day.” A waqf is a religious endowment bestowed by God. Consequently, “neither it, nor any part of it, should be squandered: Neither it, nor any part of it, should be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Muslim generations until Judgment Day.”

The charter is not unique: It represents a mainstream view among Muslims today. In contrast, several Muslim spokesmen have recently claimed that the Qur’an promises Israel to the Jews and that the claims of Hamas, Hezbollah, and allied groups are illegitimate on Islamic grounds. This is a comforting message, which some of these spokesmen have taken to Jewish audiences, reinforcing the idea that the Islamic jihad imperative against Israel is simply the province of a tiny minority of extremists and that the voices of reason, moderation, and Qur’anic authenticity will eventually prevail.

Although an extremely comforting message to supporters of Israel, it is not true and is based on a partial and inaccurate reading of the Qur’an.

- Robert Spencer

In view of the above story, the Iranians have no basis for complaint when the Israelis make fun of them in an advertisement. Because a Samsung tablet was shown in an “insulting” ad for Israeli cable TV services, Iran is threatening a boycott of Samsung. Yes, Samsung should indeed apologize – NOT for the ad, but for having traded with Iran in the first place.

He who sups with the devil should have a long spoon.

Iran banning Samsung products over an Israeli Ad (Subtitled)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by Concord9000 on Feb 3, 2012

A senior lawmaker says Iran’s Majlis is considering a plan to cut off the country’s economic transactions with South Korea’s Samsung in reaction to the company’s anti-Iran teaser.

Head of Majlis Energy Committee Arsalan Fat’hipour said the double-urgency plan, aimed at imposing a complete ban on buying all Samsung products, would make the company regret making the insulting teaser.

South Korea’s giant manufacturer of electronic devices and home appliances produced a teaser shortly after the assassination of the Iranian scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan by Mossad agents in Tehran, in which Iran had been depicted as a primitive society.

The clip also implies that Israel is powerful enough to easily destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities or assassinate the country’s nuclear scientists.

The Iranian lawmaker added that forgetting the high volume of its trade with Iran, the company has produced the teaser to curry favor with Israel.

Fat’hipour said Samsung’s apology to the Iranian nation, though necessary, would not be enough and that the company must be held accountable for producing the teaser.

Meanwhile, Samsung’s Dubai office has issued a statement condemning the production of the teaser by the company’s Israel office.

Samsung’s public relations official in Tehran, Elaheh Taheri, told reporters on Thursday the clip had nothing to do with the South Korean company and that it had been produced by an Israeli cable TV station, Hot.

Coldwarrior has the story on 2.0: The Blogmocracy

(Reposted with permission)

This report does not look good. Frankly, he is highlighting what we are already hearing and have suspected from reading various other reports and hearing from on the ground from people in our own lives.

Please check out the LTC’s website linked here. He knows this will wreck his career by not going along. We need more leaders like him, not like the current batch of ‘leaders’.

Here is the article in full from Armed Forces Journal:

BREAKING:

Truth, lies and Afghanistan: How military leaders have let us down
By LT. COL. DANIEL L. DAVIS

I spent last year in Afghanistan, visiting and talking with U.S. troops and their Afghan partners. My duties with the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force took me into every significant area where our soldiers engage the enemy. Over the course of 12 months, I covered more than 9,000 miles and talked, traveled and patrolled with troops in Kandahar, Kunar, Ghazni, Khost, Paktika, Kunduz, Balkh, Nangarhar and other provinces.

What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by U.S. military leaders about conditions on the ground.

Entering this deployment, I was sincerely hoping to learn that the claims were true: that conditions in Afghanistan were improving, that the local government and military were progressing toward self-sufficiency. I did not need to witness dramatic improvements to be reassured, but merely hoped to see evidence of positive trends, to see companies or battalions produce even minimal but sustainable progress.

Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level.

My arrival in country in late 2010 marked the start of my fourth combat deployment, and my second in Afghanistan. A Regular Army officer in the Armor Branch, I served in Operation Desert Storm, in Afghanistan in 2005-06 and in Iraq in 2008-09. In the middle of my career, I spent eight years in the U.S. Army Reserve and held a number of civilian jobs — among them, legislative correspondent for defense and foreign affairs for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

As a representative for the Rapid Equipping Force, I set out to talk to our troops about their needs and their circumstances. Along the way, I conducted mounted and dismounted combat patrols, spending time with conventional and Special Forces troops. I interviewed or had conversations with more than 250 soldiers in the field, from the lowest-ranking 19-year-old private to division commanders and staff members at every echelon. I spoke at length with Afghan security officials, Afghan civilians and a few village elders.

I saw the incredible difficulties any military force would have to pacify even a single area of any of those provinces; I heard many stories of how insurgents controlled virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a U.S. or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) base.

I saw little to no evidence the local governments were able to provide for the basic needs of the people. Some of the Afghan civilians I talked with said the people didn’t want to be connected to a predatory or incapable local government.

From time to time, I observed Afghan Security forces collude with the insurgency.

From Bad to Abysmal

Much of what I saw during my deployment, let alone read or wrote in official reports, I can’t talk about; the information remains classified. But I can say that such reports — mine and others’ — serve to illuminate the gulf between conditions on the ground and official statements of progress.

And I can relate a few representative experiences, of the kind that I observed all over the country.

In January 2011, I made my first trip into the mountains of Kunar province near the Pakistan border to visit the troops of 1st Squadron, 32nd Cavalry. On a patrol to the northernmost U.S. position in eastern Afghanistan, we arrived at an Afghan National Police (ANP) station that had reported being attacked by the Taliban 2½ hours earlier.

Through the interpreter, I asked the police captain where the attack had originated, and he pointed to the side of a nearby mountain.

“What are your normal procedures in situations like these?” I asked. “Do you form up a squad and go after them? Do you periodically send out harassing patrols? What do you do?”

As the interpreter conveyed my questions, the captain’s head wheeled around, looking first at the interpreter and turning to me with an incredulous expression. Then he laughed.

“No! We don’t go after them,” he said. “That would be dangerous!”

According to the cavalry troopers, the Afghan policemen rarely leave the cover of the checkpoints. In that part of the province, the Taliban literally run free.

In June, I was in the Zharay district of Kandahar province, returning to a base from a dismounted patrol. Gunshots were audible as the Taliban attacked a U.S. checkpoint about one mile away.

As I entered the unit’s command post, the commander and his staff were watching a live video feed of the battle. Two ANP vehicles were blocking the main road leading to the site of the attack. The fire was coming from behind a haystack. We watched as two Afghan men emerged, mounted a motorcycle and began moving toward the Afghan policemen in their vehicles.

The U.S. commander turned around and told the Afghan radio operator to make sure the policemen halted the men. The radio operator shouted into the radio repeatedly, but got no answer.

On the screen, we watched as the two men slowly motored past the ANP vehicles. The policemen neither got out to stop the two men nor answered the radio — until the motorcycle was out of sight.

To a man, the U.S. officers in that unit told me they had nothing but contempt for the Afghan troops in their area — and that was before the above incident occurred.

In August, I went on a dismounted patrol with troops in the Panjwai district of Kandahar province. Several troops from the unit had recently been killed in action, one of whom was a very popular and experienced soldier. One of the unit’s senior officers rhetorically asked me, “How do I look these men in the eye and ask them to go out day after day on these missions? What’s harder: How do I look [my soldier’s] wife in the eye when I get back and tell her that her husband died for something meaningful? How do I do that?”

One of the senior enlisted leaders added, “Guys are saying, ‘I hope I live so I can at least get home to R&R leave before I get it,’ or ‘I hope I only lose a foot.’ Sometimes they even say which limb it might be: ‘Maybe it’ll only be my left foot.’ They don’t have a lot of confidence that the leadership two levels up really understands what they’re living here, what the situation really is.”

On Sept. 11, the 10th anniversary of the infamous attack on the U.S., I visited another unit in Kunar province, this one near the town of Asmar. I talked with the local official who served as the cultural adviser to the U.S. commander. Here’s how the conversation went:

Davis: “Here you have many units of the Afghan National Security Forces [ANSF]. Will they be able to hold out against the Taliban when U.S. troops leave this area?”

Adviser: “No. They are definitely not capable. Already all across this region [many elements of] the security forces have made deals with the Taliban. [The ANSF] won’t shoot at the Taliban, and the Taliban won’t shoot them.

“Also, when a Taliban member is arrested, he is soon released with no action taken against him. So when the Taliban returns [when the Americans leave after 2014], so too go the jobs, especially for everyone like me who has worked with the coalition.

“Recently, I got a cellphone call from a Talib who had captured a friend of mine. While I could hear, he began to beat him, telling me I’d better quit working for the Americans. I could hear my friend crying out in pain. [The Talib] said the next time they would kidnap my sons and do the same to them. Because of the direct threats, I’ve had to take my children out of school just to keep them safe.

“And last night, right on that mountain there [he pointed to a ridge overlooking the U.S. base, about 700 meters distant], a member of the ANP was murdered. The Taliban came and called him out, kidnapped him in front of his parents, and took him away and murdered him. He was a member of the ANP from another province and had come back to visit his parents. He was only 27 years old. The people are not safe anywhere.”

That murder took place within view of the U.S. base, a post nominally responsible for the security of an area of hundreds of square kilometers. Imagine how insecure the population is beyond visual range. And yet that conversation was representative of what I saw in many regions of Afghanistan.

In all of the places I visited, the tactical situation was bad to abysmal. If the events I have described — and many, many more I could mention — had been in the first year of war, or even the third or fourth, one might be willing to believe that Afghanistan was just a hard fight, and we should stick it out. Yet these incidents all happened in the 10th year of war.

As the numbers depicting casualties and enemy violence indicate the absence of progress, so too did my observations of the tactical situation all over Afghanistan.

Credibility Gap

I’m hardly the only one who has noted the discrepancy between official statements and the truth on the ground.

A January 2011 report by the Afghan NGO Security Office noted that public statements made by U.S. and ISAF leaders at the end of 2010 were “sharply divergent from IMF, [international military forces, NGO-speak for ISAF] ‘strategic communication’ messages suggesting improvements. We encourage [nongovernment organization personnel] to recognize that no matter how authoritative the source of any such claim, messages of the nature are solely intended to influence American and European public opinion ahead of the withdrawal, and are not intended to offer an accurate portrayal of the situation for those who live and work here.”

The following month, Anthony Cordesman, on behalf of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote that ISAF and the U.S. leadership failed to report accurately on the reality of the situation in Afghanistan.

“Since June 2010, the unclassified reporting the U.S. does provide has steadily shrunk in content, effectively ‘spinning’ the road to victory by eliminating content that illustrates the full scale of the challenges ahead,” Cordesman wrote. “They also, however, were driven by political decisions to ignore or understate Taliban and insurgent gains from 2002 to 2009, to ignore the problems caused by weak and corrupt Afghan governance, to understate the risks posed by sanctuaries in Pakistan, and to ‘spin’ the value of tactical ISAF victories while ignoring the steady growth of Taliban influence and control.”

How many more men must die in support of a mission that is not succeeding and behind an array of more than seven years of optimistic statements by U.S. senior leaders in Afghanistan? No one expects our leaders to always have a successful plan. But we do expect — and the men who do the living, fighting and dying deserve — to have our leaders tell us the truth about what’s going on.

I first encountered senior-level equivocation during a 1997 division-level “experiment” that turned out to be far more setpiece than experiment. Over dinner at Fort Hood, Texas, Training and Doctrine Command leaders told me that the Advanced Warfighter Experiment (AWE) had shown that a “digital division” with fewer troops and more gear could be far more effective than current divisions. The next day, our congressional staff delegation observed the demonstration firsthand, and it didn’t take long to realize there was little substance to the claims. Virtually no legitimate experimentation was actually conducted. All parameters were carefully scripted. All events had a preordained sequence and outcome. The AWE was simply an expensive show, couched in the language of scientific experimentation and presented in glowing press releases and public statements, intended to persuade Congress to fund the Army’s preference. Citing the AWE’s “results,” Army leaders proceeded to eliminate one maneuver company per combat battalion. But the loss of fighting systems was never offset by a commensurate rise in killing capability.

A decade later, in the summer of 2007, I was assigned to the Future Combat Systems (FCS) organization at Fort Bliss, Texas. It didn’t take long to discover that the same thing the Army had done with a single division at Fort Hood in 1997 was now being done on a significantly larger scale with FCS. Year after year, the congressionally mandated reports from the Government Accountability Office revealed significant problems and warned that the system was in danger of failing. Each year, the Army’s senior leaders told members of Congress at hearings that GAO didn’t really understand the full picture and that to the contrary, the program was on schedule, on budget, and headed for success. Ultimately, of course, the program was canceled, with little but spinoffs to show for $18 billion spent.

If Americans were able to compare the public statements many of our leaders have made with classified data, this credibility gulf would be immediately observable. Naturally, I am not authorized to divulge classified material to the public. But I am legally able to share it with members of Congress. I have accordingly provided a much fuller accounting in a classified report to several members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, senators and House members.

A nonclassified version is available at www.afghanreport.com. [Editor’s note: At press time, Army public affairs had not yet ruled on whether Davis could post this longer version.]

Tell The Truth

When it comes to deciding what matters are worth plunging our nation into war and which are not, our senior leaders owe it to the nation and to the uniformed members to be candid — graphically, if necessary — in telling them what’s at stake and how expensive potential success is likely to be. U.S. citizens and their elected representatives can decide if the risk to blood and treasure is worth it.

Likewise when having to decide whether to continue a war, alter its aims or to close off a campaign that cannot be won at an acceptable price, our senior leaders have an obligation to tell Congress and American people the unvarnished truth and let the people decide what course of action to choose. That is the very essence of civilian control of the military. The American people deserve better than what they’ve gotten from their senior uniformed leaders over the last number of years. Simply telling the truth would be a good start. AFJ

Please visit afghanreport.com.

Remarks from 1389:

Relying on “local troops” is insane, all the more so when those “local troops” are Muslim.

Peace never comes from peace conferences, peace studies, peacekeeping, Nobel Peace Prizes, or anything like that. It comes only from defeating our enemies so thoroughly that they can trouble us no more.

If we cannot let our warriors be warriors, we will be defeated every time.

Conan, what is best in life?

(h/t: mfhorn):

Click here to view the embedded video.

From YouTube:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by lector0003 on Jan 26, 2012
Probably Douglas Murray’s finest speech delineating the inane moral fetor emanating from Western academicians on the Iranian nuclear crisis (and the hapless Jewish state Europe hates).

More from Douglas Murray here.

By CzechRebel

Back in 1961, Hollywood put together a film to whitewash the eleventh-century legend about Spanish warrior Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar (1043 – July 10, 1099), better known as El Cid. Charlton Heston played the role of Díaz, who fights against Muslims and later for Muslims and, still later, is fighting in an army composed of both Christian and Muslim forces. Wrapped up in this strange story is a romance with Sophia Loren playing the leading lady, who is also a Christian.

The theme of the story might be “just give war a chance.” The viewer is bombarded with this message that it scarcely matters who or what you are fighting for, as long as you keep on fighting. Of course, it was not until the late fifteenth century when Spain was finally able to rid itself entirely of Moorish Islamic terrorism. So for another four centuries after El Cid, Spaniards continued to suffer and struggle under the yoke of Muslim tyranny.

From the initial invasion in 711 until the final expulsion of the Muslims in 1492 – 781 years! – Spaniards toiled and bled and died under Islamic rule. The Reconquista was a war to reclaim western civilization from the Dark Ages imposed by Islamic conquest. But the film portrayed the false image that Islam and Christianity were roughly equivalent – merely two sides in a long-ago political and military conflict. That tended to numb whatever sensitivity to the danger of Islamic expansionism that the viewer may have had. Perhaps it even contributed to the foolish mindset of the architects of American foreign policy who think that we can fight on behalf of Muslims sometimes and against Muslims at other times, without letting the Muslims do us any real harm. The West has been doing this since the 1970s and has only gotten burnt in the process.

Not all wars have followed that pattern. World War II could all too easily have gone the other way. It took the Allies only four years to emerge victorious, as opposed to the 400 years it took the Spanish from the time of Rodrigo Díaz to the time of a free Spain. One of the big differences between the so called “War on Terror” and World War II is that the America of the 1940′s took the threat of a fifth column very seriously. The FBI kept a close eye on Germans who might be a bit pro-Nazi long before the war even started. However, there was an even greater threat from Japanese immigrants and even some Japanese-Americans. So more stringent measures had to be taken following the attack on Pearl Harbor.

However, many of those Japanese-Americans were much more American then they were Japanese. A number of them went quietly–if not cheerfully–to internment camps, knowing full well that certain of their seemingly mild-mannered neighbors felt duty-bound to support the Emperor of Japan over any loyalty they might have had to America. But peacefully going into internment was not enough for some Japanese-American patriots!

Many young Japanese-American men volunteered for the American military, most notably the 442nd Infantry Regiment, whose motto was “Go For Broke.” (Other Japanese-American units earned distinction also.) The 442nd became the most highly decorated unit during World War II, taking on some of the most dangerous assignments in Europe and suffering the highest causality rate. 442nd combatants earned over three Purple Hearts on the average per capita. This was in an era when minorities supposedly, in the words of Rodney Dangerfield, “don’t get no respect.” Yes, to this day we hear from the crybabies with their historical revisionist films on how they suffered more and got less credit for winning the war then the “white men.” Well, these guys who physically looked like our Japanese enemies went out and earned their respect in that very era without waiting a few decades for some Hollywood leftist to use their story in one of those manipulative y’all-don’t-love-me-back films.

Oh dear, we may hear from those crybabies who don’t think we appreciate his grandpa’s war effort, so we better address that now. If Hitler had won and his troops had marched down the Main Streets of those little towns where your grandfolks’ family used to live, do y’all really think those Nazis would have given them any more respect? Unless y’all are part of his “Aryan race” it might not have gone so well. For any women who didn’t think they got enough respect, we ask, would the enemy soldier who raped you after winning the war have “respected you in the morning”? Now, if these Japanese-American fellows–the guys who were out winning medals–hadn’t had much luck, had lost the war, and the troops of Hideki Tōjō had come to “liberate” the camps that held their families, those troops’ relatives would have had an excellent chance of surviving the war. For the grandparents of our modern-day crybabies, winning the war was an absolute must. For Japanese-Americans, the US losing the war could have been bad, but probably not fatal.

Time to Choose Sides

Now, to get into the American military at that time, Japanese-Americans faced some probing questions. Most telling was “Will you swear unqualified allegiance to the United States of America and faithfully defend the United States from any or all attack by foreign or domestic forces, and forswear any form of allegiance or obedience to the Japanese emperor, or any other foreign government, power or organization?” Of course, for some, this meant reneging on such a pledge to the Japanese emperor – a pledge that many Japanese-Americans had made before the war.

In view of that, we are proposing that all Muslim members of the American military, and the armies of any nation or faction that seeks US support in the field, be asked the following question: “Will you swear unqualified allegiance to the United States of America and faithfully defend the United States from any or all attack by foreign or domestic forces, and renounce any form of allegiance or obedience to any teaching of Mohammad, any teaching based on the Koran, and the dictates of any Islamic civil or religious leaders that teach violence against the US, Western civilization, or any other Judaeo-Christian civilization?”

To any Muslim who can take the above pledge and mean it, 1389 Blog will give the title “moderate.” To those who consider us too extreme, we say, “Drop the El Cid mentality; we don’t have 400 more years to wait!”

It Began with a Lie (German with English Subtitles)

Click here to view the embedded video.

41:39 – 2 years ago
German documentary about the false pretext and German propaganda used to exert and sustain public support for illegal NATO aggression against Serbia.

With Serbian subtitles:

Es begann mit einer Lüge – Deutschland gegen Yugoslawien (Serbien).

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by srbskaskolabuchrain on Jan 8, 2012

Ovakva cuda se ne desavaju cesto! Pogledajte link ispod:
http://dijaspora.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/десило-се-чудо-немачки-фотограф-снима/

So ein Wunder gescheht nicht oft ! Orginal link und klare text auf Deutsch :
http://www.ndr.de/fernsehen/sendungen/s-h_magazin/zeitreise/kosovo197.html

Die Frage ist warum Deutschland wieder die Serben angriffen?

Welche Interessen hatte Amerika an diesem Krieg?

Und wie geht die Politik von Deutschland gegen die serben weiter?

Rudolf Scharping und Joschka fischer zwei Brüder die sich fest entschlossen hatten nach 40Jahren dieserben zu Begrüssen aber mit Bomben.

Fischer äusserte sich ein paar mal beim Besuch dass es nicht wieder passieren darf mit den Konzentrationslagern .Genau richtig was sollen die Konzentrationslager?

Es ist besser wenn man mit Flugangriffen reagieren kann und unschuldige Zivile Serben töten konnte.

Amerika hatte bei diesem Krieg nur unter einer Bedienung mitgemacht!mit der Bitte dass Sie sich noch weiter in den Balkan begeben konnten und somit ganz russland einkreisen konnten.

Klinton hatte keine Interessen was im Kosovo passierte. Seine Interresse war “Amerikanische Basis im Kosovo”die grösste Militärbasis der Welt.

Und wieder ist es Deutschland gelungen Serbischen Boden zu zerstampfen,und wieder zahlten die Serben Ihre freiheit mit Blut.

In Deutschland wo 70% Rasismus herrscht konnte Punkte bei Europa sammeln.Frankreich steht auf diesem Weg mit der Starken Macht und liebt nicht gerade die Lügen der Deutschen Politik.

Zasto je Njemacka napala opet Srbe?Koje interese ima Amerika od toga rata?Kakva je dalja politika Njemacke prema Srbima?Dali sa lazima dobijamo rat i koje su posledice njega?

Rudolf Sarping i Joska Fiser dva brata imaju odgovore na ta pitanja i zelja im je bila nakon toliko godina da se obrate Srbima za poklone doneli su nam Bombe.Joska Fiser izjavljuje u par navrata da se na Balkanu nesme desiti Ausvic jer tamo su stradali?a ja Srbi ali to nije ni bitno.Fiser kaze mi cemo Srbe Bonbardovati samo zato sto su Srbi.Uz taj plan imao je svoga Rudolfa i mocnu Ameriku koja je imala samo jednu zelju,napraviti vojnu bazu na kosovu sa ciljem da opkoli Rusiju sa svih strana.Ma kome je to jos stalo do ljudski prava i ko je to krsio na kome podrucju,apsurd,smesna politika Njemacke odlazi na zapad i uspevaju u Lazima protiv Srba gde Njemacka postaje sila u Evropi.To bi zelela i da ostane ali Amerika ne voli licemerne i lazove pa je za svoga partnera uzela Tursku.Njemacka ima jos jednog prijatelja koji joj neda da siri svoja krila nad Evropom a to je Francuska jedna od naj mocniji zemalja u Evropi pa i Svetu,e ona smeta mozda bi Dotsche Reich i uspeo ali imaju oni i izmedju sebe ljudi zdravoga razuma koji zele da zive ko svi Evropljani ne imajuci zelju da sve bude Velika Njemacka.Americka Baza na kosovu moze da primi preko 60 hiljda vojnika i naj veca je od vojnih Americki baza u Svetu.

Jamie Shea is prominently featured in the video “It Began With a Lie.”

For those who may not have seen: http://home.windstream.net/dwrighsr/a3820cf4d2861.html

(My An Open Letter to Lieutenant General Michael Short, Commandeer, 16th Air Force, United States Air Forces, Europe Commander, Allied Forces, Southern Europe.)

“- Was it your son whose bombs hit the convoy of ethnic Albanians reducing the victims to ashes, and then have your NATO pimp spokesperson, Jamie Shea, have the gall to deny that NATO pilots, possibly your son, were responsible for this atrocity by blaming it on the Serbs?”

Also, please read the comments.

Dear Patriot,

Greetings to our constituents, fellow Floridians, and all Americans, it is time for our first weekly update of the new year. This will undoubtedly be a crucial year for the future of America.

As I reflect upon a year ago, I remember what many termed the “Arab Spring” when referring to the hoped-for birth of democracy across the Islamic world. However, today we now clearly see this as the “Arab Winter,” especially when one considers that in this month the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamists groups shall have a 60-65% control of the Egyptian government.

Radical Islamists are promulgating their anti-Western, anti-America message and goals all over the world, not just in the Middle East and in Southwest Asia. Please read here about the latest terrorist threat on our own soil- this time in Tampa, Florida- mere hours from our Congressional District.

If that isn’t enough to worry about- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be traveling through Latin America this very week strengthening alliances in the region. Does everyone remember the Monroe Doctrine?

We have a 28-year-old “4-Star General” now in charge in North Korea and he will likely want to take some action to prove his “street cred.” As well, China is expanding its strategic military capability by way of its maritime and air forces. Need I remind you all the last time that occurred in an Asian nation?

With all of this as a backdrop, President Obama made an unprecedented trip to the Pentagon to release his “strategic vision” for our military – a vision which is a nightmare. The President fails to realize the “enemy has a vote” and is preparing to set up America up for another Kasserine Pass or Task Force Smith. We cannot have the United States Military as the bill payer for the fiscal irresponsibility of Washington D.C. Currently, our Department of Defense spending is around 19.6% of our total budget. In terms of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) we are only at 4.5% in defense spending, and that includes funding support to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In contrast, our mandatory spending (net interest on the debt, MEDICARE, MEDICAID, and Social Security) makes up 62% of our federal budget. In Fiscal Year 2011 we saw a 6.7% increase in MEDICARE spending, but less than a 2% increase in defense spending.

With President Obama’s vision, we shall see defense spending over the next ten years drop to 2.7% of our GDP, while mandatory spending grows closer to 12% of GDP. One has to ask, what does President Obama believe to be the essential task of the federal government?

My recommendation is simple: develop a National Security Strategy of “Engage, Deter and Strike”, and from there enact a threat assessment across our geographic AORs (Areas of Responsibility) which looks at threats in those regions for the next 15-20 years. Then develop the requirements, capabilities, and capacities necessary to meet that strategy.

Other evaluative criteria for this strategy: eliminate nation-building or occupation style operations; move from a forward deployed to a power projection platform military; eliminate sustained deployments in a combat zone longer than eight months for our troops and allow for a two-and-a-half year “dwell” time back at home. In addition, we should reduce weapon system procurement and acquisition development timelines down to five to seven years and enact a 10-15% cut across higher headquarters staffs.

No President gets to decide where this country will fight, the enemy will make that decision. The Commander-in-Chief needs to be able to protect this nation and our interests abroad.

I am constantly reminded of Alexander the Great’s famous quote, “I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.” America always must be led by a lion with a vision of “peace through strength.”

My other concern coming out of this past week is not just about the “recess appointments” made by President Obama, but rather the accompanying rhetoric. Our Founding Fathers established a Constitutional Republic rooted in the rule of law and a system of checks and balances between coequal branches of our Federal Government. America is not an imperial monarchy and no one gets to bypass Congress to implement his ideological agenda.  I hope America is now realizing that elections have consequences.

I am pleased the unemployment rate dropped to 8.5%, but let us not start dancing in the end zone yet. We need to have a consistent drop and never forget that we have millions of Americans who have dropped from the rolls because they are no longer seeking employment, as well as many more who are underemployed. I want to be assured this drop from 9% to 8.6% to 8.5% is not just a “seasonal bump.” Only free market-oriented, private sector, fiscal, monetary, tax, and regulatory policies will create the conditions for sustained economic and job growth.  Furthermore, a year from now, Americans must realize that we could see the most massive tax increases in our history.

I want to close with a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” which was written in the mid-1800s: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

In this critical election year, beware the individual who promises more spending to placate the electorate and expands the level of dependency upon the State. That person, truly a Statist, will end the longest running Constitutional Republic the world has ever known, our America.

Steadfast and Loyal,

This comment by CzechRebel deserves to stand on its own:

I can remember Ron Paul’s stance against the Kosovo War very well. He seemed like the only voice of reason in the Congress at the time. However, do we see Ron Paul reaching out to the Serbian community today? During the debates or media interviews, does he ever bring up the fact that we were on the wrong side of the Kosovo War?

Perhaps future historians will look back at the United States and wonder what happened to a group of peoples, united under one government, who were the first to put a man on the moon, and wonder: How did such a great empire fall?

Perhaps some future historian will look back at the spring of 1999 and declare it to be the time when America lost its soul. Yes, lost its soul so much so, that even the one voice of reason during the Kosovo War refused some thirteen years later to acknowledge that it was not that the war was so wrong, but that we had actually fought on the wrong side.

Challenge to Ron Paul: Support the Serbs again and renounce radical Islam.

That is the whole point: we fought on the wrong side in the Balkans. Until we acknowledge the situation and make our best effort to undo the damage we did, the US and Europe will continue to suffer “blowback” from this tragic political and moral error.

We on 1389 Blog staunchly support both the Serbian people and Israel. Ron Paul and his supporters, in true doctrinaire fashion, blame our current global predicament not on our worldwide appeasement of our Muslim enemies, but on our alliance with Israel and on the supposed manipulation of the “Jewish lobby” in the US. They insist that all we have to do is to throw Israel and the Jews under the bus, and the rest of the world will leave us in peace.

While we ourselves are not Randians (indeed, blog admins 1389 and CzechRebel are both Orthodox Christians), we find it ironic that Ron Paul named his son Rand after Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand on libertarianism and Israel:

Ayn Rand, who unintentionally provided the impetus for the movement, disdained libertarians, calling them “right-wing hippies.’ She was unequivocal in her support for Israel, which she explained this way in a 1974 appearance: “When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are.”

We do agree with Ron Paul on one issue: the Senate must explicitly declare war before the US engages in military action. Nothing justifies our current “War Powers Act”; nothing in the US Constitution empowers the Senate to delegate its authority to declare war. Even when Congress is not in session, present-day communications and transportation are so rapid that it would take little time to gather a quorum in the Senate to declare war, even in an emergency situation.

It is not the job of the President or of the State Department to decide when we go to war. It is the duty of the Senate to meet and declare war, without waiting for the President, whenever a foreign enemy declares war on us (via a fatwa or other proclamation) or perpetrates an act of war on us. Then it becomes the President’s duty, as Commander in Chief, to wage war in accordance with the Senate’s declaration. Ever since the Iranian hostage crisis, our Senate has allowed foreign Muslim enemies to walk all over us. That is a disgraceful abdication of responsibility.

Also see:

• Trevor Loudon: Blinded by the Left: How Marxists Wrote Ron Paul’s Defense Cuts Plan
• Don Feder: To Get Ron Paul’s Insanity, You Have To Understand Libertarianism
• Lemuel Calhoon: Ron Paul is an @$& Clown

From Fox News:

Don Feder has more about what makes Ron Paul tick.

Not a pretty picture at all, and I can personally vouch for Mr. Feder’s accuracy.
 

Honor Killed

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by georgeBinfidel on Mar 24, 2011
Here’s a funny look at what happens when two very different cultures collide.

Islam’s Greatest Invention

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by WildBillforAmerica on Aug 1, 2011
How the “Palestinian” came to be.

• VanGrungy asks: “Would muslims praying in the halls be suspended?”
• VanGrungy also brings us the Zodiac Pig…More, please!
• Why did certain CIA operatives convert to Islam in the late 1970s?
• There’s lots of corporate environmental posturing and greenwashing this time of year, and even Tiffany is in on it. For shame!
• We deserve a real choice! ACT for Australia explains why halal eateries should post prominent exterior signs identifying themselves as such.
• Blue Collar Muse defends TN State Rep. Rick Womick for asserting that Muslims should not serve in the US military.
• Visit Zilla, check out her link roundup, and wish her and her family a merry and healthy Christmas!

The worldwide jihad is heating up. It’s time to make an assessment on all of your country’s current and potential strategic assets. Figure out what you need to do to make the most of those assets. Once you have determined never to give up anything without a fight, and you have prepared accordingly, your enemies will get the message.

Joint ventures are sometimes worthwhile, but never rely on the US or anybody else to carry most of your defensive burden for you. As any Serb can tell you, the US has not been a reliable ally!

Let’s take a look at the Cocos Archipelago, which is part of the Australian Indian Ocean Territories.

History repeating: Australian military power in the Cocos Islands

In the earliest days of World War I, Australia recorded its first major naval victory when HMAS Sydney sank the German light cruiser Emden off the Cocos Islands.

Nearly a century later, the remote island and atoll group off the northwestern coast is again an area of major military importance.

In late November 2011, Australian Defence Minister Stephen Smith confirmed that the Force Posture Review (FPR) will consider the future strategic role of the Cocos and Christmas Islands.

Mr Smith suggested that while no formal proposal existed, the Cocos Islands could, in the future, host joint US-Australian naval and air forces.

The plan has significant merit and would dramatically increase Australian power projection on the long-neglected Indian Ocean flank. This latest development, coupled with an increased American posture in northern Australia, must be accompanied by regional engagement, or risk alienating regional states.

Remote but strategically vital

The Cocos Island group consists of two atolls and 27 islands and is located in the Indian Ocean, some 2,950 kilometres north-west of Perth, Western Australia and 1,272 kilometres south-west of Jakarta, Indonesia.

Currently, the islands serve as a refuelling stop for the Royal Australian Air Force’s Orion surveillance fleet. The extended range of the forthcoming Orion replacement, the Boeing P8 Poseidon, will provide increased opportunities for the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and, potentially, US Defence assets.

While requiring substantial infrastructure changes, the Cocos bases could potentially serve to meet joint strategic objectives in the region.

Read it all.

Please visit this link at Clay and Water.

I say deliberate.

With thanks to AIM:

Obama’s Gift to Iran

At the strategic level, naivety can do more damage than outright malevolence. And President Obama came to the Oval Office with no knowledge of, and little interest in, foreign affairs and security. His core agenda was domestic, and, gushing self-confidence, he assumed that he could solve international problems in his spare time–challenges that had frustrated the best efforts of far-more-experienced men and women. A babe in a poisoned woodland thick with wolves and witches, he assumed that he could smile and persuade the wolves not to eat him and the witches to cast their spells in his support.

One grim result is his abandonment of Iraq to Iranian influence. The strategic consequences are potentially catastrophic. At best, he has made a mockery of 5,000 dead American troops and our tens of thousands of wounded. And the worst of it is that he didn’t even try to play this to our nation’s advantage.

He didn’t even show up on the field. He simply threw the game to Iran by his absence: Our troops did their duty—and won. And their commander-in-chief went Absent Without Leave.

Before detailing the current administration’s myopia and ineptitude regarding Iraq—and Iran’s skillfulness—it’s essential to be fair: Obama has grown in the job, learning, painfully, that foreign leaders are not all susceptible to his ward-politician charm and self-congratulatory rhetoric.

He still has a great deal to learn (including humility), but this borderline pacifist evolved to become the president who dramatically increased the use of drones to target terrorists; who green-lighted killing bin Laden and Awlaki; who didn’t close Gitmo—despite his campaign promise to do so; and who, after his customary dithering, ultimately backed the French and British in their determination to remove Qaddafi from power in Libya (despite diplomatic lies, the goal was always to get Qaddafi out).

He even has shown signs of realizing that the Pakistanis are not our friends, that the Palestinians are not all oppressed innocents, and that China does not have our best interests at heart.

But he’s always had a blind spot regarding Iraq. And Iraq’s the big one. Everything that he’s gotten right over the past year is small change compared to our looming confrontation with Iran. And Obama just handed Iran an enormous strategic advantage by fleeing from Baghdad.

Why does Iraq matter? Location, location, location, for a start. It’s the geographical keystone at the head of the Persian Gulf, still the most-crucial oil-producing region in the world. And it borders Iran: Consider how useful even small US bases in Iraq would be, were we forced to take military action to derail Iran’s nuclear ambitions—action that would amount to serious warfare, not just surgical strikes. And Baghdad has enormous emotional resonance in the Arab world. Iraq’s also the fault-line state where Shia and Sunni Muslims collide on one of the most-volatile frontiers of religious culture.

And there’s more: A pro-Iranian regime in Baghdad outflanks our key regional partners (not allies, but partners with shared interests). Instead of providing a buffer for Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, a Shia-dominated, pro-Iranian government in Iraq becomes a threat to them. An Iraq subject to Iranian influence also facilitates Tehran’s support of the Assad regime in Syria and, by extension, Hezbollah and Hamas—it’s a lot easier to drive arms and assassins across Iraq than to ship them all the way through the Suez Canal.

Even a small remaining US presence in Iraq (about 20,000 troops would have been right) also would have continued to provide the much-needed fig leaf for Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs not to go at each other again. With our troops leaving, there’s at least an outside chance that Iraq will tumble back into civil war—and this time it would draw in other regional powers. At the very least, terrorists of various stripes will be empowered.

Obama sees none of it. He remains a prisoner of his own anti-Bush rhetoric. Iraq was Bush’s war and, therefore, bad. But the left needed to “prove” it was strong on security, too, so Afghanistan, a worthless land of pederasts and dung heaps, became our strategic priority that Bush “neglected.”

The problem is that Iraq truly matters on multiple strategic counts, while investing in Afghanistan is about as smart as investing in cathode-ray-tube technology (or solar-panel manufacturers) in Silicon Valley. The sole reason to keep even a small US contingent in Afghanistan is to continue to kill terrorists across the border in Pakistan. Beyond that, everything we do there is wasted. But, thanks to Obama, we’re mired in Afghanistan and abandoning the strategic prize of Iraq to Iran.

And the mullahs and political leaders in Tehran have taken advantage of Obama’s blindness with breathtaking effectiveness. While pursuing nuclear weapons, backing Syria’s Assad with weapons, money and secret-police assassins, egging on Hezbollah and Hamas—and killing US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq–Iran has not had to pay a single meaningful price.

Our government huffs and puffs, then does nothing at all. The Obama administration (and, to be fair, the Bush administration before it) has allowed the Iranians to run wild.

Naturally, Tehran concludes that we’re weak-willed, exhausted and scared. Hence the recent plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US right in Washington (not that I would have wept for His Excellency myself…).

The Iranians in 2011 have come to the same conclusion that al Qaeda did in 2001, in the wake of the cowardice of the Clinton administration: They’re convinced that, no matter what they do, we’ll simply cower and take it.

And they might be right.

I’ve long been fond of pointing out that, while we play diplomatic checkers, the Iranians play chess (the game was a Persian invention, after all). I have to admire the skill with which Tehran has manipulated both the Iraqi political scene and the Obama administration: The Iranians recognized that the issue of legal immunity from Iraqi law for US troops was the perfect lever to hoist us out of the country.

First, we could never agree to allow our Soldiers and Marines to be hauled up on bogus charges and tried in kangaroo courts in the immature (to put it kindly) Iraqi judicial system.

Second, the Iranians understood that this was an issue that would resonate with the Iraqi population, given our mindless employment of mercenary thugs from the former Blackwater and other “security” companies—some of whose employees appear to have used Iraqi civilians for target practice…then walked free. Iran’s agents made hay out of the bad behavior of the psychopaths who had been on the US payroll.

Working through their proxies in Baghdad—primarily, but not only, Moqtada al Sadr’s radical Shia block—the Iranians made it impossible for either side to back down. And “Poof!” The Americans, having deposed Saddam, paid in blood, and spent almost a trillion dollars on Iraqi freedom and reconstruction, are headed home, while Iran moves in. Tehran won without losing a single Iranian life. At most, the mullahs doled out a few minor bribes.

Obama simply quit—and was relieved to do so. He did it because he was blind to the looming consequences. He did it to please his restive base. And he did it because he had been too nearsighted, lazy and politically bigoted to develop personal relationships with Iraqi leaders who could have helped us through this “made in Iran” crisis.

But it isn’t Obama who will pay the price. It’s our troops, if the region blows up. It’s Iraqis. It’s our regional partners. It’s consumers, if the deteriorating situation in the Persian-Gulf region leads to catastrophically higher oil prices. Ultimately, it’s you.

Obama’s real political ancestor is, ironically, the diehard segregationist Woodrow Wilson. Both men have pacifist roots, and both put us on the path to a major war (stay tuned for our coming confrontation with Iran). Both fit the mold of the idealist ungrounded in reality. Both were consumed by ambitions that far outstripped their abilities.

The only faint good news in Obama’s early holiday gift to Iran of Iraq’s integrity and freedom is that any Iran-Iraq strategic collusion will only last from the short-term through the mid-term. In the long-term, conflicting interests and, above all, Persian condescension toward Arabs will alienate most Iraqis. But the danger zone is that short-to-mid-term stretch, with Tehran rushing to develop a nuclear-weapons capability and Iraq’s internal rivalries and grudges unresolved. The best we can expect is continued low-level violence in Iraq.

The worst ranges from a civil war that tears Iraq apart, to a violent, extended military confrontation with Iran that closes down Gulf oil production amid a widespread regional conflict.

Obama’s pigheaded determination to get our last troops out of Iraq and praise himself for doing so could be the worst American diplomatic blunder since Yalta. At the very least, it’s a wanton gift to our determined enemies.

Alternate headline: Nobel Peace Prize Winner orders death of a tyrant!

FORMER Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi has been killed in the final desperate battle for his home town of Sirte.

From The Australian:

I am certain that the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda will fill the void. I am also certain that things will get much worse in Libya.

The 69-year-old Gaddafi is the first leader to be killed in the Arab Spring wave of popular uprisings that swept the Middle East, demanding the end of autocratic rulers and greater democracy.

Gaddafi’s son Mutassim was shot in the chest and killed. Confusion surrounds the fate of Gaddafi’s favoured son, Saif al-Islam. Libyan state television said his son had suffered a similar fate, but other reports said he had been shot in the leg. This morning, Interpol and the International Criminal Court were still calling for Saif to surrender, sparking debate about his whereabouts.

Colonel Gaddafi was killed after being dragged from a drain by rebel fighters who had just won the battle for Sirte, Gaddafi’s home town.

He had apparently been shot in the leg and the shoulder.

Looking bloodied, video images showed Gaddafi trying to flee his captors

He was transferred to a pickup truck, but was caught in crossfire and shot in the head, Libya’s interim prime minister said.

“When the vehicle started moving, it was caught in crossfire between Gaddafi fighters and the revolutionaries, and he was shot in the head,” according to Mahmoud Jibril.

“He was alive up to last moment, until he arrived at hospital” in the town of Misrata.

People across Libya celebrated news of the death of Gaddafi who had brutally ruled Libya for 42 years.

News of Gaddafi’s death was greeted with shock around the world US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, about to begin a television interview, was handed her mobile phone with the news sent as a text message on it.

“Wow!” she said.

Gaddafi had pledged to fight to the end and Saif al-Islam had vowed that “blood will flow” if rebels continued their fight both these statements proved to be true.

Saif al-Islam, educated at the London School of Economics, had long been groomed by Gaddafi as his eventual successor.

Gaddafi had been one of the world’s most mercurial leaders, dominating Libya with a regime that often seemed run by his whims and bringing international condemnation and isolation on his country for years.

“We announce to the world that Gaddafi has been killed at the hands of the revolutionaries, and Gaddafi’s tyranny and dictatorship has been finally ended for Libya and all the world and this chapter has been closed,” National Transitional Council official Abdel Ghogha said at a news conference in Benghazi.

“[With] the news of the end of tyranny and dictatorship in Libya . . . it will never be the same again after the revolutionaries have been able to get to the heads of the tyrants . . . who met their fate and destiny, which is a fate and destiny of all dictators and tyrants,” Mr Ghogha added.

“It is an historic moment. It is the end of tyranny and dictatorship. Gaddafi has met his fate,” he added.

He said that the fugitive despot’s death been “confirmed by our commanders on the ground in Sirte, those who captured him after he had been wounded in the battle for Sirte”.

“We have been waiting for this moment for a long time. Muammar Gaddafi has been killed,” Mr Jibril told a news conference in the capital Tripoli.

Thousands of people were murdered or imprisoned during Gaddafi’s rule.

Libya has great wealth through oil but much of this wealth has been taken by Gaddafi, his family and his cronies.

Gaddafi had been barricaded in with his heavily armed loyalists in the last few buildings they held in Sirte, furiously battling with revolutionary fighters closing in on them.

A convoy of about 80 vehicles tried to flee the area and was blasted by NATO airstrikes.

French Defence officials said one of its warplanes had identified and fired a warning shot across the convoy, but it was not destroyed.

A US Predator drone had struck the same convoy, however, it was unclear if deposed Gaddafi was there.

Television footage showed footage of Gaddafi lying severely wounded, bleeding from the head and stripped to the waist as fighters rolled him over on the pavement.

The body was then taken to the nearby city of Misrata, which Gaddafi’s forces besieged for months in one of the bloodiest fronts of the civil war. Al-Arabiya TV showed footage of Gadhafi’s bloodied body carried on the top of a vehicle surrounded by a large crowd chanting, “The blood of the martyrs will not go in vain.”

The news sparked celebrations across the country, amid hope the dictator’s demise was the final chapter in the nine-month conflict that has cost thousands of lives.

Gaddafi’s last stronghold, Sirte, had earlier fallen to forces loyal to the NTC, which formed after the collapse of the Gaddafi’s regime.

An anti-Gaddafi fighter said the former leader had been found hiding in a hole and shouted “Don’t shoot, don’t shoot” when confronted by fighters of the NTC.

The NTC said that Moussa Ibrahim, the man who became the face of the Gaddafi regime as his international spokesman, had also been captured in Sirte.

In Sirte, medics said the defence minister in Gaddafi’s ousted regime, Abu Bakr Yunis, had been killed in the battle. Yunis’s body was identified at the field hospital where it was brought in on a pick-up truck.

NTC fighters who had fought in the bloody conflict that toppled the veteran despot at a cost of more than 25,000 lives were jubilant at the news of his capture.

Pick-up trucks blaring out patriotic music criss-crossed the streets of Sirte, as fighters flashed V-for-victory signs and chanted “Allahu Akbar” (God is Greatest).

Many pick-up trucks are playing the new national anthem and other revolutionary songs.

“Sirte is free. The whole of Libya is free,” said Khaled Ballam, field commander of the February 17 Brigade, which took part in the final assault on Sirte.

“We had some clashes but there was no fierce resistance as many Gaddafi fighters were trying to escape rather than fight because they had no other option. The game is over.”

Abdul Matlub Saleh, a fighter from the February 17 Brigade, said: “Every inch of the city is liberated. Our people are spread everywhere. There is no fighting. The gunfire that you are hearing is all celebrations.”

An AFP correspondent heard sporadic gunfire in the neighbourhood during the morning as NTC fighters went house to house to root out the snipers who have inflicted heavy losses in their ranks in recent days.

Medics said that at least three NTC fighters were killed and 30 wounded in the operation.

“I am happy we have got revenge for our people who suffered for all these years and for those who were killed in the revolution. Gaddafi is finished,” said fighter Talar al-Kashmi.

Further reading: Libya and the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine.

There are many more links available on the ill-advised, open-ended, deceptive, and dangerous doctrine of R2P (‘Responsibility to Protect’).

Oddly enough, Soros’ name may come up, but it was essentially drafted by Gareth Evans, former Australian Foreign Minister under a Labor Government, and Samantha Power, wife of Cass Sunstein. I am hearing alarm bells!

From Rep. Allen West’s Weekly Wrap-Up

…Our force is already feeling the effects as we continue to ask our men and women in uniform and their families to make sacrifice after sacrifice on this 21st Century Battlefield.

We must develop a national security strategy that is not budget based but rather requirement based. That means we must conduct a threat analysis across the geographic areas of responsibility and then match a capacity and capability to thwart those threats. We must end the failed process of telling the military… this is what you get, go defend us.

I believe there are inefficiencies we can eradicate in the Department of Defense, mainly we should move from a Cold War era “forward-deployed” force posture to a “power projection” posture. It also means that we must stop the practice of nation-building/occupation style warfare and move towards strike operations…something which we shall discuss later.

Let me share some budgetary facts:
- $1.36 trillion used to prop up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have funded the entire base budget of the Department of Defense for three years.
- $79.69 billion used to bailout auto makers could have funded Navy shipbuilding for over five years. Since 1990 we have gone from 546 naval vessels to 285 currently.
- $535 million taxpayer dollars dumped on Solyndra, which is not bankrupt, could have completed this year’s backlog of ship maintenance and had nearly $200 million left over.
- $3 billion spent for “Cash for Clunkers,” could have purchased some 125 transport vehicles for ship to shore operations.
- China now has over 60 attack submarines, while we are falling behind our minimum requirement of 48. The taxpayer funds spent to bailout AIG could have purchased 44 attack subs.
- The taxpayer funds we pay in interest to China on our debt could buy almost three F-22 fighter jets a week…

Herman Cain: 9 responses to 9 false attacks on 9-9-9

…Claim No. 9: It won’t pass.

Response: Politicians propose things that can pass. Problem-solvers propose things that can work. One of the worst instincts of Washington types is to judge an idea not on its substantive merits, but on their perception of its political viability. I do not underestimate the challenge of getting any good idea through Congress, but I have said all along that if you propose a good idea, and the people understand the idea, they will pressure Congress to pass it.

So there. I welcome the robust discussion and the many questions that are being raised about the 9-9-9 plan. Asked and answered. What else do you want to know?

Atlas Shrugs: Con Ed Says It Will Evict Ground Zero Mosqueteer For Non-Payment of Rent

Once again the Ground Zero mosqueteer does his deadbeat dance. How does this guy continue to get a free pass? He expected infidel taxpayers to foot the bill. Clearly he was counting on that $5.5 million from the taxpayer 911 fund he requested, but didn’t get

Here is the truth about the Ground Zero grifter, the story that the media never tells you. This lowlife has defaulted on two bank loans, hasn’t paid his back taxes, was busted for prostitution. Gamal not only beats people up and threatens Muslims who speak out against the mosque, but he is also a tax cheat, owing a quarter of a million in taxes while defaulting on not one, but two bank loans. All this while being evicted from his Soho offices for non-payment of rent. And Mayor Gloomberg licks his boot. He has him over at Gracie Mansion for dinner. Why? What did this hustler do other than disrepect, offend and degrade millions of Americans with his 15-story triumphal mosque on Ground Zero?

Now Con Ed is planning to evict him for non-payment of rent. Go Con Ed! I will happily send my check off early to the electric company this month…

Atlas Shrugs: Video: “Occupiers” Destroy Statue of Mary

“Occupy Rome” Destroys Statue of Mary

There. are. no words. Catholic Vote has the video — the savage who carried it out of the church and smashed it wore a face covering.

“Horrific”: church attacked, desecrated in Rome violence

The Vatican has condemned Saturday’s violent clashes in central Rome including an attack by protesters on a church in which a crucifix and a statue of the Virgin Mary were destroyed.

Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said he “condemned the violence and the fact that a church was desecrated by some protesters who broke in and destroyed some images.” He referred to the clashes in Rome as “horrific.”

The 18th-century church of Santi Marcellino and Pietro is near St John Lateran square where much of Saturday’s violence occurred.

“When I came down, I saw the entrance door had been smashed in,” the church’s parish priest, Father Giuseppe Ciucci, was quoted by Italian media as saying.

“The Virgin Mary’s statue, which was at the entrance, had been taken away and I saw it had been thrown into the street and smashed,” he said.

“I went into the sacristy and I saw the door there was also destroyed. The large crucifix at the entrance had been vandalized,” he added

Daily Caller: Secret mission: The Horse Soldiers of 9/11

It was the news the world breathlessly waited for immediately after the 9/11 terror attacks: a report of the first American troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

All at once the world’s attention focused on an iconic photo of those Special Operations Forces doing something no American military had done in nearly a century: They rode horses into combat.

Their secret mission: secure northern Afghanistan by advising the warring tribal factions that formed the Northern Alliance. During the 2011 Veterans Day Parade on November 11, a new monument to these men — and to all Americans in uniform — will make its way down New York City’s famed Fifth Avenue on the way to its final home, a stone’s throw from Ground Zero….

Samir Khan, the US citizen and enemy propagandist who was largely responsible for al Qaeda’s magazine “Inspire” (see Know Your Enemy), was reported killed in the same drone strike that killed US-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

WBTV 3 Charlotte: Former Charlotteman killed in Yemen drone attack

Posted: Sep 30, 2011 9:28 AM EDT
Updated: Sep 30, 2011 11:03 AM EDT

SANAA, Yemen (WBTV) – A Charlotte man who ran the al-Qaida newsletter from Yemen was killed in a drone attack that also took out a prominent cleric Friday.

Khan, from Charlotte, just published a new issue of al-Qaeda's online magazine earlier this week. WBTV was the first to report about Khan in 2008 and at the time Khan began criticizing WBTV.

In addition to Khan, the U.S. airstrike Friday also killed American-Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

Khan, who was 22-years-old in 2008, was of Pakistani heritage from Charlotte who produced “Inspire,” an English-language Web magazine which spread al-Qaida ideology and promoted attacks against U.S. targets, even running articles on how to put together explosives.

Khan was living in Yemen and his main article in the latest issue dealt with American media.

In an earlier issue, Khan wrote that he had moved to Yemen and joined al-Qaida's fighters, pledging to “wage jihad for the rest of our lives.”

In the latest issue — out on Tuesday — he wrote that America “failed to respond” to al-Qaeda's propaganda their videos and books and other productions. By not responding, Khan says this gives al-Qaeda an edge.

What he doesn't say in his article is that federal officials know about these magazines and videos, but are choosing not to debate.

WBTV's Molly Grantham uncovered Khan's involvement in 2008. At the time, Samir Khan, responded by using his website to criticize WBTV.

He wrote that WBTV was spreading lies about his website and he claimed to have never before seen the video footage we found in attached links to his site.

In 2008, Khan called the WBTV reporting “useless” and a way to try and get ratings.

When Khan was in Charlotte he refused to answer WBTV's questions.

When discovered by WBTV, Khan worked at the McAlpine Park location of Convergys Corporation. Convergys is a firm that other companies hire to take care of customer care, H-R and billing services.

Soon after WBTV stories aired, Khan stopped working at Convergys.

His parents had sent word to us in the past they didn't support their son's anti-American beliefs.

More here.

More here:

• WBTV: Samir Khan criticizes WBTV
• WBTV: Charlotte man runs Al-Qaeda website
• WBNS 10 TV Columbus: Killing Americans: On uncharted ground in attack
• Bill Warner P.I.: FOX NEWS REPORTS That al-Qaeda Inspire Magazine Editor Samir Khan Has Been Killed With Anwar al-Awlaki.